cichlidfan

Since nobody, aside from testers (maybe), has seen 2.5 that question is completely unanswerable.

True, but that would be a broken joystick. All USB joysticks send out DX signals which are recognized by Windows and, in turn DCS (or any other game designed to use a joystick).

Any joystick will always work like that.

No, it is not.

1. Yes. Many times throughout the year. You can scan through the news to get an idea how often and what sort of discounts to expect. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/ 2. Yes.

The free aircraft have always been part of the main download so it is unlikely that the free map would be a separate download.

The problem is that there is little that is portable from another sim to DCS. The 3d model might transfer but little, if any, of the code is transferable.

It's not just a matter of staff, but staff with the requisite expertise.

Thanks. However, I have never seen a certification document, from ED, for any module that ensures that these tests have been done. Take, for example, the many FM iterations that the Mig-21 has undergone. It is impossible that all of them could pass this testing regimen, given how much they have deviated from each other with regard to performance. Is this test done for every patch/update?

Interesting. How does that work?

No.

I am curious how you did not know this before you released it.

An FM in DCS is nothing special since the dev team can make any FM they want and call it an EFM, which means nothing. ED/DCS has not control over the FM being produced by the dev team. DCS is open ended in that regard which means a bad FM is just as possible as a good one.

I would not be against it, but I would be unlikely to purchase their products. For example, DCS does not have a civilian aircraft environment. ATC, and civilian traffic, are both a critical part of that environment and I don't see them being suitable, in the near to mid future. I have nothing against the aircraft themselves but civilian flight sims are as much about the environment as they are about the aircraft and DCS does not have the proper environment to support them.

Depends on whether you can mount them in an appropriate place so that they match up to what you see in VR. Personally, I would consider them a waste until an Augmented Reality solution arises.

I don't know about that. A lot of the current AI aircraft seem fairly resistant to .50 cal ammo.

The poster put it out there, so it is open to the ridicule that it deserves. Yes, I hope Belsimtek builds this.

While that 'may' be true. The problem lies in the fact that DCS has so few developers working on aircraft that anything that dilutes their output in the area of combat aircraft is a detriment. The total pool of dev teams for 'those other' sims is at least ten times greater than what DCS has. To make matters worse DCS is losing dev teams to other sims. VEAO is basically gone, even though they never made more than one incomplete aircraft, the loss still matters and another dev team is unsure whether their next aircraft will be for DCS or another sim. Yet a third team (M3), which still hasn't gotten their FM sorted for the only aircraft they have produced, is also looking at civil aviation as their salvation. The bottom line is that their are only two companies that have successfully produced back to back combat aircraft for DCS. That would be ED and Belsimtek. Heatblur does not count since they have, as Heatblur, only produced one. Razbam does not count since the Harrier is still a WIP.

While I am not unhappy about the delay, I do have to wonder why they started work on an aircraft without a source for the necessary information needed to complete it.

You can learn all of those procedures in any of the combat aircraft that we have already. A 'trainer' is used by the military because they are relatively inexpensive. Cost and potential damage to the aircraft is not an issue here.

10,000 signatures :lol: No. EDIT: AFAIK, nobody uses any of those aircraft for military training programs. T-6a Texan in the US. IIRC.

Since the flight model is the primary cost of developing one of these aircraft, I can't see any sense to giving it away. They already gave away the P-51, after I paid for it.

You don't even have to purchase them to do that with the AI. :thumbup:

Branching out is what a company does after they already have a strong presence in one area, which is not the case here. I didn't buy the Gazelle, wisely as it turns out, and I certainly won't be considering your aircraft regardless what platform you choose.

Nothing but semantics here. Any FM produced by a 3rd party is an EFM. What the EFM equates to can be described by referencing ED's internal definitions of SFM, AFM, AFM+, and PFM. Personally, I would think that a proper aerobatic aircraft would require a PFM level flight model to be a quality aircraft. By describing it only as an AFM tells me that they are cutting corners.