statrekmike

I was messing around with the fuses a few days ago, I pulled all of them and was still able to start up and operate the aircraft just fine. Is this intended? Are fuses going to be modeled or am I just getting it wrong (very possible)?

It's still in beta, they are indeed further refining the flight model as well as some other things.

There are already two different exe's that you can choose, one is clearly labeled single player and one multiplayer. As for the launcher, I think it is required due to the nature of the program.

Here is one that comes to mind. What is the best way to do a vertical landing with the Huey? You know, pretty much landing while in a hover, is that even possible?

I would get a X52, it will do everything you ask of it in A-10C and not only that, it will serve you well with every other DCS title you will get in the future. I know I won't make friends here for saying this but the TM HOTAS-X is really no better than a normal single stick solution like the Logitech, all it has going for it is a larger throttle handle and good rudder controls, that is simply not enough to really get the most out of A-10C. In fact, you can get a X52 for a much better price if you get a really good used one, that should fit well into your budget. The important thing is to get something that won't hold you back as you get better with the sim, spend a little extra now and you won't have to spend more later when you replace that simple stick with one you actually want.

I know this is probably not what you want to hear but I figure it is worth saying anyway. So, The Huey is actually pretty simple when it comes to control bindings, you really don't need a lot of stuff on the stick because there is very little to begin with. Anyway, here is the way I would set it up if I were you. 1.) Put the weapon release on the gun trigger. 2.) Put the trimmer on the little thumb button on the side of the stick 3.) Put the collective on the throttle lever 4.) put the throttle (up and down) on two of your base buttons (not essential but they need to be bound to something easy to find) 5.) Trimmer reset can go on one of the top buttons on the stick 6.) Setting the hat as a means to control the spotlight would be smart, as well as binding a button to toggle it on and off. Honestly, that is all I can think of at the moment, keep in mind, I am making this while looking at a picture of your stick so I don't have a profile I can give you as a result. Finally, as far as the horrible experience you are having, keep in mind that this helicopter is really, really, really hard on new pilots, it does not matter if you have hundreds of hours of stick time on the Black shark, this thing has none of the stability aids that the Ka-50 does and as such requires a entirely different approach to flying. Funny enough, before the UH-1, I was terrible at flying the Ka-50, I was all over the place and just could not seem to get a handle on it, then, after learning to fly somewhat okay in the Huey, the Black shark is timid in comparison, I can now fly the Black shark without using the trimmer button in normal flight and all the autopilot dampeners make it feel like it is essentially flying itself. So, yeah, your first few hours in the Huey are just going to be really hard, it is a easy aircraft to learn to start up, it is easy to deal with systems wise but it is super hard to fly without a great deal of practice and some amount of study.

Yeah, it seems that War thunder should have taken a page from World of tanks, there are some severe issues with how repair costs work and it is pretty obvious that they are so high so that players will feel more compelled to buy XP boosts. As it stands, in World of tanks you can have your tank destroyed and always get to use it in the next round, in War thunder, if you lose a high tier plane you lost it for days unless you can afford to fix it (which is difficult or even impossible to afford unless you grind far more than is worth it). I don't know, this is not helping my opinion of F2P as a concept.

So the flight itself would not have a name, anyone (ground or air) who wishes to speak to the group in the air would refer directly to the number of the flight leader?

I am not really talking about specific aircraft call signs as much as the name of a flight itself. I mean, when you refer to a entire flight in the A-10C you might say "Hog flight" as opposed to talking to a individual pilot by saying some thing like "hog 1-1". Do the Russians use BORT numbers to refer to a entire flight or just a specific aircraft in that flight?

So, I am making a mission and it hit me that I don't really know what one would call a flight of Ka-50's on a combat mission, I mean, for the American's it is usually something like "Hog flight" so a player might go by Hog 1-1 or something like that but I have no idea how the Russians handle that sort of thing. Anyone have any ideas?

I was actually thinking about this yesterday, we have not heard much on that front in a while.

I have found that a little container of plumbers grease (silicone based) goes a long way with the X52, just put a little bit where the base-plate of the stick interacts with the base and it is smooth as silk and requires very little actual pressure to move.

Fantastic, this is exactly what I was hoping to see! I hope everything goes smoothly, so far you have a great product (I can't personally wait to have a slick version and the right side pilot gunsight!) Thanks for the quick and detailed reply!

First off, I am absolutely thrilled with how good DCS Huey is, it is a really polished and amazing product that I ended loving a great deal more than I initially thought. That said, as a relative newcomer to this particular neighborhood on the ED forums, I have found that a lot of folks are talking about missing features (like AI door gunners, slick versions and the winch) and what is and what is not going to be in the release version. So, I wonder if it would be possible for the developers to (when they have time) kinda talk about what they are working on for the final version in terms of features we don't have now (not so much bugfixes and such, just features). Please don't get me wrong, I am very happy with the product thus far, I was just looking for some more direct information so I know what to look forward to and what to not worry so much about. Thanks for the great work so far, I can't wait to see how well the Mi-8 turns out!

Are we still talking about the Frooglesims first impressions, I mean, I thought he released a statement video about the whole debacle and got it cleared up. I guess the internet never forgives eh?

I am kinda confused (and forgive me for this), what exactly is the deal with the "IG", I mean, I know about EDGE but is IG the same thing? If that is the case, it was my understanding that we were still pretty far off from getting it. The only reason I ask is because the framerate issue with the deployment of specific weapons (anything from CBU's to rockets and gunpods) brings the sim's framerate to it's knee's and this makes some missions difficult to make because you need to remove content at the cost of realism for the sake of framerate. I mean, I don't want to sound like a negative Nancy but this is a problem that has been around awhile, I hope we won't have to wait much longer for it to finally be addressed.

Hey Ricardo, I am not sure if this is either already in the works or if you have already mentioned it in another thread but do you have any plans to work on a UH-1H cockpit in this style (worn and more dirty)? Anyway, I have been waiting for this to come out and it is just as good as I imagined it would be, this really helps bring the A-10C cockpit on to the same level that my Ka-50 cockpit is at (I use your blue skin for it). Keep up the good work!

Not long ago there was a video of the Paradox interactive boss doing a talk about dealing with a niche product. http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-05-08-paradox-using-an-axe-to-carve-a-niche In this talk he mentioned a lot of very interesting concepts that perhaps ED (and any other simulation developer/publisher) should look into. Here were some of the major ideas that I think apply. 1.) He talks about "anti-marketing" where you play up the challenge and tell players "they might not be able to handle this" (in a playful way) and they will take that challenge in many cases. 2.) Don't betray your core audience for a "mass market", if you make realistic flight sims, market that and don't try to dumb it all down in order get customers you never really wanted in the first place. 3.) Be VERY aggressive with targeted marketing, he mentions putting ads in military history magazines for his games but you could easily do the same with aviation, history, military and technology related magazines. in that same vain, go ahead and use Facebook ads that will target those with military interests. Flight sims will always (and should always) be for a specific market, the problem is that many assume that once can only target gamers (and usually the general gamer) while ED should be going after all those gamers that are already interested but just don't know about it.

Belsimtek seems to have no trouble keeping up a good flow of study level simulations...

If you look at my posts, I don't see how you got any of that from my statements at all. Seriously, I am not stupid, I understand that a ton of work is involved in making a DCS Aircraft and (as I have said countless blasted times already) I do understand that adding AFM's to the F-15C and the Su-27 will be but the first step in making them full blown proper simulators. At no point did I say that they should not release the AFM versions of those planes, when I said "a rapidly changing landscape" I was referring to the fact that the May 3rd news release gave us one strong impression (he did have "DCS" in front of both aircraft before it was edited) and then the May 7th news release gave us very unexpected news and worded in a way that was sure to cause some questions to be asked. When that news release came out, we saw a few (myself included) express some concern (in more often than not a very polite and diplomatic way) over the implications of said news and what it means in the long run. So, I say again, I don't know where you got this idea that I don't want more planes for DCS World, if you read my posts in this thread you will plainly see that I have no issue with the release of these new modules and I fully understand that they are only the first part of a larger product. If I do have one major concern, I suppose it is just that I don't want to buy the module with just the AFM and then have to pay full price for the module again when it gets it's full DCS treatment. Hopefully that clears things up once and for all, I am tired of being treated like I want to hurt ED just because I was a bit disappointed by the May 7th news.

Why is everyone here assuming that I am hopping mad about this, I have OPENLY said that a lot of the disappointment from the May 7th update came from false assumptions that there had already been some work done on the fast mover between the time that A-10C came out and now. I mean, it has been awhile and ED has been very quiet about a fast mover for a long time now also, many just thought they would announce something when they had more to show and left it at that. Were we wrong to speculate on the status of projects? perhaps but that comes with the territory and it was not like anyone was saying "But I want it right now!", we were just kinda shocked that nothing had been really started yet. So, I don't know why I am being cast as the Debbie downer here, I have been very clear from the beginning that I have no anger about this, just was not clear about the status of the next DCS aircraft and had assumed that something had been done thus far, that was my fault and I openly admit it and I am not terribly upset about it either, I am just pointing out WHY I was saddened the day I saw the May 7th announcement. We are not children, stop slinging mud around (by saying that anyone who dislikes this news in any way is somehow part of a problem despite how civil and polite many of those who were cast as "negative" actually were). Finally, there is no reason for the news to stop, I am sure we can still handle it despite the snide remarks that we can't and that we get upset over everything. In fact, more information will help clear up false assumptions in the future.

You are clearly trying to pick a fight here so I will just answer your questions and if that is not enough, well, I don't know what else I can say to make it any clearer for you. 1.) We had no way of knowing what was going on behind closed doors, many of us assumed that some sort of development had already taken place (beyond what had come out already for FC3). 2. This is essentially the same as the last question so I will give you the same answer, DCS A-10C came out years ago, it would not be outside the realm of possibility to assume that some work had already been done beyond what we have thus far seen with FC3. 3.) I did not say it would take only "months" to finish a entire module, in fact, I make it very clear (at least two times) in my previous post that I am very aware that it takes a great deal of time, I (and a few others here) simply did not know (due to lack of solid information) what had already been done in regards to work on the next DCS level module. Finally, this also applies to the F/A-18 Hornet, at the moment, we have no way of knowing just how far along they are with that so it could take anywhere between a year to three years to actually complete, as far as many are concerned, this is pretty unpleasant news as we have already been waiting a great deal of time. I suppose we should be thankful that the MiG-21 is pretty far along (as we know the development status of that) so that should be coming soon enough, still, we want a modern DCS level aircraft and at the moment ED has the best show going in that regard, that is why we are all so eager to get our hands on the next fast mover and why it is sad to have so much uncertainty about it's release progress (even in a general sense).

No, I do get it, I understand it very clearly. Why are you trying to pick a fight here? I am essentially telling you that I understand that WE ARE INDEED GETTING the eventual release of a DCS level F-15C and Su-27, I only expressed that we were saddened that we would have to wait much longer than we had expected. You keep acting like I am stupid, like I don't understand that building a game takes time, I will say this bluntly, NOBODY here thinks this way, we ALL know that it takes a lot of time, effort and resources to construct such complex simulations. We are merely saddened because it seems that they are not as far into the development cycle as we all thought they were, I mean, we did not get a lot of news from ED up until the start of this new policy recently and as such, we made the (mistaken) assumption that work was perhaps further along than it actually was, we thought that work has started after A-10C was released (perhaps not by the whole staff) and was still steaming along to now. Instead we are presented with a situation where the wait is going to be much longer than we initially calculated, perhaps by a factor of years instead of months. I am not saying that ED lied or that we expect a sim to be made in a matter of months, you need to get hat idea out of your head because nobody is thinking it, we were merely mistaken (understandably) and assumed that work was further along and that is why we were kinda sad to see that it is going to be a long haul till the finish line. Again, I am not fighting with anyone here, I understand the situation, I am merely explaining the reason for the feeling that I and a few others here on this thread have, no need to act like we are all ignorant when we are very aware of what is going on.

I never said anything about DCS F-15C and DCS Su-27 not coming out at all, at no point did I say that. What I did say is that there was a change in the overall presentation of the plan, instead of getting a DCS level aircraft right up front, we would be getting it in stages and even then, and lets be honest here, it is going to be a long way off until we actually see a full DCS level F-15C and Su-27. This kind of news is still a bit of a shock, we are aware that work either continues or will eventually start (another issue entirely) on DCS F/A-18C but to go from what amounts to "hey, we have DCS F-15C and DCS Su-27 in the making" to "We are going to release this now and get back to it at another time" (yes, I was paraphrasing) is jarring and makes one a bit hesitant to get excited about stuff like that again. Now, as I said before, I am not accusing ED of lying, I am just saying that this change in presentation is kinda tough to swallow after such a long wait already for a DCS level fast mover, we are all excited for the next bit of news but until we know more, it is looking like a much longer wait than we expected (due to not a lot of news releases in the past). I don't think ED owes my anything (other than what I expect from every business) and nor am I just complaining to be a jerk or to start a fight, I am simply telling you WHY I and some others here feel a little sad about all this. ' We are aware that DCS aircraft are coming but we went from not knowing much of anything for awhile (until the recent change in information release policy) to hearing that it is indeed going to be a very long wait (at least until we know more about the F/A-18 development status) and that is saddening as we are all very excited (again, ED is the only show in town for study sim aircraft these days). I am not attacking anyone here or saying that ED is in the wrong, please keep that in mind.

I am not trying to start any arguments here, but I will say that going from DCS F-15C and DCS Su-27 to just the F-15C and Su-27 is a pretty rapid change in the landscape. Don't get me wrong, I understand the reasons and while I don't have to like the reality of it, it is indeed reality none the less, it just came as a bit of a shock considering prior information. Nobody is really in a panic, at least not in this thread.