VincentLaw

I second this. I have casual interest in exploring the map creation tools, but I never tried out the old tools because I was aware they were being phased out. Without access to the tools, I'm simply not going to develop the prerequisite skills necessary to get access to the tools. ED can do whatever it wants though. I can't argue with that.

Currently the only flyable carrier airplane is the Su-33, which uses an SFM. I would expect related bugs to be fixed when carrier airplanes with more advanced flight models start becoming available. Fortunately for us, that should be pretty soon since the Leatherneck F-14 is slated for 2016.

There might not be any currently available. i don't know if that is true or not, but they definitely exist. The option to enter a coupon code is visible when making any purchase from the DCS E-shop. I've read that there is a coupon for DCS available with one of the Track-IR packages, but I can't speak from personal experience.

The auto-mission generator, for example, was a step in laying groundwork necessary for a dynamic campaign. A dynamic campaign needs to be able to generate missions after all.

No, but the March 2014 official newsletter included the following statement: While there was an M1A2 RFI, everything is subject to change, so while work on "A DCS level armor vehicle simulation" is confirmed, the M1A2 is not officially announced.

Lock On is not compatible with DCS. Lock On is also not required to activate FC3 1.2.16. If you already own FC3, you can download FC3 through the DCS module manager or at the following link: http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/modules/dcs_flaming_cliffs_3/ If you want to fly Lock On aircraft in DCS and do not own FC3, then you need to purchase FC3 which is available here: http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/dcs_flaming_cliffs_3/

There is actually already an official thread on this: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1428595

I agree with that. There is a massive difference in capability between the MiG-21F and a MiG-21-97 which can fire R-77s. Avionics and systems upgrades are often more important and expensive than the airframe itself. That's why we are still flying some aircraft from the 50s.

I was simply pointing out that it is possible for a 4.5 generation plane to be modeled to a standard that ED is willing to enter a contract on. ED might have stricter standards on data availability when it comes to their internal development decisions, which is probably why they went for the F/A-18C instead of the F/A-18E. It probably comes down to availability more than interest, and in that case anything more modern will be more restricted, but probably not outright rejected. both the Eurofighter and Rafale are multirole, although the specific variant of the Eurofighter that VEAO is modeling is focused on air to air.

VEAO has a Eurofighter coming, and they have a Rafale on their planned development list. Whether or not these will qualify as DCS level or not, we can't really say until closer to release. The truth is that most of us probably won't know enough about the classified systems to notice what is missing or inaccurate.

You probably just made a bunch of people gasp so hard they choked with that statement. For convenience, there is a list of fourth generation stuff here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation_jet_fighter Just because one variant of a plane is being made doesn't mean more variants are not desired. Sure, we already have an F-15C, but a lot of people would like to see an F-15E. My current top picks would be F-14D and Rafale M, but as far as I know neither of those are in development yet. Since VEAO is working on the Eurofighter, we can probably keep 4.5 gen on the list, at least to some extent, although those might end up being mostly guesswork rather than reality.

I picked other for improvements in all aspects of ground operations. Ground combat forces Transport functionality Airbase ground crew Out of aircraft pilot representation (pre-flight walk-around, post ejection rescue, etc.) Swim capability for amphibious vehicles Stuff like this will help make DCS feel like a living world.

DCS 2.0 and NTTR will require DirectX 11 and 64 bit to run. Windows Vista might not be officially supported by ED, but if you can run DCS 1.5 then you will probably be able to run DCS 2.0. That said, since you do not meet the official minimum specs, you will be purchasing at your own risk.

This is incomplete advice. I assume he means that he purchased DCS modules on steam. It is possible to transfer Steam modules to the standalone DCS, but not the other way around. If you want to stick with Steam, then do not buy modules from the ED Store. The Mirage will be available on Steam at a later date.

I've been planning this for a while, but I just made it official.

The US Navy S-3 tanker is already in DCS and is compatible with the Mirage 2000C, so even though this is not ideal, it will be possible to do aerial refueling before any other tankers are introduced. For missions where the Russians or Ukranians are on the same side as France, last time I checked it is possible for NATO aircraft to refuel from the Russian il-78 in DCS even though the equipment is not compatible in real life. The Indian il-78 is modified to work with NATO refueling equipment, so you can pretend it is that one.

Unless someone starts a poll about it, you are speaking for yourself. There is also a difference between pessimism and lack of desire. It seems strange to me that people would want every last circuit breaker modeled and then not care that much about about what's going on outside the cockpit windows.

Just maxing the throttle? Don't forget to set the governor to emergency for a little extra power ;)

It's not. I have put forth multiple requests in other threads for improved ground crew representation on traditional airbases as well. There is a lot of room for improvement in this area, and with upcoming 2.0 terrain fidelity and infantry animation, I think requesting such features is becoming more and more reasonable. The experience really feels incomplete without them. Sure, development of these features would not be free, but perhaps ED or third parties could release survey simulators making certain aspects of ground crew operations playable. There are already a number of such simulators available on Steam. Since this is wandering off topic, I'll try to bring it back by saying I think this is how a standalone DCS: Carrier module should work. The carrier itself and AI deck crew can be a free part of the core game, but buying the module should let you actually play as the ship crew and deck crew. I don't know how many people would pay for that, but I definitely would.

For US fans, the Dauphin could also have a USCG HH-65 livery.

I think there were some civ traffic police cars visible in some of the videos. It probably won't take too much modding to turn those into an AI/CA unit once the map is released. I'll look into that when the time comes.

Yes, I would still argue that carrier crew should be the priority. I'm not saying the entire flight deck crew needs to be simulated, but at the very least the aircraft directors and LSO should be represented. Without that, I don't think we could really call it DCS level carrier ops. We're not just talking Flaming Cliffs level either. There are some old Flanker 2.0 videos floating around and it doesn't look like much has changed since then. It's almost 2016. Why should we have to settle for 1999 level carrier operations. The bar should be set somewhere and you have basically dropped it on the floor.

I agree. Simulating a high fidelity EFM/ASM module should be far more technically challenging than getting the AI to follow some choreography. There would still be a bunch of work involved in developing the system, but I don't foresee any unreasonable challenges. Skeleton infantry animation, which is planned for 2.0, is a big chunk of the prerequisite development out of the way.

Google translate is my friend ;)

Could you provide a link to where he said that? He has not mentioned November anywhere on these forums.