VincentLaw

You can also launch white, red, or green flares from any ground vehicle you are driving in CA. I think the controls are LAlt+1, LAlt+2, and LAlt+3, but I am not on my desktop right now so I can't take screenshots. In 1.2.12 the flare trajectory was fixed so now they arc properly too.

I want a Hawk

You can create a mission without any player vehicles. To switch view to the A-10 without taking over, you can click on it in map view (F10), then press F2. Alternatively, just press F2 a bunch of times until you cycle to it. You can also take control of any controllable vehicle or aircraft on your team by pressing RAlt+J while viewing it in F2 view. Pressing RAlt+J again will leave control of your vehicle if you just want to spectate. (Also, F7 is the equivalent of F2 for ground vehicles.)

I don't think there is a way to add working 3D gauges yet (without some hackery at least) but high poly ground vehicle cockpits are definitely possible now. You could just make a special LOD with a range of 1 meter so it would only show up when the view is inside the cockpit. There may be some issues with clipping or z-fighting if the cockpit geometry is too fine in world coordinates instead of cockpit coordinates though.

As someone interested in driving CA vehicles in the new cockpit view, proper road signs and lights are massively important. It is also important groundwork (pun intended) for the upcoming DCS armored vehicle that is in development.

I disagree. I was in an airplane over New Mexico a few months ago and at around 12000 feet the ground detail was still very sharp. While atmospheric effects are clearly visible in the recent Nevada screenshots, the closer terrain under the airplanes is not noticeably distorted by those.

Last minute entry This looked way better in my head.

I am a perfectionist. Everything I ever see looks terrible, including my own creations. Telling people that I think everything in the world is terrible doesn't make it better though; it just makes people upset. If you make people upset, then they will be less likely to openly listen to what you say even if you have a valid point. Having a critical eye is a good thing, but the approach to communication is just as important as attention to detail. Make suggestions instead of calling things bad, ugly, or terrible. Try to avoid negative statements, for example, saying "I'd like to see crisper terrain." sounds better than "The terrain looks blurry." but it conveys the same message. Basically, focus on making things better rather than less bad. The point of my post is to help focus the criticism around here into something more constructive.

...and as I just realized, this would make our .trk replay system impossible.

If it was available on android then I could run it on BlueStacks. That is a nice android emulator for Windows. I have not looked for iPad emulators though, so I am not sure if there is something similar. I would probably just prefer the PDF version of the documents I already get on my PC anyway.

"It looks terrible" is an opinion. "Flogger23m thinks it looks terrible" is a fact. Saying that something "looks terrible" is completely unconstructive, and at best it doesn't provide any insight to the developers about how they can improve it, or worse they could take personal offense at your insult. You can improve the quality of your contribution to the forum by saying something like: "These screenshots would look better if the terrain detail was sharper. There may be a problem with the current texture filters. Perhaps including normal mapping or procedural noise would make the terrain appear more realistic." See how much better that is than "The terrain looks terrible."

With the new CA ground unit cockpit view, I plan on doing a lot of driving around Vegas! I can't wait to drive to the top of one of the parking decks at McCarran.

"Exclusive" can also mean they get the screenshots before anyone else gets them. For a short period of time it would be exclusive. To the contrary, I wouldn't be surprised if we started seeing better free campaigns in the future just from the talent developed making the paid campaigns. If people are really interested in selling campaigns, then they will probably want to step up the quality from what we currently have. I would not really be interested in buying more of what we already have (walls of text between missions and limited voice acting in them), but imagine story telling like the Ace Combat series or Wing Commander 4 combined with the realistic simulation of DCS. That would be pretty cool. (edit: looks like I completely misunderstood what you said, but hopefully ED doesn't do anything that severely breaks old missions.)

A problem with "The bubble" is that if you statistically calculate the outcome of engagements that are outside of the player's bubble, the battle may play out differently from a physical simulation of the battle. So you could actually end up with situations where one team wins or loses just based on the location of a spectator viewing the map.

https://web.archive.org/web/20000617022025/http://www.gamespot.com/features/pcgraveyard_janes/p2_01.html

I think the problem is that people confuse a loud minority for the community. I am sure most people are happy when we get news.

I just got even more excited!

You can now press Ctrl+C to switch to the driver position in any vehicle. Unarmed vehicles will start in the driver position by default. The viewpoint will switch to the correct location for the driver and you lose control of the weapons. In the M1A2 it simply looks like this: The cool part is that any vehicle that has the interior model as a visible part of the external 3D model allows you to see the vehicle from a "3D cockpit." Just for example, here is the cockpit view of an M48 Chaparral. The following list is all the default drivable vehicles I have found with an interior view: APC M1025 HMMWV APC M1043 HMMWV Armament ATGM M1045 HMMWV TOW SAM Avenger M1097 Transport M818 SAM Chaparral M48 Transport UAZ-469 (best cockpit) Transport Ural-375 AAA ZU-23 on Ural-375 MLRS BM-21 Grad SAM SA-8 Osa 9A33

This is what I have found that mentions the air to ground capability of the RDI: http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1980/1980%20-%201654.PDF http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1988/1988%20-%202724.PDF http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1985/1985%20-%201314.PDF The most important part is: The official publication (manufacturer advertisement) clearly states that the RDI radar used in the Mirage 2000C is capable of ground mapping. It is unclear to me whether people think the RDI has no air to ground capability because the government is trying to hide that information or if that feature was not implemented in the avionics.

If you just count to 20 in your head it is easy to count too quickly. Try going for 30 seconds to be extra sure of a start, and always post a track of your problems in DCS.

I think that for singleplayer we don't need to worry about this. We are all united in our love for DCS, and these different specialties do not compete with each others markets. They will only bring in more people and make the core stronger. For multiplayer, I believe the answer to that lies in compatibility. As long as people who own different modules are able to play together with their separate modules at the same time, I think it will only make the community stronger. What concerns me is things like payware maps. I think that is much more likely to damage the community than introducing civil aviation because it will severely restrict the number of multiplayer servers that players who don't own all (or any) of the maps can join, and it will probably only get worse as more maps are added. I think mission designers should include the Su-25T as often as possible, and this is why I liked RRG's original plan to make one of their airplanes freeware. I understand that modules are very expensive to develop, but I also think accessibility is important for stimulating the multiplayer environment. I could be wrong in this case, but some short term losses can be beneficial in the long run. Having pay gates to join almost any servers could turn away players who might be willing to buy modules later.

That is also what mine says, but I know I purchased it during the beta. I don't remember what the cutoff date for that was. Unlucky me. I purchased mine in December 2010. ;)

I also received this, and I came here to make a topic about it. Looks like someone is trying to steal accounts. My password was not changed though. I will delete the emails I received.

I think he means specifically "exceeding the negative g limit". (which is probably still called over g) Although it is worth mentioning that adverse effects prior to reaching the g limits are modeled in DCS as well.

This prevents people from distributing pre-installed copies. For example, you could just zip your entire install folder with copies of the registry files and upload it to the internet. If 5000 people downloaded it to their computers it would say "Hey, I am on the wrong computer! Reactivate me!"