Aginor

Hi and welcome to the forums, crow0827! Unfortunately it seems like a D variant of the Hornet is not planned at the moment.

Same here.

Agree.

Wow, nice changes, Razbam!

Seeing how their first project (the Gazelle) looks, and that they already implemented a working multiplayer cockpit for it, AND are working on three variants of another awesome looking heli (Bo-105, the WIP stuff looks spectacular!) I have really high hopes for Polychop's future. I believe (from a engineering point of view) they could really do something like a Tornado (any version, the only one I wouldn't like that much being the ADF) and make it great.

I agree, hypothetical stuff in a present day realistic environment makes me sad, almost angry. ArmA3 is the best recent example. Not interested in the silly A-10 lookalike, although I understand why they did it. I want REAL stuff. Real weapons, real helis, real planes and their real capabilities as far as possible. Prototypes and rarely used equipment (Ho-229 or Ka-50 for example) are a bit less cool for me, but if they were REAL and we know stuff about them: Yeah, why not.

Huh. Got that wrong then. Thanks for the clarification. I always thought it was both texture and mesh.

Yes, of course. We were talking about terrain resolution, not terrain texture resolution. The Nevada map has different parts with more accurate and less accurate elevation mesh. If I am not mistaken the new Caucasus will be near the quality of the medium areas, and that's pretty good. And of course new textures will make it even more awesome. That goes without saying. Exciting! :)

Thanks for the update! :)

I don't think I can agree with that. With chaotic I meant how it looks like to the pilot. In such a situation a tiny difference in control input, air pressure, speed and whatnot can make HUGE differences, so you can't practice some stuff. In a simulation it is simplified that much that you can. Also you don't die or destroy a 50 million dollar air plane if you practice it. Such stuff isn't done in real life, for that reason, especially since it isn't worth it when you have other, often better options. I still don't see how any example related to chess could fit here, though. But no point in arguing I guess, since it isn't really the topic anyway.

I also noticed a small bug. In the rear seat the landing gear handle can only be clicked if it was clicked at least once in the up position. "G" works normally. Version tested: current 1.5.4 release Reproducible: Yes, every time Steps to reproduce: - Place C-101EB in air or on ground, otherwise empty mission - takeoff (or if you are in the air already, lower the gear by clicking in the front cockpit or by pressing "G"). - go to rear cockpit - try clicking the landing gear handle. Note it isn't clickable in the down position. - cycle the gear pressing the "G" key twice. Note it moves, Still not clickable in the down position though. - Move it up again by pressing "G" or by clicking it in the front cockpit. - Rear cockpit: You can click it in the up position. When you have done this once it is clickable in the down position as well. That's it. :)

Thanks, Razbam guys! :) and @Fri13: No, I disagree. You are IMO posting one example of bug-using there, and two completely valid examples for high-AoA flying, and obviously only the 1% where it worked and someone made a video of it. In real life nobody will fly a maneuver that will get you killed 99% of the time. There are always better options available. EDIT: Apart from the fact that your chess comparison is completely wrong because in chess there is only clearly defined behaviour. Chaotic systems are also something mis-represented in simulations.

:)

I agree from my point of view. I will be super happy to correct all my missions where it matters. 3rd party devs who have spent hundreds of hours for their campaigns might disagree though. They will have to fix their missions so their customers don't complain, but nobody will pay them for the additional hours the mission builders and the testers have to spend, to check the missions, change them, and test them again. The better geometry is still worth it.

Thanks, I know that. I follow that project closely. Seeing the depth of ED's A-10C (which was developed under similar circumstances) concerning classified systems I still am VERY sceptic about VEAO's Typhoon. The one released to the public at least. EDIT@tob.s: No. That's exactly where we disagree. Just because something is for entertainment doesn't mean it should allow low quality, if the audience expects the highest possible standard (which is what DCSW stands for). If I would accept lower standards I would still fly FSX military planes.

Me too. Really sad. :(

My problem with your poll - and the reason why I don't intend to choose an option there - is that people could probably argue that option #2 is true for an FC3 aircraft, which IMO it isn't. Furthermore one could argue that option #4 isn't true either, for none of the aircraft available right now, not even the A-10C. So sorry, no vote. As for the discussion: FC3 is a complete no-go for me now. Are those planes fun to fly for me? Yeah, they are. Sometimes. Rarely. For me #2 means: (almost) All procedures in the real world manual work in the sim, with very little exceptions. Approximating an IFF or even a radar system is OK, but only as long as it still is fulfilling all known parameters and modes of operation. (yes I am aware that's not true for the A-10C either). Not every knob or switch has to be there. But most of them. And workload is a crucial point. All FC3 planes fail miserably in representing that even remotely. Take the M2000C as an example: At its current stage it is approximately at the absolute minimum of what I expect from a module for DCSW. For my personal taste there are still too many clickable buttons and functions missing to really enjoy it, but it is almost there. You will never get that much info on a F-35, maybe not even for a Super Hornet or a recent F-15C, so the approximation level of that one would have to be something like the Dino Cattaneo F-25 for FSX. Great for FSX, but not suitable for DCSW. That's also a reason why I am a bit sceptic about VEAO's Typhoon project. I just can't imagine they can pull it off without a lot of guesswork.

IIRC that is still lower than the high resolution parts of Nevada, but still great! I just hope it doesn't break all missions/campaigns.

Cool bit of software, some advantages over JSGME. Will check it out, thanks!

..and I seriously hope none of the guys has been waiting for another answer on this for the last four years ;) EDIT: Just out of curiosity: Was this thread displayed to you as new? Because that happened to me recently and I wanted to report it as a forums bug, but couldn't reproduce.

If I had to decide between EB with AFM first or CC first I think I'd pick the EB with AFM, but that is personal preference. Either would be great. :)

Yeah, I checked it out a few minutes ago. Looks pretty nice.

It has a more accurate geometry. Also IMO it looks better.

As for the film: I wouldn't exactly call it "good", but I enjoyed it nevertheless. F-15E in DCSW (either with a good AI pilot/WSO or with another player) will be awesome if it happens. Not holding my breath though, it is such a complex plane.

So much awesome in that one!!