LostOblivion

Probably Dora by the looks of it.

The A-10C cannot use ADF, not even the real one can.

I am all for DCS picking up the ball where FSX dropped it. However, even though 3rd Party Developers can make high quality civilian modules for DCS as they please, they cannot directly alter the core features of their simulation environment such as ATC and, quite frankly, the small size of the world. If ED were to welcome the conventional flight simulation community, they would have to alter the core of their sim so as to unify the two worlds into one, realistic environment. The small size of the world is overcomable, and is probably improved on a lot in the new EDGE engine. For all we know, EDGE could support the whole world as modules being put in place one by one, with Nevada being the first. Parhaps EDGE also comes with a new terrain modeler that is easy to use for people who wants to make their own theatre. Ideally, it would still take time to make a theatre, but with focus on content, not technicalities. However, in terms of ATC, they would have to maintain two different environments, adding one with civilian protocols equaling or surpassing that of FSX, and one with military protocols building on the one we have already. The mission designer could then control which frequencies would be used by civilian channels, and which that would be procured by the military. These are only two of the issues that would have to be adressed for DCS to welcome the conventional flight simulation community, IMO.

Ok. :) I assumed as much.

Naïve question: Why is it easier to make Mustangs and Doras than more modern aircraft like the A-10C? I mean, it seems like ED are popping these aircraft out in no time, while the Hornet takes a good long while. What probably takes the same amount of effort to make is the model, cockpit model, and AFM. Are there so much avionics and complex systems in modern aircraft that making them takes years longer? The Hornet is probably special though, since they have to make carrier ops to go along with it.

Well, it is also a way for them so say: ok, our goal was too high, let us put some money in ourselves to emulate a lower goal. Does not mean they still cannot reach the goal of making the F-35. But I agree that from a backer's point of view, this is morally wrong, and should be considered scamming.

Took longer to get in the game. Once in, loading missions took less time. :)

Me too, actually, when I first saw the thread name. Hehe.

Is there anyone making the L-39?

Great! Thanks. Still so lazy I think ED should put it on by default though.. Hehe.

Regarding the swastika, the only country that prohibits the display of the swastika is Germany, the exception being for historical reasons such as movies. For some reason video games do not fall into that category and thus ED make it simple for themselves removing the swastika from all versions of the game, instead of just from the German version. Most other game devs have this simple approach as well, but some still use the swastika, and remove it from their German version only.

I hope they will put the swastika on the tail, for accuracy.

I do not think you know what hard coded means.

If you are more into flying, you should try BS2 instead of CA

Eno, if I understand you correctly, yes, this is in fact the case and is a real problem, which is why you should lase the target to get distance to target so that coordinates of the SPI are accurately calculated, if that is needed--which it is if that SPI is used to bomb the target with JDAMs, either by you or someone you shared it with.

I really appreciate that ED adds AFM to the FC aircraft. I think it completes what a game that is all about a short learning curve is. In my opinion, FC was always designed for those of us who wanted to focus more on the combat and flying experience without having to read an 800 page manual about which buttons to press, and I do not think that an AFM is exclusive only for the high fidelity DCS modules as the A-10C, but equally important for the FC aircraft, as an AFM is a lot more fun and does not really steepen the learning curve as far as a flight simulation goes. In my opinion, FC is complete once three criteria are met. 1. The external model. 2. The internal cockpit model. 3. AFM. Now that all three are to be featured in FC, I feel that the game is a complete package. Thanks, ED!

I also think it is a bad idea to introduce several versions of the same aircraft into DCS. From a product point of view it makes sense, but the game itself would become very ambiguous as to the meaning of, say, what an F-15C. It would lower the quality of the game if some future aircraft is called F-15C (AFM) and another is called F-15C (SFM), or parhaps even F-15C (<insert 3rd party name>) for that matter. It would clutter the game and make a mess. I think ED should be very careful about who gets to develop a certain aircraft for their game, its features, so as to be very strict always having only one version of an aircraft. At least such a difference should be reflected in real life, such as a change to avionics suite, and so on.

Think about it. It would not make any sense otherwise. It would not make any sense that one F-15 is flying with an SFM and another with AFM. Also, they will probably add new features to each aircraft, and having two different products with two different sets of features for each aircraft means a lot of maintenance for ED. I bet they will break the logic up so as each aircraft gets its own module anyway and then update FC3 so that it simply bundles all modules. Then develop each module seperately. And yes, that means AFM for FC3.

I agree. And with respect to "what you need" from DCS World...it is not based on the average realism of the whole thing. You will not be affected by FC if you do not play it.

Have you seen the Kickstarter for Fighter Ops? With relevance to your argument that officers of the US military should a priori be trustworthy...

Now that all the immature kids went drooling in beczl's thread instead of throwing shit at each other in this one, hopefully KI will spot our questions, which was the point of this thread to start with. I asked before, but it got lost in all the #&$*%-#... KI, what are the main obstacles your team has to overcome in terms of aircraft avionics and systems with respect to your new simulation platform?

Haha, I was actually referring to all the "game mode" players that would roll over and explode on the airfield, but the original quote was lost in my post so what I said didn't make a lot of sense.

Personally I would like some target drones to practice against.

Kinney, what are the main obstacles you have to overcome in terms of aircraft avionics and systems? I'm very much looking forward to this!

If zombies were coming for me in the A-10, I'd flip the ground safety override switch and go James Bond on their ass.