Grigs

I agree with you, I like the complexity of the thing as well (referrence is made here to the different on-board systems). I have never touched the A-10C yet. But I was blown by the Ka-50. And that is the reason why I cannot wait for the F/A-18C. I also perfectly understand the pure pleasure of simply flying a plane. Now, what is the added value of the arriving training aircrafts? To me, unless you are an absolute fan of the plane, or unless you want to focus on formation flying, that value is quiet low. Indeed you could jump into the A-10C or the F-15C (PFM) and train all the same. And on a side note, I do not consider FC3 as an arcade game. It is simply a pity that on-board systems are not developped (yet). But it is what it is :) About your friends, then why not directly start with A-10C? Or even wait for the F/A-18C? I hope I am not offending anyone when I talk about training aircrafts. That is simply my point of view. I would buy a PC-7 or PC-21 because I like them. In the mean time I will stick to fighters which demonstrate the highest degree of fidelity. Edit: You are only interested in trainining aircrafts, point taken ;-)

If I was willing to get my friends into simulation games, I would show them the most entertaining part of it: Combat, wether it is ground attack or air/air engagment. Flaming Cliffs 3 would be my choice ;-)

It would be neat to have a small user space available on dcs' website dedicated to saving our configurations, especially key bindings. It is actually already possible to save one's files using the upload function in the "user file" menu. I am rather thinking about a personal space. Proposing clouds is so trendy I know :)

As for the F-117..it is stealthy :) More seriously, if I am not mistaken, those planes used to be part of previous version of Lock On. They might have been removed since

Lot better, thank you. I did not understand why onboard systems and flight model were linked to civil ops. We all would like every single aircraft to have a great flight model ;). The same goes for systems. I am personally really waiting for the F/A-18. I hope that datalink, radar, rwr, etc. will be implemented as accurately as the developpers can. For example, it would be awesome to be able to draw different figures and use different layers on the (MFD) map or create sequences with different waypoints. Wait & see anyway :)

I find the poll really misleading

Amen to that!

I totally agree ,)

Ironhand is too humble to propose to you to visit his website. Click the picture on his signature. On that website, you will find a couple of videos to download. They might have been made with old versions of the game (Falming Cliffs 1), but the principles remain the same. Especially give a look to the tutorial where he makes us of the clock in the cockpit of the Su27. There have been numerous threads on DCS forum relating to tactics and missile defeating. In the scenario you have set, I do not see anything else but evading your opponents missiles in order to get (really) close (as it was suggested already). Knowing how effective those are and how many he can carry, you chances of success are fundamentaly low. As Flankerator and HiJack, I recommend Tacview. That software is a jewel. Try to find videos on youtube and such which are making use of Tacview. Good luck mate

That is actually kinda funny..

DCS is primarily a multiplayer oriented game (*or simulation if you prefer*). EDGE should arrive soon We know that EDGE is, among other things, the key to developp and integrate new maps into DCSW. ED has undertaken to build the first new map, NTTR. Developping a map for a game like DCS takes time, thus money, to be produced. Problem: In order to have multiple players flying together on the same server, all of them will have to own a key of the same map. In other words, each of them must buy that map. We currently do not have a lot of information, if any, on the future maps. For instance, is it going to be possible to have third party maps (which could be free)? Could anyone build one? How big will they be (they will probably occupy alot of space on our disks)? There have been a few polls (at least one) in the wishlist area concerning a new battelfield. It is a very subjective matter. Some want Korea, others Israel, Crimea, Balkans, Afghanistan, Switzerland (yeah right...pardon me, today's our national day :P) and many more. My point is the following: Not everybody will own all of the maps. Maybe because they cannot afford to buy so many of them, maybe because they find it pointless to fly in this or that area, or simply just because. Consequently, not everybody will be able to play with the whole DCS community on his favorite map(s). Let's face it, there are going to be popular maps, and there are going to be some which won't get enough attention. For example (this is an example and it is full of subjectivity!), I am not very attracted by NTTR. You can basically create any scenario anywhere around the globe. But I personally don't feel like flying over Nevada with a russian jet. Are you really sure that you want to spend 50$ for the NTTR as some say?

Hi, I remember an old video (when the Crimean Peninsula was still a place to fly, was FC1.1). You can dowload it on flankertraining.com. Here is the link: http://flankertraining.com/ironhand/flightbasics.htm The video's name is "The Crimean Tour: Taking in the Sights." I am not posting a direct download link since the file is quiet big (355Mb). To be honest, I am not convinced that it reveals anything special. But it was fun to watch once :P

Thing is, I personnally don't want to find myself flying in multiplayer with people seating in simplified models. This is already the case today. No need to make it worse. That is my opinion. This is because I am sure that it is in the majority's of players best interest to have a uniform game. Of course, ED's products offer a good field for solo gaming. But I think it is developped to be a multiplayer's simulation in the first place. On the other hand, developping such models takes time. They would have to be sold, not given away. And I am not sure it would encounter a satisfying commercial success. Let's simply hope that those aircrafts most of people also love will be developped as solid module in the future with an arcade mode ;-)

My apologies. I did not intend to forget it. Let's fly to Innsbruck :) And we could stretch to the West as well, to include the Pyrenees for the spanish pilots. Anyway this is not real for the time being. Maybe a 3rd party will be willing to start such a project in quiet a long time from today. But I do not see ED doing it. It is too poor for scenarios. It would simply provide a great training area for the future F-18C module, just as the NTTR map is meant to be for the A-10C. It would also be a good setting to show what EDGE will be capable of (especially regarding terrain's resolution). Probably Canada could provide a similar environment like the alps. Australia and Finland don't present the same interest "moutainswise." Let's see NTTR first!

Then fire, Switzerland as well, with the french/italian/swiss alps as future map.

No computer at the moment. Be next one will bear a DX11 compatible card of course. Nvidia.

Problem is that Blaze already handed you information in this thread :P

Reserve your coupon for the future F-18C. Reason is, I think that it will be more expensive. That is only a guess though. Now, I think it would be better to own the full FC3 version over the F-15C. Even if you do not want to fly on russian birds, you might want to try them in order to know how your ennemies behave, what they can and cannot do. But I feel you when you say that you only want to play on one side ;-)

Wait. Maximus specifically stated that it was not an ET (which is an infrared missile). There is no such thing as "infrared radar." And I am not even sure that you understood what AI (Artificial Intelligence) means. The way you wrote "[...], not AI" can lead us think that for you, it is another type of missile. I do not intend to be aggressive. But I do not like it when someone comes and answers a question, obviously without reading others' answers (I do that as well, but I notify it in my post), being so affirmative and using misleading terms. Maximus, you could still upload the 60Mb' track onto a server (lot of websites offer that service) and post a direct link in here. I am currently unable to watch any of them. But someone else might ;)

Yeah actually I should have written that differently. I was aware of how the RWR reacts to our opponent's STT and signal strength. Actually I was rather wondering why we cannot launch and guide a SARH exclusively in TWS radar mode. I am sorry guys, I am quiet tired and was not really clear minded when I wrote earlier hehe. Of course guiding a SARH in TWS is not possible because it requires more energy from the radar to focus on the target (hence the STT mode). And to the question what can we do to fix this..I think part of the answer is provided by AESA radars. At least that would be my analysis right now. I will just click "submit reply" and go to bed :D Thanks for your answer anyway ,)

Here is a follow-up to Winchester's questioning: Does anyone know if there exists a SARH missile which could be launched without trigging a missile launch warning on your target's RWR? My guess is that it does not exist. Hence the next question: what is the technical limitation which prevent this "upgrade?"

I don't really see the fun in flying civil planes in a multiplayer environment.

I could not agree more with you! That is exactly my opinion as well. A distinction should be made though between war & peace time. If you want to simulate a training session (and we need a few more options for that, but new subject), then airways should be busy. If you are in a campaign, then the battlefield should be a no flight zone. Besides, civil traffic opens new possibilities: - Day/night interception of civil aicrafts (with the upcoming F/A 18C, it would be possible to put its floodlight in use). - Interception on slow movers, if we get some as well (quiet challenging) - In my dreams, you can even force a civil airliner to land on an airbase. - It creates an environment which could give birth to another module and type of gameplay: ATC (ACC, APP, ADC) But I would not make civil flights flyable (only AI). Okay, blame is on me for writting all of this after saying "let's not talk about that." Could not help myself. My point is that "simply" adding non-flyable airliners in our sky would be a welcome addition ;)

Well I understand what you are saying, but those are technically state aircrafts and not civil ones. That is what I meant, just to be accurate. Let's not talk about the civil part in this thread ,)

The next lines are going to be written by a guy with a swiss heart (but not patriotic nontheless ;)): If the upcoming Eagle Dynamics Graphics Engine allows terrains with higher resolution, that might also permits landings/takeoffs from airstrips (let's even dream about performing in the mountains on glaciers). I am here especially thinking about the Pilatus-PC6 with its STOL ability and its commercial success. Of course it does not enter into the "heavies" category. But while reading different posts in this thread, I thought about it since there is a public who wants to fly other things than fighters and choppers (but still military, not civil aviation). Someone also mentioned the risk to be bored and somebody else talked about the current maps' size. This is simply an idea. I am throwing it out there to see people's reactions. I do not expect to see such plane coming out anytime soon. One of the advantages of such project, I guess, is that it could be developped but a third party. But hey, I am not saying that third parties are not able to give birth to more complex birds though ;).