Weta43

I thought they said "some" new systems would be added, not "All" systems would be added

Clickable would be good...

Source ? … or no-one said in writing that this wasn't true, so it must be ?

Unless 'passive development' is where you're concentrating on what you've got on the go now (F/A-18C, F-16, Jug, BS-3), and working on the next things as and when time becomes available - until the first things are far enough along that you can take resource away from them for the next projects (Mossy, Mi-24). Which would be a sensible approach

rdibley - Maybe you love in a city where you never get to see a night without light pollution - do you fly often at night IRL ? On a clear night under a full moon, it is light - you cast a sharp shadow, you can (just) see colours, but the shadows are deep. Cities do glow at night - they can be seen form space :-) There is more difference now at night between what is light and what is dark That's a good thing. Edit - Here - my photo of Guangzhou at night - looks like Tron to me...

Yes, that's what he testing is to find

Unfortunately we have different ideas about what constitutes 'proof', or a 'neutral position' You demand proof of a negative before you will accept the overwhelming weight of the balance of the evidence. You demand the impossible to defend the possibility of your imaginings. There is no way to prove that something didn't happen in the way you request (unless you think someone would write "we have not done the thing we never said we were going to do" about this one thing and not everything they could possibly have done). To me, that there are no photos of aircraft as E.D. intend to model them, no documentation, no evidence of any form that they were ever fielded - is sufficient to suggest on the balance of probabilities that the reason the documentation doesn't exist is that there was never anything to document... There are people that swear transcendental meditation allows people to levitate. By your logic, it's not possible to say they don't. Which in a philosophical sense is true, but at a practical level - on balance of probabilities - I think it's blocks. Here's one for you - did you read that scientists have discovered the neurons of birds are much smaller than those of mammals, and that Corvids actually have about the same number of cells in their small brains as some of the cleverer primates (that part is true). Birds are the last remnant of a group of dinosaurs, which possibly had the same sized neurons - ? If that were the case, then despite their small brains, those dinosaurs might have been quite clever. This is what I put to you - Dinosaurs didn't die out because of an meteor striking the earth, they discovered capitalism and destroyed their own environment leading to environmental collapse and a mass extinction. The layer of minerals that covers the earth at the transition between ages is the remnants from their rubbish - their 'plastic sea'. The massive crater we've found is not a collision site - it's the last shadow of a massive nuclear blast that ended the wars started by population movements precipitated by the environmental collapse. Your task is to show me the documents that prove dinosaurs never invented capitalism.

It is what the closed beta is - & they learn a lot from it & fix a lot of bugs, but it's a small team, and the hardware combinations aren't going to catch every issue created by different combinations of gear that have been O/C'd run old / test drivers & have (despite being told not to) installed all sorts of mods to the open beta. E.D. are taking flack for expecting people that download the open beta to do some beta testing. What the hell ? Read what you sign up for, and if you don't like it - revert to the stable build.

That must have been uncomfortable. 8 m/s descent is nearly 30 km/h (28.8 km/h, 18 mph) & equivalent to stepping off a 3.28m drop. That's a pretty good smack into the ground your instructor was giving the aircraft...

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 ? )