VincentLaw

I agree that this is a serious issue. In the past I gifted keys to two different non-DCS players who never bound their keys, and I was holding onto another key for a third person. All of these keys are currently at zero activations, and I suspect if the people I gifted these keys to tried to bind them, it would not work. None of these people have current DCS accounts for me to ask customer service to transfer the keys to either, since they never played DCS. Until ED implements their new gift system, I have zero assurance that these keys will ever be more than dead weight. What if ED decided to implement a gift system that only worked with new purchases? Since I already own duplicates of all the products I gifted, I can't even use them for myself, and since refunds are banned, even for zero activation duplicates, there is no way for me to get my money back. I do not consider the current situation acceptable, but I hope it will be corrected in the near future. I hope the concerns of my situation are taken into account when designing the new gifting system. (I am of course very satisfied with DCS products themselves, which is why I gifted DCS to people in the first place.)

I have a duplicate key for a product I already own that I have been holding onto for over a year as a future gift. I am hoping that I will either be able to refund this or use it with the future gift system.

I am guessing you desire more communication on the English side of the forums, but I suspect the most likely consequence of such a request is less communication on the Russian side of the forums. For that matter, in the past, too many complaints have resulted in less news posts on the English side too. Requiring devs to crosspost everything through as official news-posts will basically prohibit them from casual discussion about DCS development. As long as forum members like Silver-Dragon are regularly trawling the Russian side of the forums for interesting news and posting it on the English side of the forums, I don't see what the problem is.

My entry is based on the NASA T-38N, astronaut trainer and chase plane. (for USA) NASA.zip

DCS gives you pretty full control over the weather. As of the time of this posting, It is 14 °C and 757 (mmHg) QNH with 0 m/s wind in Caen, Normandy. Try plugging that into the mission editor and you will know how your plane will fly in Normandy. The weather varies over time of course, so you may want to use a historical weather info to set the conditions at a different time of year.

For that matter, it's easy for any modder to break DCS. Misplacing even one letter in one lua file can make DCS crash on startup. Bugs are easier to create than fix.

Yes, this TFC is that TFC. It is one company. Here is a link to their website. They have a link to DCS on their shop page. http://fighter-collection.com/cft/ For example, the UAV sim and AC-130 sim are not available in DCS. Eagle Dynamics and other partners. Their reputation and past contracts should speak for themselves.

Space Shuttle. That's a plane, right?

I think what VR does is allow for a realistic experience with much more minimalist home cockpits. The visual fidelity is all in the goggles, so the cockpit just needs the HOTAS, pedals, and seat in the right place to be a good experience. accurately placed switches and buttons would be is the next step for more a more serious home VR cockpit. One thing I don't really understand is the persistent mentality that traditional PC controls (mouse and keyboard) are not suitable for VR. I can type accurately while blindfolded, and I can find a key pretty quickly even if the keyboard is moved.

There is an I-16 project being worked on, though it is unclear to me if they have a third party license yet. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=133052 There are also some screenshots of Russian cockpits floating around the internet that were reportedly commissioned for DCS, but there are no details on the development status of those planes.

Iran also has the F-14A and F-5E, and those are both in mid to late development for DCS. Not sure how similar it is to Iran's Mirage F1EQ, but Aviodev is also working on a Mirage F1. I don't think this is the issue.

This bug is as old as DCS. The workaround is to keep the ship at zero speed. I presume it will be fixed before carrier aircraft PFMs start getting released, but I don't know of any official statement to that effect. The bug does not affect SFM or AI aircraft.

While it might be impossible to run the simulation backwards, it should be possible to save a series of "intra-frames" which could be jumped backwards to without starting over from the beginning. These could also mitigate synchronization errors.

It's entirely from aerodynamics, including friction and shocks. Move something fast enough and you turn the air into plasma. There is no fuel or propellant.

Hopefully you don't mind me discussing another game now for a point of reference. Nothing exists in a vacuum after all, so this is relevant to DCS by analogy. I don't really play Battlefield games anymore, but back when Battlefield 2 was popular it had several expansions that included new maps. This introduced two problems with the game: 1. Map rotation: Of course a flight simulator server probably won't rotate maps as frequently as a FPS server, but if you joined a Battlefield 2 server that included both base game maps and expansion maps in the rotation, you would be booted from the server if it switched to a map you didn't own. 2: Map exclusivity: My favorite expansion map was probably the Great Wall map. The problem? it was an expansion map. That means most players didn't own it, and that means it was very difficult to find a server running this map, or certain other maps. When I quit playing Battlefield, there was not a single server running the Great Wall map. the vast majority of servers ran base game maps, with a very small fraction running expansion maps. These are not problems for the average DCS player because most people play DCS in single player, but I think we will find that multiplayer servers running free maps in DCS will be the most populated servers in the long term, and as there are more and more maps, many maps will have no multiplayer server at all. I'm not against payware maps. They are a great way to add content to single player, but they are not as good for multiplayer.

Not really VEAO news anymore, but the NH-90 project is still in progress: https://www.facebook.com/RED-WING-Simulations-1682491965313023/ you should probably discuss it over in this thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=145691

This is excellent news, and alleviates one of my concerns about unit compatibility between maps and in multiplayer.

Your Wikipedia quote is unfortunately wrong. 2000-5 and later can carry MICA, not 2000C. Some 2000C's were upgraded into 2000-5's, which may be where the confusion comes from.

A little less obvious, but Magic_550.wav was clicking too. Here is the fix for that one. Magic_550_no_click.zip

I was watching this video on Youtube and I noticed a clicking sound on the missile lock tone that sounded like a looping error. [ame] [/ame] I have attached a new sound file to this post that loops properly to eliminate the click. Feel free to use my fix in the update. No credit needed. Magic_Lock_2_No_Click.zip

You are right that a lot of people in the software industry misuse the term "Beta release" nowadays. The way I learned it in class: Alpha means internal testers only. Beta means external testers. Now what are we doing with 2.0? I guess people don't care what they mean anymore. It's mainly used as a disclaimer for "This might be buggy and unfinished". Some companies like EA just use "beta" as a catch word for "demo". I don't have a problem with a beta not being feature complete. The term will mean whatever the developer wants it to mean.

I agree, this is a problem. At the time that I registered for the tournament I was pretty sure I would be able to participate on those weekends. Now I have no idea if I will be available for the tournament or not, but I can't delete my application if I decide to drop out. Whoever gets matched against me might (or might not. I don't know) get a free win.

Yes, but at certain relative velocities the Doppler shift is the same on the target as the ground clutter. That was the intended point.

I doubt it. I'm almost certain Cobra is referring to new unplayable units being added to DCS by Leatherneck (e.g. an A6M Zero). Advancements to dogfighting AI would be done by ED.

The F100 engine costs millions of dollars though, so any incident that totals an engine will be a Class A Mishap whether or not the plane could make it back to base. How many of those resulted in loss of the plane? Maybe that information is not as easy to find. In a combat plane we are also concerned with things like combat damage survivability, not just reliability of the engine during routine flight.