statrekmike

Your passive aggressive insinuations aside, I think you are simplifying things for the sake of your argument. You bring up all the documentation you found during a weekend but I wonder what ED would say if you were to approach them and ask if it is enough. Over and over, we have had situations where users on the forums have said "but I have all this documentation I found online!" and over and over, ED and third parties like Heatblur have said "But that isn't even close to enough". How often does this have to happen before people start getting the hint. Making a module in DCS that lives up to the DCS standard (as set by ED) involves not just documentation that anyone can find online in a weekend but also the kind of access that you can only get with support from military forces, the companies that make the aircraft, and SME's that feel that they can be open enough to be useful. This brings us to the rather expected mentioning of RAZBAM and the Mirage. It is interesting that you bring this one up since it actually does more to support my position than it does to support yours. When the Mirage first came out, it was a mess and in no small part because RAZBAM simply didn't get the support they needed to make a module that lived up to the DCS standard. They more than likely had all the public documents they could get their hands on but without support from the French Air Force and Dassault, it was obvious that the module we got didn't really reflect the plane accurately. It wasn't until MUCH later that the French Air Force did provide support and the module did indeed change quite a bit as a result. It was that dramatic change that made the module so bittersweet to me as it was hard not to wonder about RAZBAM's own internal standards. Sadly. This very same issue has been repeated with the Harrier and it doesn't look like the USMC is going to swoop in and save the day. Here is a fact. The B-52 is a active duty, strategic nuclear asset (regardless of its other jobs) and as such, the USAF and Boeing are very unlikely to want such a thing simulated to DCS standards (as set by ED's other modules). It doesn't matter if you can scrape together some manuals off the internet, they would need so, so much more to actually make a worthwhile module. They would need access to the aircraft for the creation of art/sound assets. They would need the freedom to simulate the various stations, displays, targeting, and weapon management systems. They would need SME's that can openly provide them with useful information and feedback. These are all things that make ED's other modules as detailed and thorough as they are and as Heatblur will attest, they are pretty necessary in order to make a convincing, worthwhile module that matches the standard that many of us expect. I do absolutely agree that the effort required to make such a module on a hypothetical level would require too many players, too much effort to develop, and wouldn't have the commercial appeal to make it worthwhile. I absolutely disagree that a weekend worth of searching for publicly released documents is enough to make a module to ED's standards. ED hasn't been shy about stating what they need to make a module to their standards and spoiler alert, they would want more than a weekend worth of internet searching for public documents they probably already have in a file somewhere anyway. Who know? Maybe RAZBAM will add it to their list of upcoming modules...

As far as classified/secret material goes, I am not sure I would be so quick to assert that the B-52 is in a similar position to the Hornet or Viper. Obviously we can all spend a bunch of hours tracking down publicly released flight and maintenance manuals for just about any aircraft but as we have seen demonstrated time and time again, that is never, ever enough. It is important to understand that when you are talking about simulating a B-52 (especially a later model), you are talking about simulating a active duty strategic nuclear asset. It might be old and many of its systems might be public but it is still a strategic nuclear asset all the same and that fact alone makes it a sensitive, difficult subject. It is important to understand that the reason we have the A-10C, F/A-18C, and the F-16C isn't just because they were able to hop online and get a few publicly released documents. It was also because they got full support from the military and/or the companies that handle those aircraft. Doing fighter aircraft (even if they have a nuclear option that will never get modeled and is a minor, third tier function anyway) will always be a easier sell (barring modern 5th gen stuff, obviously) simply because we are talking about much, much less sensitive conventional warfare, non-strategic defense stuff. Let's put ourselves in ED's shoes for a moment (since they are the only ones with enough defense department reach to even think of doing a project like the B-52 anyway). Imagine going to the USAF and Boeing with a proposal to model a modern, in-service strategic nuclear bomber. How do you think that meeting would go? Do you think they would even really get to the point where they start talking about what is and is not classified? Do you think that the USAF and Boeing would perhaps find the entire idea a bit too sensitive to even really bother exploring? Now, I am aware that the B-52 is a very, very old platform and one could argue that there is probably quite a bit of stuff that is well passed the point where it is considered secret but even simulating a older model outlines the core problem with this idea. Either way you go, you are talking about a plane that forms the backbone of our airborne nuclear plan and that in itself (regardless of what systems are secret and what ones aren't) makes it a tough sell for the USAF/Boeing and ED would NEED their support to make a worthwhile simulation of such a aircraft (as is always the case with modules). Sometimes it doesn't matter if something is secret or not. What matters is how the rights holders and current users (like the USAF) would feel about it getting simulated in the first place. ED isn't so stupid as to burn such bridges.

I would love more Harrier versions but I would much rather our current Harrier module get polished to a point where it more closely matches up with the quality/realism levels of other modules we have. Right now, it isn't really there. If anything. I would like another (proven and able) third party to eventually take a jab at doing a Harrier. I have long since stopped waiting for the one I already bought to be at a quality level that one should reasonably expect based on other modules we have.

I know map size is usually a very controversial topic when talking about strategic scale aircraft in DCS but it is a valid one none the less. I am aware that in modern COIN focused conflict, the B-52 and B-1 engaged in loiter based missions where they would drop JDAM's and the like on CAS based targets but that is only one chapter in a very long story for those aircraft. If ED or a (competent and proven) third party were to make the B-52, it would inevitably and rightfully be a controversial choice because many users would actually want to engage with it as a strategic bomber and not a CAS bomb truck. Obviously not everyone would want to do those long-haul strategic missions but they are a important part of that aircraft's history and it is safe to assume that many would at least want the POTENTIAL for such a mission to be present before such a aircraft were to get made. Another thing I could see becoming a issue is secrecy. For us as consumers, it is perhaps too easy to gather up a few publicly released military documents/publications and pretend that it is enough to make a module that meets the DCS standard but it really isn't that simple (We have seen the results when third parties try it that way). The problem with the B-52, the B-1, and (especially) the B-2 is that the Government is not going to be as willing to grant a all-access pass for a developer due to the missions these aircraft fly/flew. We are talking about aircraft that get wrapped up in nuclear, stealth (in the case of the B-2), and some pretty delicate strategic stuff. These are going to be a touchy subject and the USAF isn't going to be eager to help, the companies who make them are not going to be eager to help, and SME's are not exactly going to feel as free to be forthcoming. Even if stuff isn't outright top secret, it wouldn't be surprising to see some hesitation to simulate such delicate matters. If we were to push all of the above aside, there is still one major factor that one should consider. Eagle Dynamics seems pretty happy to confine the scope of the sim to smaller aircraft like fighters, strike fighters, and helicopters. This makes sense not just because of map size but also because those kinds of aircraft are going to be more practical for a sim that is largely single player by basic design. Obviously we have some multi-crew aircraft (the F-14 being the best example) but even they are still largely manageable with just one player. From a marketing/sales perspective, ED seems to not want to make stuff that one can only enjoy if they can get a group together to help them crew it. Beyond all that, there are still quite a few aircraft that ED and third parties can do that more naturally fit in DCS as it is right now.

It is generally pretty common for new DCS players to start with a pretty basic, entry level stick as their starting setup and it is (more or less) possible to kinda get by and make do but I would be lying if I said that you wouldn't be pretty limited by the lack of controls and this especially is the case when you get into more sophisticated, HOTAS centric modules. Again. it is possible to get by but it might be good to adjust your expectations accordingly and understand that your lack of inputs will directly effect how well you can do certain things.

What resolution are you running at?

First and foremost, I wouldn't let the manual (or even Chuck's guide) on the A-10C scare you. It might seem like a huge amount of stuff to digest at first glance but it isn't something you need to a.) memorize, or b.) digest in one large gulp. The manual (and Chuck's guide alongside it and not instead of it) is probably one of the best in DCS and is organized in such a way that you can really take it one step at a time and work your way towards proficiency at a manageable, pleasant pace. Remember. You don't need to sit down and read the manual like it is a book. You don't need to memorize it. Real pilots keep checklists for a reason (they are required to in fact). If you take it one step at a time, the learning process will not only go faster than one might be led to believe by some in this community but you will also come out of that process with a level of skill that allows you to do a ton of really fun, really cool stuff with the plane that you might not even learn about otherwise. To put it more directly. If you can really embrace the learning process and work with it as opposed to against it, you will find that it is quite enjoyable and very rewarding. I have known DCS players who spend months or years trying to find shortcuts around a hour or two of simply thumbing through the manual to find a pretty easy to follow checklist. Now, in regards to the whole "skill rather than long-range, guided smart things", I gotta be blunt. The A-10A is not as different as you might think from the A-10C. At its core, the employment of unguided munitions, rockets, and the gun is IDENTICAL for both the A-10A and A-10C. The HUD is still pretty much the same. The CCIP/CCRP modes are still the same. Dropping a Mk-82, firing the gun, or using a rocket will be exactly the same between both aircraft. The tactics and basic employment method will be functionally the same. The big difference between the A-10A and A-10C really comes down to added capability. The precision guided weapons are indeed part of that but you are also looking at better navigation systems, better system/weapon management, and the addition of the targeting pod and helmet mounted systems that really do allow you to just do more and do it more effectively. You can still do all the stuff you can do in the A-10A but you can also do a lot more and do it better. I gotta also be blunt again and point out that "long range guided smart things" involve quite a bit of skill to use. It might not seem like it at first glance but when you actually challenge yourself to use them properly and realistically, there are skill based elements that can be quite satisfying. Overall. I sense that you have this impression that the A-10C is like some super-modern redo of the A-10A but it really isn't exactly that. The plane doesn't have any fly by wire and none of the original CCIP/CCRP capability has been removed or changed (at least significantly enough to matter for your purposes). You can still use the A-10C EXACTLY like you would use the A-10A. The big difference is obviously that the A-10A has low systems fidelity and thus will not really give you the options that even the real aircraft would have. The A-10C doesn't have those limitations. It is more to learn but that learning process can be really fun and really satisfying if you embrace it and don't fight against it arbitrarily. I would even go as far as to argue that the A-10C takes more raw skill than the A-10A because it gives you the tools to really apply that skill (and I am not talking about the precision munitions or the targeting pod here, I am talking about basic stuff).

Considering that the LOD's being what they currently are probably allows the SC to actually be playable for those with mid-tier systems and below, I think this is a pretty acceptable compromise. Heck, the SC could still use some pretty aggressive optimization even now.

As a sort of legend in aircraft enthusiast community circles, the Arrow's popularity makes it a inevitable request for DCS wishlists. Heck, I would love it if we lived in a timeline where enough data could be gathered to make a worthwhile Arrow sim. Sadly. We don't live in that timeline. There simply isn't enough left of the Arrow as a overall project to make a convincing, worthwhile DCS module that would match the standards set by existing modules already. There are so many aspects to DCS module development that are simply impossible because there are no examples of the aircraft, not enough SME's who can meaningfully chime in, and not enough operational data to even begin. It sucks. I really love the Arrow but it isn't something we will see in DCS for a lot of reasons.

I voted "Yes" not because I personally have a lot of love for the F-15C (I really don't) but instead because it would fill a very important role in DCS's current aircraft list. Right now, we have 2000's era F-16, F/A-18, Harrier, and A-10C. When you look at that list, there is one very important role that isn't really represented and that is a modern, true, dedicated air superiority fighter. If DCS were ever to opt to do a modern F-15C version, it would slot in quite naturally with what we already have and fill a capability hole that isn't really being filled right now. Now, before everyone jumps on me. I am aware that one could argue that the F-14 module kinda fills a similar role and in some ways, that is correct. That said, there is potential for a 2000's era F-15C while there really doesn't seem to be potential for a F-14D or something to that effect. Again. I am not saying ED or a third party needs to stop everything and do this but I can see how it would fit very well with what we already have even if it isn't exactly my first choice as a purchase (personally speaking).

I feel like we are approaching this from two very different angles. I don't argue your points. Everything you have said thus far is true in the sense that in the past thirty-five years or so, the B-52's role has evolved considerably and has grown to encompass far, far more than just that thirty hour strategic bombing flight. Nobody is denying this. Nobody is denying this at all. The reason I am using that F-14 question over and over is because it highlights the very evolution of roles that you are talking about. In the last chunk of the F-14's service life in the Navy, it was pretty much only a ground attack aircraft because that is what the situation demanded and strapping a pod and some LGB's to it made sense at the time. That said, I strongly suspect you wouldn't debate that putting a F-14 in a sim that has no capacity for air to air (and thus only allowing the user to experience a very specific slice of that aircraft's overall history and mission experience) would probably not be as good an idea as putting in something like the F-15E or the F-111 where its main roles can be explored. As of right now, DCS has absolutely zero capacity for any strategic scale operations. It doesn't even really have the scale necessary for flights from Diego Garcia/Saudi Arabia to Iraq. Obviously not every DCS player is going to care about that and will happily fly twenty minute missions where each leg of the journey is incredibly short but the nice thing about DCS's current focus on fighters and lighter strike aircraft is that the map size allows for (even if only as a option for interested players) the potential for a fairly realistic mission. It is possible for me to station a carrier off (the general area) of Muscat and fly reasonably authentic missions in the Hornet and Tomcat where fuel management and some degree of player endurance is a thing. Likewise, it is very easy to make authentically scaled missions for stuff like the A-10 and Harrier pretty easily. This (again) doesn't mean everyone will care and it doesn't preclude the option to make much, much shorter missions for those interested in that kind of thing but it is so very nice that the option to even roughly explore a more authentically constructed mission exists. With the B-52, it is absolutely factual to say that its modern role isn't really focused on long-distance strategic bombing but that is still a important part of that aircraft's design, history, and place in the grand scheme of military aviation pop-culture. To have a in-depth, carefully simulated version of that aircraft not allow for that strategic scale mission would be sad. It would feel like I am only getting half the story and as someone who cares a great deal about DCS as a way to explore (at least to some degree) the procedures and challenges of a given aircraft's entire variety of mission roles, it would be a shame to get a module that limits that exploration because DCS has no real capacity for strategic scale playable aircraft. So, to put this more directly. It is absolutely, factually true that you could do a somewhat downscaled version of a modern B-52 mission in DCS as things are right now. This is not something I am debating. What I am saying is that for me personally, it would be a shame for ED or a third party to move towards aircraft that can't be fully explored due to map/engine/technology limitations (for stuff like stealth, EW, strategic airlift, strategic bombing, etc) when there are still so many iconic, famous aircraft to be simulated that would not be so limited by map/technology/secrecy limitations. It is why I would rather a C-130 in DCS rather than a C-5. It is why I would rather a F-15E rather than a B-2. I would want aircraft that can be taken from the beginning to the end of their general, main focus capabilities without hitting hard DCS imposed limits. Obviously the best possible outcome would be bigger or interconnected maps that would allow for larger scale missions and thus (potentially) more strategically scaled aircraft. To me, that seems like something people should be clamoring for more aggressively since that would lay down the foundations necessary for a lot of new mission types and new aircraft. Once the map issue is out of the way, there really isn't a valid argument against larger scale strategic assets (even if they are not currently used as strategic assets). If that time ever comes, I will gladly, whole-heartedly join in the chorus for a B-52. I would love to really dig into that aircraft, its FULL mission history, and all the tension, endurance, and drama involved in long distance strategic style missions alongside shorter distance orbits with JDAM's and other PGM's in more modern conflicts. Above all else, I want you to understand that I am not attacking the platform you worked on. I am not saying that the work your B-52's did demonstrated less capability. I am just not really going to agree that you can explore the B-52 as a aircraft without also having the ability to explore its most fundamental roots as a strategic bombing platform. It is a long-lived platform with a lot of history that deserves and should be reflected in a simulation. To put it another way. If maps were even smaller than they are now, I would not fight you if you were to say the C-130 wouldn't fit and shouldn't become a major project even though I worked on them and have a great deal of love for that aircraft as a result. I wouldn't want the 130 in a sim that can't support what it does in a way that really lets the player explore its missions across its lifetime.

I am not sure where you are getting this notion that I am saying that you didn't use your B-52 to full capability in the Middle East. My whole discussion point was never, ever about the measure of capability used in a specific role. Let me put it as concisely as I can. While it might be "narrowminded" of me, I personally think there is value in only picking aircraft to put into DCS that can be at least mostly explored across ALL their potential roles. This isn't always about capability, it is about legacy. It is the reason I keep asking that very specific Tomcat question that I will yet again ask because I have yet to receive an answer. In a hypothetical combat sim that only models ground attack/strike and has no capacity for air to air (be it a lack of AI airplanes or whatever), would you want a Tomcat module knowing that you can't even explore its original primary task? You could still use it as a strike/ground attack platform as it was used later in its life but you would have the radar and air to air weapons with no real reason or way to use them. Would you rather that Tomcat or would you want something like the A-6 or the F-111F where you could use pretty much all its capability and at least mostly explore its functionality? The reason I am even in this discussion on the "side" that I am is because I would want a B-52 module to allow me to really explore the ENTIRE LEGACY of the aircraft's role and not just a very specific part of it as determined by map size. Right now, the aircraft we have in DCS generally (but not 100% entirely) allow for that to at least some measure. The moment you start putting strategic scale aircraft and even specialized aircraft (that DCS lacks map size or specific simulation elements for) like the F-117, SR-71, EA-6, EF-111, and the like into DCS is the moment you don't really get to do that. It is kinda along the same lines as to why I don't really get why there is such a demand for modern military aircraft in civilian flight sims like FS2020, FSX, or X-Plane. You are only getting a specific portion of the aircraft at that point and you don't really get to fully explore its various roles and legacy as a result. Again. I wouldn't tell ED to cancel any efforts to bring such a heavy into DCS just because I have my own personal reservations. I just don't have that much of a emotional stake in the topic.

First off, let me say (again) that I am not outright against the idea of putting a B-52 in DCS. I don't particularly feel a strong drive to buy it if one were to come out but I fully, wholeheartedly understand that such is my personal choice and my personal opinion and may not have any bearing on anyone else. I reemphasize this because it seems that you think I am attacking the idea, I am not. With that out of the way. Again, I fully understand and have already acknowledged that if we ONLY look at the roles the B-52 has been put in during our conflicts in the Middle East, it would fit okay. In that very specific context, the Persian Gulf map would be (just) big enough. This isn't something I am debating and never, ever have. What I am debating is that if you are going to put a aircraft in DCS, it would probably be good to put one in that can be FULLY explored in terms of its potential major roles. In the case of the B-52, that would mean not only having the ability to do modern Middle Eastern conflict style COIN but also full-on strategic bombing. As stated already, it is absolutely true that it does more than strategic bombing (again, at no point did I ever debate this) but it was designed as a strategic bomber and that is a major part of why it is the way it is. To not be able to explore that crucial part of the aircraft's basic, underlying identity would be unfortunate and would make the module feel someone incomplete compared to the smaller fighters and strike aircraft that we can fully explore with the maps we have (at least in terms of size). Granted, you will end up with the odd role that can't be filled (like nuclear weapon employment) but that is often a sort of "bolt on" role when talking about stuff like the F-16, F/A-18C, and the like. Again. to reiterate. It isn't that the B-52 can't do anything on small maps. I am not arguing or saying that in the slightest. It is just that you lose a pretty big part of what the B-52's legacy entails when you put it on a small map. Going back to the F-14 example I used before. Would you want to have a F-14 in a sim that has no capacity for air to air? I think this is a important question because having a F-14 in a sim that has no capacity for air to air isn't really all that different from having a B-52 in a sim that has no capacity for strategic bombing. You can still do strike missions in the Tomcat and thus capture what it was used for from the 90's onward but you would be missing a massive chunk of its capability and a massive chunk of what made it what it is in not just a technical sense but also a historical one. Perhaps what I am really saying here is that I would rather ED and third parties continue (because they have been doing this thus far and I seriously doubt they will switch course any time soon) to create modules that at least mostly fit into the map sizes we are working with. Instead of putting a B-2 in the sim, it makes more sense to put in a F-111. Instead of putting a B-52 in the sim, it makes more sense to put in a A-6. Those are aircraft that one can really dig into with the resources DCS provides without having to leave out huge parts of their legacy/functionality. One more thing I want to make clear. I would absolutely love a B-52 simulator (be it in DCS when we get larger maps or its own dedicated sim) that would allow us to do in-depth, multi-crew missions that go from cold war era strategic bomber tasks to modern COIN based conflict stuff. I would love to experience the particular kind of drama and tension you can get from a experience like that. Hopefully we get to a point in DCS where that would be practical but until that time, I think it makes more sense to put aircraft in DCS that can fit fully and without having to leave a pretty big chunk of their legacy on the table. Hopefully this makes sense and clears up where I am coming from on this. I don't dislike the idea of the B-52 in DCS and I wouldn't say no to it in a general sense but I can't honestly say I think it would make a whole lot of sense to simulate a aircraft that can't be fully explored (in terms of the entire breadth of its roles) on the maps we have now. Especially when there are still so many iconic, popular aircraft that can be fully simulated (in terms of roles) even with our current maps.

The nuke switch on the Hornet probably isn't a great example since that was never really a major role for the aircraft by design. If I were you, I would have went for the LABS system we have in the Sabre that we can't really use since we don't have tactical, low-yield nuclear bombs that make such a carefully modeled system actually useful. I would even go as far as to say that is kinda a sticking point for me when it comes to that module, there is a fully modeled LABS system that we can't really use effectively because we don't have the weapon it was designed for. Getting back on the B-52 (and similar strategic scale bombers). Regardless of how it is used in the very specific context of modern COIN conflict, it still is (at its core) a long-range bomber and you can't really delve very far into that aircraft's design, history, and usage without getting into its long-range strategic bomber role. It may not be needed for such now but everything about its design is rooted in its original purpose. In order to really explore that plane to its fullest, you need to be able to explore its strategic bomber mission type and all that entails (at least onboard the aircraft). Think of it like this. Imagine if DCS were only a air to ground focused sim with no air to air combat capability. In this hypothetical scenario, Heatblur comes in and releases a F-14B. Would that be a satisfying experience? Would you be able to fully explore the aircraft if there is nothing to defend the fleet against? Sure, it would accurately reflect how the aircraft was used later in its life (largely as a strike aircraft) but we both know that is only a part of the overall experience and that was not what that aircraft was originally designed to do. I feel that a B-52 module without the means for ANY strategic bomber missions is the same thing. You can still do a very, very specific type of mission the aircraft does but you can't really explore the aircraft without hitting those map limits REALLY, REALLY hard.

I already addressed this. There are very, very specific contexts where you can use heavier, strategic scale aircraft on DCS's small maps but there is a lot left on the table in terms of mission types and capability and that is only if such specific context exists in the first place (which it won't for many planes). Let's use the B-52 as a example. It is absolutely true that you can do modern war on terror style counterinsurgency missions where you kinda orbit over a area dropping JDAM's but you are missing pretty much the entire mission role that aircraft was designed around (strategic, long distance strike). As such, a lot of its core functionality would either go entirely unused or underused. To make it clear. If ED or a third party were to add it, cool. I just can't say that I would want to buy a module that I can't really explore to its fullest due to map size limitations. To be honest, I suspect ED and third parties would largely feel the same since there are PLENTY of aircraft still to be made that do fit in the maps we have ENTIRELY.

You keep doing the whole "stop being poor!" thing but that is entirely, utterly missing the point. The issue here is not new. It isn't something that suddenly has popped into being now that the system requirements have changed (yet again). This has been a ongoing issue for a long time now and to make it clear (yet again), it isn't about not wanting to buy hardware or not wanting to upgrade, it is about ED's approach towards solving some pretty straightforward optimization issues and the costs it puts on us as the players when they don't deal with those issues and instead just demand inefficient, brute force hardware approaches. We all want DCS to move forward but at the same time, we also want ED to take a serious look at how they handle some visual elements because if things keep going as they are going right now, only the most high-end systems will be able to comfortably play DCS at reasonable settings and that isn't really a great deal for any player (even the ones who can afford such systems). We are not upset because we have to upgrade, we are worried because ED doesn't seem to respond to concerns about overly large texture sizes (or at least a lack of options in regards to choosing smaller textures) and that has put us in a position where certain parts of DCS run according to the requirements and certain parts simply don't. DCS performance SHOULD be at least relatively consistent across all modules, maps, and the like. This hasn't been the case for a good while and it only is getting worse as newer stuff comes out. You may be happy with your performance and we are all very happy that you are happy but it looks like you are intentionally trying to derail a conversation that needs to be had. It doesn't matter if you don't care, we do.

Texture resolution is really something that needs to be taken more seriously. Obviously there are going to be players that have rather high-end hardware and 8k displays that will want a option for 8k stuff (which could be offered as a separate download perhaps?) but as a whole, reducing texture resolution would make for some pretty quick wins in the optimization department and would not really impact visual quality in any major, wide-ranging way.

Yeah, we have already acknowledged that we understand the nature of the industry. Hardware gets better and long-lived titles like DCS have to follow suit. What we are asking for is a practical outline of what we can expect now that the minimum requirements have taken a very, very significant jump. It is a valid question and especially valid considering the way the hardware market is. I am not engaging in this thread because I want them to slow down for my sake, I am engaging in this thread because jumping that many GPU generations in the "minimum requirements for low settings" is a big deal. It may not be a big deal for those already running very high end systems. It may not be a big deal for those that can afford the $1000+ for a decent GPU for DCS but it is a big deal none the less.

I do indeed understand that computer hardware moves forward but right now, I guess I am concerned that we will see a case where many with 10 series cards (or the equivalent, or less) are suddenly going to go from being able to run DCS with a certain measure of compromise between graphics and performance one day and then get pretty much locked out the next. I mean, the jump from a GTX 760 to a GTX 1070 as the minimum for low settings is a bit alarming and even something as simple as a straightforward, relatively basic outline of what users using such cards can expect when 2.7 arrives will perhaps at least help us put this into some kind of perspective. Don't get me wrong. I am not exactly getting ready to light up any torches or start a pitchfork distribution stand but I do think that such a jump does warrant some kind of realistic, practical, perhaps overly conservative outline of what the minimum, recommended, and VR users can expect if they fall into one of such categories. If only so we can start the process of selling internal organs to afford a new GPU or something to that effect.

That is totally understandable. I guess if I have one specific question, it is if this is something that will really hit us when 2.7 comes out and if so, how severe of a impact can we expect in practical, normal use terms (where running everything on low isn't really a viable option).

This may be dismissed as a "empty argument" but I do think it is important for aircraft in DCS to be fully explorable by players not just in terms of systems and procedures but also in terms of their role. Right now, the modules we have fit pretty well in the existing DCS framework (with some exceptions that I will get into shortly) and as such, it isn't all that difficult to read about a F-14 or JF-17 (just as examples) mission in real life and at least mostly model that in the sim. When you get into larger strategic scale aircraft, things get a little more difficult. It is true that some strategic scale aircraft do short trips to the mission area (depending on the situation) but in order to fully explore what those aircraft do, you would need conditions that can't be simulated in DCS because of map sizes. I know that is a controversial point to bring up but it is important none the less. Let's put this another way. Let's say you just watched Memphis Belle or Tuskegee Airman (the HBO movie, not the awful Red Tails one). Since these films focus on the bombing campaign over Germany, you get the urge to do that in DCS. Sadly, you find that while you can do bits and pieces of that mission in DCS (in terms of distances involved), you can't really model the entire mission and all the drama, tension, and immersion that would come from it. You can do a air start mission where you only cover a short bit of the trip and shoot down some 109's/190's but you are missing huge chunks of what such a mission requires (fuel management, general pilot endurance, etc). This is kinda my issue with adding strategic scale aircraft into DCS. You can make them work in VERY specific contexts but you can't really explore the breadth of their role like you can a tactical scale aircraft. I wouldn't say that there shouldn't be such aircraft in DCS in general terms but I also wouldn't feel terribly compelled to buy a module that can't be fully explored in terms of mission flow (if at all in some cases).

Just noticed that Eagle Dynamics has updated the system requirements on DCS's Steam store page. I can't find a topic about it here so I figured that it would probably be a good idea to let folks know if only to avoid confusion. Hopefully this isn't as severe a requirement hike as it looks. Here are the updated requirements as they appear on the Steam store page. MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS (LOW graphics preset settings): OS 64-bit Windows 8/10; DirectX11; CPU: Core i5+ at 3+ GHz or AMD FX / Ryzen; RAM: 16 GB (32 GB for heavy missions); Free hard disk space: 120 GB on Solid State Drive (SSD); Discrete video card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 / AMD Radeon RX VEGA 56 with 8GB VRAM or better; Joystick; requires internet activation. RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS(HIGH graphics preset settings): OS 64-bit Windows 8/10; DirectX11; CPU: Core i5+ at 4+ GHz or AMD FX / Ryzen; RAM: 16 GB (32 GB for heavy missions); Free hard disk space: 120 GB on Solid State Drive (SSD); Discrete video card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 / AMD Radeon RX VEGA 64 or better; Joystick; requires internet activation. RECOMMENDED VR SYSTEMS REQUIREMENTS (VR graphics settings): OS 64-bit Windows 8/10; DirectX11; CPU: Core i7-9700 / AMD Ryzen 3700X or better; RAM: 32 GB; Free hard disk space: 120 GB on Solid State Drive (SSD); Discrete video card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 2080 Ti / AMD Radeon RX 5700 or better; Joystick; requires internet activation.

Having put a lot of time in the Tomcat (both pilot and RIO seat), the Hornet, and the JF-17, I am not really sure that understanding radar operation in a modern, single seat module will really help you understand how the radar is used in the Tomcat and how the responsibility of its usage is split between the pilot and RIO. There is a lot of stuff involved in that process that you simply will not learn from other modules at all.

Is it possible to pick a seat and stick to that seat only? Yes. It is totally possible to do so. That being said. It has also been my experience that those who only learn one seat are very, very easy to spot when flying missions since they tend to get confused about how certain systems work (especially the relationship between the pilot and RIO in regards to basic radar operation).

I am not coming from a place of negativity, I am just keeping in mind that we don't really know anything about how well this developer will do with DCS. We have some very nice art assets but not a ton beyond that. It would be intellectually irresponsible to allow oneself to get too hyped at this stage. One more thing to kinda keep in mind. Pilots may have a ton of good, useful insight into how a given plane works and feels like but that knowledge and experience doesn't automatically mean that they will arbitrarily be able to make a well developed DCS module. There are other skill sets and considerations involved. I want this module to be good and I deeply hope that it is (since I like the plane) but they are still a unknown quantity when it comes to developing for DCS and until we have their first module installed and usable, we shouldn't be so eager to start making wishlists that they are a "natural fit" for. We simply have no way to know what they are a natural fit for until we know what they can do.