VincentLaw

I would at least wait until after EDGE is released before expecting more on this because good terrain is critical for a good ground vehicle experience. Progress on enhancing CA is definitely a step in the same direction though.

If you want to rekindle that feeling, take a peek over here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=122331

The T-55, T-72, and AAV-7 are all available for direct control. The M60 is not drivable but you can give it orders from the map view. Only Israel uses the M60 in DCS. The US MBT is the M1A2 Abrams which does have direct control. It is important to note that swimming is not yet implemented, so if you try to swim across a large river or lake with the AAV-7 you will sink. You can wade across small streams though. There is not exactly "gunner station" yet, but you can drive vehicles while controlling the weapons at the same time. Tanks don't currently have an interior view, but all of the important information is displayed in the gunsight view. You can also switch to a driver station by pressing LCtrl+C, which is useful on some vehicles like the Ural Zu-23 where the gunner doesn't have a good view of the road.

I've tried to lock both ground targets and the sun with AIM-9Ms on multiple occasions in DCS and it has not worked for me before. Even slaving the AIM-9 to a targeting pod and locking the pod on the ground target doesn't work. However, I have managed to lock and shoot down missiles with the AIM-9. That was pretty cool. If we ever get the AIM-9X I would expect it to come with air to ground capability.

I believe avionics have more to do with how long a release takes than the type of engine the plane has. The Me-262 shouldn't take any longer to develop than any piston engine planes of the era.

It is one thing to request features, but no amount of bargaining is going to get ED to violate their contract, and I doubt pestering the USAF would accomplish anything either.

The latest WWII related news was in the February newsletter. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=139694 I agree that a thread in this section to put all of the WWII news like that in one place would be a good idea since some people keep missing the news when it is released in other places. The delays in DCS World 2.0 do not seem to have hampered development of WWII aircraft. Just guessing based on previous estimated release dates, Normandy is probably in the queue to be completed after the Straight of Hormuz map.

I think you both misunderstand SiThSpAwN. Yes, the Battlefield 3 team did blatantly insult their community by saying that their games would be too difficult for fans to make content for. SiThSpAwN on the other hand is referring to the development effort that ED put into making the mapping tools as good and complex as they are. He thinks the fruit of that effort should not be given out for free. While I personally disagree for reasons that have been discussed before, I am not here to argue.

I don't think the EDGE map tools will be freely available to the community.

I am honestly surprised that Tie Fighter Collection would decide to model the T-65.

I'm not a real pilot, but I have to correct a couple of things here: This is wrong. Flaring means pulling up before touchdown to reduce your descent rate. You will enter ground effect on landing no matter what. Delta wings tend to have a higher stall angle of attack than low sweep wings, so if you managed to stall your MiG-21 just above runway then you would tail strike before your landing gear touched down. This is too slow. Both the landing tutorial and manual say not to drop below 340 km/h until just before touchdown. The MiG-21 has poor look-down visibility so if you get too slow you will not be able to see the runway during your approach. Basically to answer the OP: Landing the MiG-21 gets easy once you learn to keep your speed from falling below 340 km/h on approach. Don't be afraid to use the drogue parachute to slow down.

I wouldn't say everything else.

I think the only people who argue against smart scaling are people who don't understand it.

Basically the problem is that you can't trust everyone, but you can trust most people most of the time. You just don't know who you can trust. The less control any single individual can have over a situation, the less likely an event like this is going to happen in the future. We have to accept the possibility that the terrorist might be a member of the crew. In this case, the ATC declared an emergency prior to the crash. If they had the ability to remotely open the cockpit door or operate the aircraft, the crash could have been averted. of course there are lots of potential problems with that too (some of which could be resolved by requiring simultaneous verification from multiple separate ground stations), but it is a solution worth considering.

Another possible solution is to give air traffic control a way to remotely unlock the cockpit door in a case like this. It is less likely for terrorists to take control of both the ATC and the airplane. If that is considered too risky then the system could be designed to require external confirmation from a second facility. If the terrorists still break through a system like that, then I doubt anything would stop them.

Normally these topics in the official announcements section are locked. That said, I have had no trouble integrating modules from Steam into my E-shop collection. Steam provides an activation key that can be bound to your E-shop account.

Torque from engine placement has an enormous impact but a simple solution using the parallel axis theorem. That is a very easy problem to solve (once you have a system for determining the torque in the first place). This is easy to expand to any number of engines. A more difficult problem encountered from engine placement is the effect of of turbulent ("dirty") air entering or leaving the engine and the interaction with the aerodynamics of other parts of the airplane.

Yeah, it looks like an inverted, negative g, extreme angle of attack maneuver, though I think it would need to exceed 90 degrees to be considered a true Cobra. In the photo it looks somewhere around 70 or 80 degrees.

Deformable terrain, buildings have interiors, and other planets and moons in the solar system fully modeled as possible destinations. Or would that be DCS 4.0?

Perhaps after enough time has passed ED will decide to sell the map tools for $50 or something instead of providing them for free then. As long as the documentation is good enough then ED does not need to provide one on one personalized tech support for every user, and if they are very similar to the tools ED and other third parties use (maybe with certain features disabled) then they would probably want to fix those bugs anyway. Unfortunately without access to tools I will not become an experienced map maker, and without being an experienced map maker I won't get access to the tools.

That is correct. the 2.0 Version on Silver_Dragon's unofficial list is not actually based on the post that Silver_Dragon quoted, but based on a now deleted post from PilotMi8 as clarified by cichlidfan here: Since the original post was deleted, I don't think it should be kept on the unofficial roadmap because "UH-1H - improve too!" is too vague.

Maybe this one: I just pretend the bonus system doesn't exist. You will save more money and shed less tears if you ignore it and buy modules during sales.

just logic here:

Sometimes I think people post without reading the post above theirs. Sometimes I think people post without reading the post two posts above theirs. (better yet, read the one above that) For what it's worth anyway: Congrats!

Maybe if we are lucky the Strait of Hormuz map could eventually be expanded to include part of Iraq.