LostOblivion

EZdok Camera Addon for DCS!!!

I think the hornet requires another type of refueling nozzle on the KC-135, which is not modeled...until ED comes around to making the F/A-18C they have announced. (:-D)

Welcome to the forums. Looking forward to seeing you guys in action. Have you played any of the other DCS products before?

Where does carrier ops fit in nevada? :P

Hehe, yeah, that is what we would expect when firing at the A-10 with a Mustang. ;)

I think many are looking forward to the day the forums look like this:

I am not going to answer this stupid biased poll. Jeez. It is the silliest poll I have ever seen.

What do you mean?

I only see positive things about ED having multiple projects at once. Usually in my business when we work at more projects at once, we spur productivity since we are faced with a big work load. We might not get project A finished in X time, but we get all the projects A, B, and C finished in 2X time, which is only positive. Would you not rather see ED put out three aircraft in 4 years, than one in 2 years, then another one 2 years after? :) Also, working on several projects means a lot of research is being done, some of which would probably not occur if they only worked on the jet, meaning less features in the next jet aircraft. ;) F.ex. if they have figured out an outstanding template/engine that is quite generic for making the flight model of the Mustang, this would also significantly improve the next jet flight model. I'm going to quote Sheldon Lee Cooper, B.S., M.S., M.A., Ph.D., Sc.D., on this one: "When Albert Einstein came up with special relativity, he was working at the patent office."

He got what was coming to him, he was banned. Nobody gains anything from that kind of disrespect and arrogance.

Why do you mention this? I am interested. :)

It would depend on which side you are flying on. IIRC, the Russians use QFE most of the time, but yeah, it would be great.

Fog should really just be removed, and a better configuration of weather should be added, being able to add several layers of clouds instead of just one, possibly putting a layer of clouds really low. This, in addition to making rendering the inside of clouds a lot better, will replace fog in its current form, also allowing "localized" fog as to the thread starter's request. Another thing. The way inside of clouds are rendered now, is by simply stop rendering the clouds closer than a certain distance from the pilot, so as not to render the cloud inside the cockpit. However, this leaves a visible edge on the wings that is quite annoying. I have a better idea, you could render the cockpit without any fog, then enable standard attenuated fog immediately after having drawn the cockpit. The only problem I see, is if the exterior (wings, armament) of the cockpit is the same mesh/model as the interior of the cockpit (panels, guages, hud), in which case you would have to split these into two models, the interior model being rendered before fog, the exterior model after. Rendering the interior of clouds would be a matter of figuring out how far from the center of the cloud the camera is, and then adjusting the transparency and opacity, i.e. more opaque in the center, more transparent at the surface of the cloud. The fog attenuation would then be randomized to mimic different fog opacity near the surface of the cloud, together with a few billboarded clouds moving in the negative direction of the velocity vector. It is hell of a lot more to it, but I am only stating my ideas here...

What do you mean? We got exactly what we wanted. :-)

By the way, maybe if the moderators created the DCS: P-51D Mustang subforum, there would not be so many reposters claiming that it is a bad decision, why they make it, will there be more content, etc, etc, because they will find the previous posters more easily by simply looking at the thread names and thus we will avoid so much reposting. I have nowhere else to post all my ideas about the DCSM than here, which would add to the mess, which is why I wait.

Hehe, they'd have to read up on their flight manual, methinks. :D

I do not want a body in the cockpit for the reasons 213 states, but defenately a more alive model in the exterior model, looking around and moving his arms like in RoF. It would also be cool if they enabled TIR response while in the exterior view so he would look around.

If some buttons does not work, contact Thrustmaster. They will assert that your buttons are in fact, defect, before you send it in and get a new one. Don't like the idea of a triangulation marker on your head you say? Think it is geeky? Face it, bro, with the Thrustmaster and the pedals, you're already there, might as well go "all in". ;)

First off, no offense to you, Jinx, personally, but I think this post summarizes an essential point as to why some people take this announcement so personally. They have this idea that they are "supporting" this "poor" company financially "so that" they may continue developing the games they like. Even though most of the us, the trusty fans, do not donate to ED, some of us seem to falsely believe that we have "invested" our hard earned money into the company and that this earns us the right to take part in any decisions. It is just mentally destructive, to say the least. I just think it is wrong, ED is not some indie game developer down the street from your house, they are a joint stock company registered on the market with over four dozen emplyees, not to even mention The Fighter Collection. They produce and sell products, products which you can choose to buy from them at a price if you so desire. Kuky also proves my point in his post, the post below, which is obviously a reflection of the above. No offense to you, Kuky.

I agree completely with the fact that this feature would bring a lot of immersion into the series. ED desperately needs to focus on other things as well, other than mostly single aircraft. I am not saying I want them to take focus away from modeling perfectly authentic FM and handling, but allocate more resources into game appeal. Features like a better graphical user interface for the menues, selecting in-game loadouts, for example, does not need a great deal of effort to improve significantly, but would appeal to even more potentional buyers out there. Here's an analogy: It is like me when I make websites at work, as I always tend to spend so much time on making the design flawless to the pixel, that my boss complains that I spend too little time on discussing with the customer what he really wants, who really only sees content. Either way, the good design is required, but ED should put some more resources into creating more content, not just polish their design. ;)

I notice many threads already that would suit better in a common DCS thread, instead of being posted in either DCSBS or DCSW.

Get some TrackIR, and you're all set! Note that the Thrustmaster does not have twist, which means you will benefit immensely from having rudder pedals. I suggest the ones from Saitek, either one.

Yes, indeed. However, I do not see the reasoning behind the painstakingly accurate checklists in the DCSW manual about how to operate the ADF when the radios (obviously not custom made for the A-10) do not support it with the rest of the suite. It suggests inputting the correct frequency for ADF navigation, which I find strange, unless there are other radio transmitters operating in the valid range for the AN/ARC-186(V) VHF and the AN/ARC-164 UHF radios that can be used by the ADF functionality. It is quite misleading. Clarify, please? However, it is perfectly understandable, and I am thankful for the fact that ED actually goes the extra mile to make the switches work, UHF/FM lights on the NMCP illuminate, etc, even though the authentic avionics suite does not include a working ADF extension from the VHF/UHF radios into the aircraft avionics suite. Cheers.

Ah, yes, according to Wikipedia, the NDB conforms to ICAO standard by being in the range 0.190 to 1.750 MHz. My apologies for my false anticipation, effte, I think I got put off by the manual which puts the ADF functionality of the A-10's radios in the same category as features that are not modeled by simply stating it is "Not functional". All is good now, thanks for the clarification! :)

Oh yeah, that is true, the UHF stops at 299