Weta43

All it really needs is to be able to change the skin through the liveries part of the loadout page, and - isn't there already a line in the mission editor .lua about test loadout for vehicles (= false) ? Maybe they'e creating that as a more generic cross class ability rather than something that's specific to aircraft, & skins for FARP will arrive as part of a generic change, rather than as a piecemeal change just to FARP.

Oh now you're just letting logic get in the way of a good gripe - shame on you !

For the same date as the 'map' shows. I'm not big on the geography of the area in the map - apart from the UN setting no-man's lands in 2000, which borders have changed since the Golan Heights were occupied in '67 ?

Anybody got a staff group picture from E.D. ?

You can see it climb while in a hover in the video above.

Thanks, very informative.

"Now in Syria map its the same" The borders are marked in orange in 'ALT' view of the Syria map Mission Editor. (& obviously show if you swap to 'Map' view)

… a pig that flies at 180 kn ...

Can you point us at the post before the part you linked to, because the bit you linked to isn't sourced at all. If MiiG engineers compared the results of the calculations used in DCS with their own company wind tunnel testing, presumably E.D. gave them the copyrighted, (encrypted in the app) calculations used to generate the FM, and MiG approved the time & expenses & use of the wind tunnel data associated with the investigation. If E.D. & MiG both sanctioned it, it will be published somewhere, and a link would give the quote's conclusion some weight. Otherwise it's really only hearsay, or personal opinion of the same type as the earlier comment from an actual MiG-29 pilot who said if you allowed for the lack of haptic feedback, and the short sticks we mostly use, landing behaviour in the DCS.MiG-29 was/is as he'd expect...

First few loads will be compiling shaders

Bizare ! It's almost like it's not quite finished ... ! Like maybe, rather than selling it as a finished product, they should be just selling it as early access to people that are interested in helping optimise it prior to it being declared 'finished'. Edit: All the maps have been 'under-optimised' at release, even the various iterations of the Caucus' map. That has had shocking pop-up at various stages. It's good to report issues (like stutter or poor frame rates), it's not helpful to bag the product that was plainly labelled as unfinished.

Doesn't really reinforce the idea of Syria as master of its own destiny does it ?

...because after years of user requests, E.D. made it just another view of the SIM.

This is turning into the same sort of discussion as the features wishlist for the Ka-50 upgrade. 'Navy' F/A-18C were never cleared to use them. DCS models the Navy version. Therefore the version that is available in DCS isn't cleared to use them. Simple as that. We're already getting fantasy systems and weapons on the Ka-50, now we have calls for the same thing on the F/A-18C The thin end of the wedge has been inserted, and now people are pushing to get it further in.

yes

The collective brake does set the altitude hold (when you let it go, not when you release the brake), but unless you're using a model collective, the collective and the collective brake are decoupled in the SIM - so you can move the collective without releasing the brake. In the real aircraft, you have to release the brake to move the collective, & at the point where you'd finished moving the collective and released the brake, the altitude hold would reset the value. In the sim you don't have to release the brake to move the collective, & if you just move the collective without gripping (releasing) then letting go (also releasing :-)) the brake, you appear to just clear the altitude hold setting. Move the collective, reset the brake.

There's a post somewhere from Chizh with a document E.D. were prepared to take as evidence, saying that the flame out results from turbulence over the engine intakes, not ingesting gasses (though that was why Su-25's were forbidden to use S-24s)

There's no recoil on this jet, but the people behind it still take a tumble: wpdnLoram4Q Also - watch the trucks kick with each launch in this: o6aSghkwCEg

Can't see it mentioned, but pretty sure it's modeled that the moment you move the collective you clear the assigned altitude, so you have to get level first, then set it, and if you've got too much (or little) collective in for the system to compensate & adjust the collective, you have to re-set the altitude hold.

Except in so far as they suddenly direct a jet of extremely high speed gas against all the forward surfaces of the aircraft, and can cause enough turbulence to flame-out the engines. That effect can throw the aircraft around in yaw and pitch, and in the other thread on the same subject there are videos demonstrating that. Other than that, no - no recoil.

If we don’t have internet connections to the rest of the world - that means none of you people are real, and My ISP has been scamming me for years. Damn ! It also means someone in New Zealand makes a good flight sim ‘cause we can download this thing called DCS...

We’re already under quarantine (both islands). That’s why we have no community transmission of Covid-19 Well that and the life extending off-world DNA serum that the aliens teleport to our hospitals ;-)

Hilarious So you think they're doing it to make a living, not as a hobby ? Who'd have thought ! You mean they're not finished ? Different thing. & if there are people waiting for the project to get to where systems can be integrated into the F-18 & F-16, why would they not do work that brings other modules forward ? Well something happened, they brought out major changes to the rendering & lighting with the intention of improving it, but got mixed results and are trying to get the improvements they expected. It's a shame it didn't work, and if I were using VR I might be irritated that their efforts haven't achieved what they (& users) hoped for, but to say they haven't done anything is to deny reality.

I don't understand what you're saying You start with 'ED never wanted to share this', but everything after that is prefaced by 'I would say'... Do you have figures to back your numbers up that you got from E.D., or is it all your opinion ?

Did you watch this through to the end ? Edit - somewhere there's a post from Chizh I think (from memory - someone at E.D.) saying firing rockets from a hover causes flame-outs.