Weta43

There seems to have been a change in attitude towards FFB a couple of years ago at E.D. Planes were provided with shake for feedback on the state of the aircraft in the air, but someone seems to have decided this is 'not realistic' and that it shouldn't be implemented/supported as they go forward. Seems to me the entire aircraft shakes, the stick is connected to the aircraft - the stick shakes... Perhaps it's too much development/support time for a very small % of users ?

It is, though I'd characterise it as: P1 "I'd like this feature because if I were in charge of Kamov, it's what I would have done ! " P2 "Maybe you would, but it never happened and here are the documents to show it never happened..." P1 "But I can't believe that, because if I were in charge of Kamov, that's what I would have done" P2 "Maybe you would, but it never happened and here are the documents to show it never happened..." rinse and repeat.... (for months) While you're tight, both sides say they're right, only one side has ever presented any convincing evidence (mostly provided by S.E.Bulba)

I like it - it was too 'flat' during the day, and as has been said - with a full moon you should cast a shadow and be able to walk (hunt) without a torch, but shadows should be very dark.

As someone said - F-15 would 'complete the set', which would be a milestone, and is itself pretty eagerly awaited (though not by me... Su-27S (SM? SM is already 'past') or Su-25A (SM would also be nice, but is 'current')

^^ Crazy talk, and not even well informed crazy talk. It's still one of the best of the modules, the updated model and cockpit updates will be free if you buy it now, and the system modelling in 3 will be exactly the same as in 2 except for the addition of (imaginary) Igla and RWR/Active IR Countermeasures. I also own a disk for the original version, but it's not installed on my machine, I use DCS & '2'. There are lighting bugs in the Ka-50 at he moment, but the new cockpit / lighting will resolve them. (& have you compared screenshots from the terrain then and now ?)

Turn the GAMA down ?

Exactly - the purpose of the open beta is to expose the beta to all those combinations of gear that aren't caught by the closed beta team. If it runs oddly on your (whoever's) machine - that's why you get access to it early - if someone's having issues, they're fulfilling their role as an open beta tester. The problem is that some people don't want to be open beta testers, they just want access to beta features early, and sign up (download) without thinking about what they're offering as part of that exchange.

BETA versions have bugs, the reason there's an 'OPEN' beta is so that people with odd configs can report that their gear generates errors. What's supposed to happen is happening - you are fulfilling your role as an open beta tester If you find dealing with the bugs and changes in the beta is ("Really starting to get really frustrating.") maybe it's time to stop using the BETA and go back to using the stable version ?

Lot of people are happy, some VR users aren't. It's what you signed up for when you downloaded the BETA

Also, if you have any mods remove them ALL before testing

Even if you don't think about it, everything in the universe is either a de Havilland Mosquito FB VI, or not a de Haviland Mosquito FB VI. Everything in the universe being either a de Havilland Mosquito FB VI, or not a de Haviland Mosquito FB VI is one of the universes immutable truths

My guess would be - yes, eventually it brought up somewhere near if not fully at the SC level. They've said they'll be bringing the ground based ATC up to something like par with the carrier, and I seem to remember them saying they were testing that years ago. Presumably it's all modular shared code, so if the ATC is generally improved, are they really going to keep maintaining the old code just to have a very basic carrier ATC for the free carrier ?

?

Same

If, as has been suggested, it's DCS F-15C to finish the teen series, and then the teen series is finished, I wonder where they go with fast movers after that ? Seems like they've hitched their wagon to a 'Blue' tractor, but it doesn't sound like the F-4's high on the list (they started it then dropped it), so where to after all the sexy US fighters are built ? {Does make you wonder though - If we've got the Mi-8 (derivatives of which are still in service) and are about to get the Mi-24P (Derivatives of which are still in service), how strong can the prohibition on developing modern Russian aircraft be ? The Su-27S is no more in service than the Mi-24P (in that 'yes' the airframes are, but everything inside them has been modernised and replaced. There won't be any paper map systems fitted to Mi-24 in Syria at the moment, and I don't expect there's any original N001 radars in the remaining Su-27SM that are in service now [certainly not the SM2/SM3/Su-35S] ).}

"This will be a highly detailed and complex aircraft representing a huge milestone" As has been noted, Milestone is an interesting word. You've either got somewhere, or you're starting a new journey. So it's either got to integrate all the existing technologies into a single package, or break some new ground. Their newest technologies seem to be side by side 2 seat MP integration (coming to a Huey/Mi-8 near you), new FLIR tech, ground radar. Maybe AI for a WSO F-111 / Su-24 ? (Su-34 ? )

For it to be 'brain melting' it has to be something that we all think can't be done - which means it can't be something they've already said they intend to do - like the AH-1 or AH-64, or the F-4 or the F-15C. Those aren't 'brain melting', they're 'Oh good, I've been looking forward to that' No, most of what's been mentioned doesn't even toast the mind. They have to be something we think won't get done - Su-27SM, Mig-29K those would slightly melt my mind. or, following on from the Ka-50E.D. a M.A.C. Su-57, that would be mind bending... (Though I'm crossing my fingers and toes [odd number of] for an Su-27SM or an Su-25SM)

Seems you're fairly sure about what you think about it (& maybe E.D.), just missing the courage of your convictions to say it straight up. Re - is it worht it ? It may not be as much coding as the F/A-18, but it's probably more the Yak, given how much of it is for new technology being developed from scratch but less 'obvious' because it is going into base items like ATC, briefing room, elevators, CA controls etc. It will definately add to the immersion for those that are into carrier ops, but if you don't care for the things it brings there's a simple answer.

today

Paper map ?

Me ? I was taking the P*ss

A la ... the Black Shark Wish List... Yes, but plainly the Russians intended to develop the UTG into a 2 seater SEAD aircraft, & at that point they would have put in a RWR, weapons, an active IR defense system. In fact, the lack of evidence for any of these things ever having happened almost guarantees that somewhere in a dark shed in Russia is an Su-25UTG that was intended to be the successor to the Su-33, and has all the capabilities of that aircraft except afterburners.

Slightly OT - or maybe not.. Haven't quite got to this level yet.

Start in mid air ? ;-)

Su-27 N001: So the N001 is in large part a scaled up version of the N019 from the Mig-29, using the same processor and a scaled up version of the antenna. The N019 antenna limits are :