VincentLaw

Since we don't have a wishlist (or section) for DCS:Armor yet, I am going to put this here:

An AA would be good, but I think it is important to lay the foundation for future third party modules. All of this work needs to be done anyway. If you join a server that puts unsupported player tanks vs. a squadron of A-10s, it is the mission designers fault. Not every mission needs to support every module. Besides, the one time I drove a tank online in DCS I managed to destroy three player helicopters. humans can use the environment for cover much more intelligently than AI, which is content to simply scatter into a formation of static targets.

I think I suggested this at least once. DCS needs more flyable transports. It would look nice with civilian skins too.

ED absolutely can't release an An-225 without simultaneously releasing a C-5. Imagine how imbalanced multiplayer would be! The team without C-5 support wouldn't stand a chance in pvp.

I assume most simmers have experienced catastrophic collisions with the ground. Real pilots, not so much.

I think that was a mistake. The sale was supposed to end March 31: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=122012 However, patch 1.2.8 will include a free civilian TF-51D, so you will sort of be able to "try before you buy". See the preliminary change log here http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=122086

Proof that Wags reads the forums.

Front seat: Pilot Back seat: Reconnaissance Officer That's my thing!

I was not accusing a specific person of overreacting. Immediately shooting down the idea of multiseat is just as bad as saying that it makes no sense to release the airplane without it. I understand the value of releasing it now even if the multicrew feature is not ready for implementation yet, but I would also consider it important to update this airplane with multicrew capability when that feature is ready. Since it is essentially a demo airplane, it should demonstrate the capabilities of DCS to the best of its ability. (Since it is a civilian airplane in real life, it is also perfectly reasonable to leave out weapons)

I found a photo of the front seat of Miss Velma. Is it safe to assume that this is what the cockpit of DCS: TF-51D will look like? I can't find any shots of the back seat though. I think some people are overreacting about this. My personal feeling is wanting, but not expecting. I do think it is a logical expectation though.

One time I flew an entire mission upside down in Ace Combat just for the fun of it. I don't think MSFS cares about it either, so the first time I tried flying the A-10C upside down I was in for a surprise. I have not tried all of them, but I know the Su-25T can't sustain inverted flight either. Except for the lack of clickable pits (and maybe ground handling, it has been a while), I am generally more impressed with FC3 airplanes so far than stock FSX planes. I have only played a few hours of FC3 though.

He is right! How did I even miss that? Top line is hidden in plain sight! I just checked the newsletter again and it isn't on the previous version of the 1.2.8 change log, so this must have been recently added.

If not, just the nuclear bombs would be a fair compromise. I guarantee I will buy the first module in DCS that can nuke something.

I don't think any statements have been made regarding how this works. It is obvious that the player would need the map installed to see the terrain, since maps can be gigabytes in size. The simplest approach would be to restrict players from joining the server, but as map availability becomes more diverse, that is not necessarily the best approach. Depending upon how modular terrain is, it is possible that a server could have 5 subregions of a map installed while the player only has 4 of them. In this case, the player might end up crashing into invisible mountains if they fly off of their section of the map. It might be a good idea to let the server admin decide how much map synchronization is required since a non-combat server like VA might not care as much if a client is missing part of the map. I think an interesting approach to the copy protection would be to let people load maps they have installed but not purchased, so they could look around at AI doing stuff with the cameras while being unable to control their modules on that map, but then if you have a system like my comment about subregions, what do you do when a player tries to fly from a region they own into a region they don't?

Yeah, it was in the official news letter, which was copied in the discussion thread:

They have more news than IRIS.

Now we just need some aquarium sized transparent aluminum panels.

A reminder about CA: The main function of CA is to use it kind of like an RTS and manage units on the battlefield. It is essentially the commander module. Once 1.2.8 comes out, you will be able to give orders to land, air, and sea units. I feel like being able to drive the ground vehicles is just sort of a bonus feature (though I'm sure a bunch of work went into that too). A DCS: Armor study sim has been announced though, so if that's really what you want, just wait for that.

A-10C: Destroyer of worlds UH-1H: Gunship of doom, infantry quiver at thy name, but AAA will shred you. P-51D: What Microsoft Flight should have been. This is true flying. Ka-50: Eats tanks for dinner, but you will yell at the trimmer all day. FC3: LOMAC to the future! CA: When you just want to mess around. Mi-8: The Russian Huey, without the doom part. (I have not tried it yet)

I'm guessing this will be made easier at some point down the road. I know RRG has mentioned wanting to add flyables with gunner positions. A B-17 formation would be pretty helpless without working gunners. Hopefully the implementation is not completely specific to each party. Also, thanks for the info.

Hmm, I thought I made a duplicate and accidentally deleted a post... well you are right that they don't require working carriers to function, but I think that would disappoint a lot of people. The only airplane that has carrier ops and not ground radar is the T-2, and that is not very effective in the combat role, so it would mostly be used for training.

Carrier Ops: T-2, Harrier, A-7 Ground Radar: F-15E, Harrier, A-7, Mirage 2000C RDI They are also working on a T-6 II, which doesn't have either.

I don't get why some people think the free airplane should be the worst, least attractive airplane in the game. Why not just make the free airplane a biplane like the R.E.8? If they want a jet I guess we can always give them the FI 103R-IV.

Su-33 AFM should not be implemented until they fix the slippery deck bug for AFMs. I am not really expecting that until they do a major naval ops overhaul, which needs to be done for the F/A-18C anyway.

On a kind of related topic, does the Su-33 have a HUD mode that shows the velocity direction vector? I feel a little insecure doing carrier landings without one.