Aginor

You are right, CF-18 is the canadian version. :)

Nice changelog, especially by Razbam, but I admit I had hoped for a fix of that... uh... less-than-awesome tanker behaviour.

sounds good. As for the bort numbers: I'd say yes. If someone wants to use the Nimitz as stand-in for the America and just changing the number is enough to help the suspension of disbelief, he should be able to do it. The only ones able to tell that something is wrong are people who either have been there or spent a certain amount of time for research. Everybody else is like "YEAH, I'M ON A CARRIER!!" :D Could you tell the Bismarck from the Tirpitz? The Hiryu from the Soryu? Yeah, probably. I still think that in a PC simulation game two models - perhaps with different textures - are sufficient to simulate those four ships. :)

Ooooh, I forgot some of them. Thanks! Interesting features, some of them are also present in the A-6 IIRC, but in the A-7 the pilot handles them by himself!

Thanks! :)

AFAIK cicular patterns were used in the past, but I am not sure if they are normally used now. The most common pattern is the race-track, but in real life tanker crews have repeatedly done unconventional things to make sure an aircraft can refuel, including circling near a CAS area and towing a plane by the boom to a near airfield. So I guess using a circular pattern - while uncommon - may not necessarily be unrealistic. I also met a few players who dislike the pattern because they say it is harder to refuel, while for me it is easier. That's one of the reasons I asked. Perhaps one of our real life military members can explain more. :)

In theory, yes. But there's a problem: The existing voices would have to be upgraded with those new lines. That being said: I would love to contribute a completely new voice to the sim, including a number of call signs (I did such stuff before for another game, recording hundreds of short lines without starting to mumble or talk monotonously is harder than one would think). EDIT: I also bumped another thread about this in the wish list section to help finding alternative options. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2689643#post2689643

I'd like to come back to this topic because we just talked about it in another thread. (this one, in case you are interested: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=160092 ) With the upcoming new Navy planes and planes from other countries than the US this will probably become more important this year. Although I don't have any official confirmation about it I assume that one of the main reasons for ED not to include more callsigns has been the problem of voice acting. For each callsign added you would have to record that name for every voice in the sim, which is a lot of work and might also be a problem if a voice actor is not available anymore. So several possible solutions were already suggested in this thread and in earlier ones, including re-doing all the voices, text-to-speech (TTS), and automatic NATO-alphabet spelling. I'd like talk about their pros and cons and how the soultions may look like, so we can help ED with the decision what to do and how it could look like. Adding more real world options to the list Pros: - Those sound cool. - implementation is already there. Cons: - Regardless of how many you add, some will be missing. We would need Air Force (several countries), Navy (several countries), helicopters (several countries), generic NATO, JTAC, WW2 from different countries, perhaps civil ones and so on. So add only a few generic international ones. - voice recording needed for every single voice in the sim (see above) TTS: Cons: - It may sound weird - Will not fit to the older voices. - In MP it could also mean abusive callsigns, which may be a problem for some people. - not as simple to code for ED, compared to the other solutions Pros: - you can do pretty much everything with it. NATO-alphabet spelling: Cons: - Used in real world for civil planes only AFAIK - some of those don't sound cool of course. - mild danger of misuse ("foxtrot uniform charlie kilo 1 1") Pros: - All the voice lines are already recorded, nothing to do here. - implementation in the ME would either look like the russian one we have right now, just a text input. Ingame the voice will just read the single digits and letters. OR we would use the dropdown box and the NATO alphabet letters would be added to choose from. I would prefer the first way because that would allow civil call signs like "N3794N" or "D-ENTE". So what do you think?

The problem may be the voice recording. You would need every voice in the sim to have those words. And some voice actors may even be not available anymore. That being said: I also think we should have more. - a few more for the Air Force (2-3) - a few Navy ones (6-8 ) - a few generic ones/international for NATO operations (6-8 ) - a few for helicopters (5-6) - a few more for JTACs and so on (2-4) - a few civil ones perhaps, could be useful for some scenarios (2-4) EDIT: actually civil ones might be easy. Just an input field allowing numbers and letters to be pronounced in NATO alphabet. Not likely to happen soon though.

Yesterday I had the time to fly the A-10C in my training mission again, after some weeks. I was relieved to see I can still get the tank from 50% to full while disconnecting only once (unknown reason, I was straight and in the green), although I haven't been flying much during the last month. So I guess my technique is still working. :) Btw: Do y'all prefer circular or race-track patterns for refueling? I prefer circular ones. Racetrack patterns would be fine when they are long, but the sudden turns (even though they got improved A LOT since earlier versions of the sim) still put me off sometimes.

What's not to love about that plane?! - huge bomb load - great range - carrier landing - aerial refueling - ground radar - lots of guided and unguided ordnance to use - single seat - used operationally for centuries, fits into many scenarios I'd love to have the E version of course. I understand why Razbam decided to do the Harrier first (an own ground radar implementation is a big risk for them), but I am actually looking forward to this plane more.

This module will have a huge impact on the DCSW heli pilots community. A small, nimble heli with guided weapons. And the small size and good view from the cockpit makes it a great training heli as well! Release it already! :D

I haven't read any indication on a MiG-3 being in development for DCSW.

Yes, that's what a lot of guys (including myself) do until the FLIR system is fixed.

I also think that if we would have to choose just two air defense systems, it would be the SA-2 and an ~80mm flak. That's because those two alone could fill the two huge empty spaces that we have in the simulation right now concerning air defense. - SAM suitable for all kinds of situations, but a BAD one. - Gun for high altitudes All others can be easily modded once the general functionality is there (just look at the awesome WW2 tanks modders created!). I would even say the time-fuzed or altitude-fuzed shrapnel gun is more important than the SA-2 since all those guns are very similar but impossible to create as units right now.

Would be really bad I guess, and also pointless since the player probably won't notice anyway. That's another reason to handle it just like a shadow with half opacity which is what most games do I assume. EDIT: I don't know how transparent materials work in the DCSW engine right now though, so it might actually be hard to implement. Would be interesting to have a developer tell us about it though. (not likely to happen, I know, but it would still be cool. :) )

I don't think so. The guys behind this project are professionals (they produced at least two awesome FSX planes) and in some thread in the russian forums it was confirmed that they already have third-party status, so I guess they are here to stay (without a time horizon yet, but that's ok. It is their first project in DCSW, which means a considerable learning curve is involved). EDIT: I looked again in the russian forums (translated with Yandex, I can't read Russian) and from what the translation says I think it may mean that June/July is either planned for a beta or the module should be out of beta by then. I guess it is the first one. Either way, middle of the year would be really nice news! :) EDIT2: Huh... upon reading again it could also mean that they will tell us in June/July about a beta... Plexus, can you clarify? I don't want to create wrong rumors. :D

As always: Great work! :)

That's not completely accurate I think, or maybe it is now but that hasn't been the case in the past. IIRC I read somewhere that there were at least one or two that had arrestor wires like on a carrier for training purposes. I'll look it up again. EDIT: Huh, can't find it at the moment. Maybe I mixed it up with MCEAGS, which is a land-based system for short strips, but does not look like the ones on carriers but similar to the systems for emergencies. EDIT2: Found it, it is NAS Patuxent River, there is a Mk7 arresting gear for training and test and evaluation purposes installed there. Only a single wire though, instead of four like on a carrier. The reason for not using the cables are costs/logistics (you would need crew there to set them up, and not only LSOs for judging the landings) and of course stress on the hooks, airframes and so on. I also read somewhere that in many cases during training they avoid full-stop landings or even avoid touchdowns at all, to keep tires maintenance lower.

Yes, of course. I once made a thread with a list of stuff in it.... Must have been a few years ago already I think. EDIT: This thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2225335

Yeah, whatever, I don't care. :D It looks like a shadow and it can most likely be achieved using a shadow renderer, which is why I called it shadow. :)

As far as I know it doesn't. It is just a flat object with no collission detection and a semi-transparent texture. It is still very cool to train approaches. I have an early version somewhere on my hard drive, but a working OLS would really be the icing on the cake.

Here's my monthly question again: Any news? :) (not trying to be a pain in the a**, I am just curious and looking forward to having more nice modules in my favourite simulator :D )

The F/A-18C is coming, any news on this, guys? :)

Hey guys! Now that the most severe bugs in the graphics engine seem to be fixed I'd like to bring this up again. I know it is nitpicking, still.... it looks so weird. (or is that already fixed when using a higher shadow quality?)