VincentLaw

It would be interesting to see a chart comparing the percentage of engine failures that lead to aircraft loss between the F-16 and F/A-18. I'd like to think that having two engines makes me safer, but it's just intuition.

Trace a couple rays through the lenses to get the optics right, Then render the projected view into the scope. If they can make targeting pods and mirrors work, a magnified sight should be doable too.

I'll point out (probably again) that it takes very little extra work to make a ground vehicle driveable in CA using the existing default gun sights. The main development expense would be creating either a world war 2 themed generic gun sight or specific gun sights for vehicles. Also, currently there is no way to alter the generic display on the driver sight, so that interface will look a little out of place in world war 2. CA control of the ground vehicles seems like a win win win for everyone though. There is no reason for ED to be against it since it is another selling point for CA, and having a Japanese island you can drive world war 2 tanks on is another selling point for the map too... and being able to do this as the user is the third win.

The only Japanese tanks used at Iwo Jima and Okinawa were the Type 95 Ha-Go and Type 97 Chi-Ha. Since the Corsair was used heavily for ground attack I expect we will see at least one of these, and making an existing ground unit driveable with CA is trivial, so hopefully that is included from the start.

Okay, I must admit, I plan on flying my Huey around here too. A mostly open ocean map like this could be fun for F/A-18+F-14 vs. Su-33 as well. Scenarios don't strictly have to involve an island invasion, but it is important for the historical scenario.

Now that we have a thread specifically for this map: ED needs to consider implementation of amphibious landing related features (Such a core aspect of DCS can't be done by a third party alone). Currently amphibious vehicles do not work properly in Combined Arms, and it is not possible to place amphibious vehicles or their waypoints on water in the mission editor. For small island maps like Iwo Jima or water centric maps like Strait of Hormuz, amphibious landings are a very important scenario. Iwo Jima would not be complete without it.

Or maybe we should start discussing the aircraft we think Leatherneck will release after the Corsair, Viggen, and Tomcat. I think it will be a Zero!

Easter Eggs give the map character and help keep the developers happy. I doubt they had any impact on the release date. It's better than office chair sword fights.

First: with an EFM you can specify a force in any direction you want, so it won't be a problem for the player aircraft. There is no way to specify reverse thrust for SFM planes so that might be a problem for AI (maybe they will work with ED on a solution to that). Second: since Leatherneck is developing the map, they should be able to specify an airstrip anywhere they want, including highways. DCS doesn't allow mission creators to cold start airplanes anywhere they want, but map creation is an entirely different thing.

Aircraft for DCS currently with multiple variants: P-51D (TF-51D) Su-27 (Su-33) Su-25 (Su-25T) MiG-29A (MiG-29G, MiG-29S) A-10A (A-10C) Aircraft for DCS planned to have multiple flyable variants: L-39C (L-39ZA) C-101 (C-101CC) F-14A (F-14B) Bo-105 PAH1A1 (Bo-105 HKP9A) Spitfire MkIX (Spitfire MkXIV) Bf 109 K-4 (HA-1112) (there are others but I don't want to go through all of them since some of them are further off in the future.)

Hopefully Leatherneck is working with Eagle Dynamics on amphibious operations. Currently DCS has no real support for this. Amphibious vehicles have never worked properly in Combined Arms. I am looking forward to improvements in this area which will be essential for island maps like Iwo Jima.

There were sticky posts about it, but they seem to have disappeared. As long as I'm here: MH-60T

DCS Las Vegas is by far the best first party flight simulator terrain I have ever flown over, and it is just meant for aircraft. I can't wait to see what kind of details we get on a map designed for ground vehicles! The only thing I agree with the OP about is larger maps. No less time should be spent making DCS cities beautiful.

I agree with this point. The demo experience really needs to showcase the strengths of DCS. If you give new players a weak experience then they might lose interest, defeating the purpose of the demo. SFM should not be considered representative of the DCS experience.

No, it is not. The free Windows 10 upgrade is for Windows 7, 8, and 8.1 only.

I am aware of that, but it is in a low detail area. More specifically I meant if the high detail areas are expanded. I have not flown over the Fallon area yet, but I looked at it on satellite mode with the map editor.

So if you force players to start with full tanks, what stops them from flying in circles punching holes in the sky until they have the upper hand?

If the map is ever expanded to include NAS Fallon for some NSAWC action, Reno would be a logical addition.

If we have paid DLC that alters the terrain of existing maps, then I strongly encourage ED to keep multiplayer compatibility in mind. I think it would be cool to be able to fly from San Francisco to Las Vegas by stitching two separate terrains together, but having NTTR and San Francisco shouldn't prevent me from playing with someone who only has NTTR.

You are able to use keys from Steam with the standalone, but you cannot use keys purchased for the standalone on Steam. Valve is the one preventing standalone keys from being used on Steam, not Eagle Dynamics.

Fixed that for you. In any case, I'll reserve my opinion on price for when I decide to buy or not.

This figure is more qualitative than quantitative, but delta wings have significantly higher stall angles than conventional wings (strakes have a similar effect). Interestingly, the vertical stabilizer makes the stall angle of attack even higher by giving the over-wing vortices something to stick to. Stalling a delta wing results in violent roll oscillations when the vortices separate.

I have a friend who doesn't play DCS I could give them to, but I'm not sure if he would play them very much or if they would run very well on his machine. It's probably better to hold onto them until you find the right person with a passion for aviation instead of just trying to get rid of them.

Actually, it is fair play, because back when the A-10C was in beta, ED advertised the Nevada map as a feature of the A-10C module, which means anyone who purchased the module back then thought they were getting the Nevada map years ago. I think I actually came to these forums in the first place to find out where my missing Nevada map was back in 2010, and then I stuck around. The Nevada map was removed from the feature list of the A-10C by the time the beta ended, so there should not have been a misunderstanding about what was included for purchases made after the beta ended. We are not getting Nevada for free. We are getting what we paid for.

They own DCS, so they can do pretty much anything they want. They could charge $5 per month subscription fee if they wanted to, but I quit playing all games with subscription fees. Charging for updates to the core would seriously harm the 3rd party market, and keeping the third parties healthy is surely more profitable to ED.