DracoLlasa

my thought was that it was always to be voluntary, but regardless, i have conceded to it not being an acceptable idea

@Rudel_chw maybe you could share a screenshot of what your log looks like, or share an emptied copy/template. At least that way we can help Rhinozherous get closer to what he is looking for

its a good start, if there is something you want to add, and you're not sure how just post in here and will see if we can figure it out for ya

sure, if you try with Google Docs/Google Sheets, which is also free, you can post the link to the sheet. With access, others could help with edits and making it better. Then you and anyone else would be able to save a copy of the template to use. i am willing to bet others have already created something, but honestly learning how to do some work in spreadsheets (excel, openoffice Calc, or Google Sheets) is all around a good learning experience. A spreadsheet can be an amazingly powerful tool the more you learn how to work with it you can reply to this thread or PM me if you want some more direct help, i would be happy to help you learn.

yea i concede. maybe in perfect world there would be something.. it was just a thought i had when reviewing some threads... and thought, man it would have been nice to know 30 minutes ago that the posts i was reading from 1 or 2 specific people were from people with real experience. my thought with the verification was not to have ED hold, maintain or keep any data. I was just thinking if there could be some semi-straightforward way a forum moderator could do a validation without compromising security or privacy for a person that wanted to willingly participate. Anyway, as i said i will concede. It sounded good in my head initially, thanks for all the feedback

Yes it's very much possible To keep it simple for you the template could fairly easily be created with everything you said and you would enter your info after each flight. The Excel file can automatic add up the number you put in and stuff for you. If you have Excel you should be able to start it with little experience, if you don't, you can do the same with Google Sheets which is free Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

your comments are all valid, and i do understand that there could be issues with it, just like anything. on point of getting 'verified', the intent was that the member would be able to privately provide some sort of basic info that would be enough to meet the requirements. so someone who is in training for an F-16 wouldn't be eligible until they meet the requirements (x number of hours, or years, or whatever). Again this would also apply to appropriate ground crew, someone who has enough time working on the bird to meet the requirements (whatever they might be) anyone that has been around the forums a long time would not really need this because they would generally know the people already, but that is only a very small % of the user base. So as an example: If someone posts a question in the F-86 forum, and gets three replies, one of which is from a member that has been verified as ground or pilot for that aircraft would be noticable. The same verified person posting a reply in the Fw-190 sub forum would not be identified as anyone authoritative so would hopefully prevent a false sense of authority in the reply. again, how they are identified.. badge, icon, post block or text color highlighting, etc, there are many options would be kept to the applicable forum. Its not perfect, i know. I just thought about it while reading some threads. In one thread i found out that a person was an experienced pilot, and as a result i went back to some previous threads with posts from him and it was helpful to know that his response was based on RL experience which in this case was valuable (it may not always be, but still)

If its already been discussed then my apologies, i did some looking and didn't see anything like it Verified Pilot Badge RL pilots get a badge or similar to identify them (if they want) to other forum members as having the RL experience to allow their posts to be taken in better context the discussion. Who gets them With a basic Moderated handled verification process, any pilot who has experience with any aircraft for which there is a proper DCS Module or one to be released in the near future can elect to submit their info. Why Now As we are getting a number of modern hi fidelity modules and more on the way soon™ for which there are a number of community member that have flight experience on (hornet, tomcat, viper, etc). It seems to me that it would be a good time to see if we can try and allow their comments to stick out where appropriate. What would users see As a regular member, we would see either a badge or similar icon with their posts that shows them as 'Verified', and/or they could be in a slightly different color or shade to the font or the post box. The effects could vary, such as badges that always show on all of their posts, but a verified hornet drivers posts would only be different color/shades in the hornet sub forum. I had done vBulletin admin years, i think there's a few ways to do this. Also i'm not saying all of these things should be done, or only these.. vBulletin (and vB Mods) really allow for a lot of different option. What about non-pilots with RL experience? I would really like to see something similar for ground crew members, but in order to keep it under control, it should be limited. We don't want someone getting a special badge identifying them as F-14 GC cause for a one week 15 years ago they helped changed the tires on 6 birds.. or something like that. If this idea is taken up, then i would leave it to the ED team to how best to provide verification to those from the ground crew, who many times have just as much or more info on the actual systems and certain procedures. I think this would help regular members better judge the replies from those that may have more real knowledge, and it would serve a second purposes of allowing those that want to participate a way of proudly showing off their service and expertise We can discuss further if others think this is a good idea.. or not. **Note - i didn't post this in the wish list thread cause i thought it was a bit larger than a wish list item, and might benefit from some discussion. **

i think its back to the "to each their own" i know some people DO want to do walk around and take an hour to prepare for a flight. I am not sure how common it is with combat sims like DCS, but i know with GA or Airliners in XP or P3D its pretty popular, developers have added features to facilitate this desire. the point is, it's not that one has to do 'all or nothing' to be 'realistic'. these sim platforms will offer a lot of features and we can each do the parts that we enjoy the most. we don't have to worry about what one "should be doing".

very well put, i agree.. i think one of the points of MAC will be to give some easier/simplified options to users that want them.. its then up to the user/player to decide how best to use them I can see many that will thoroughly enjoy spending weeks learning the details of a full DCS module, but also loading up MAC for some good 'quick fun'. It's all up to us to do what we enjoy the most with what is available. we have to remember (and respect), 'to each their own' :)

He said he didn't mean to give insult so please don't take it where it wasn't meant. I had originally stated that MAC would have more of an arcade style gaming mode so i apologize for any insult, non was meant. I has said that because in the article it was stated that MAC would have something like the current FC3 level but then options to increase the simplification so it could be enjoyed by someone with just a KB and mouse like WoWP (im SURE it won't be the same, im just saying it would move closer towards something like that). Additional regardless of wikipedia, im sure you know many here use the term 'arcadish' in this community to refer to highly simplified games, sims, or modes so while you might be right understand there is a context to the conversation in this thread and such... no one is trying to imply personal insult. Lets see if we can move the discussion back to the products, good or bad.

yea i think the dedicated server will be a big part of this as well. it's important for DCS:W, but will be critical for the success of MAC to have a stable and reliable multiplayer environment, especially as it will start to compete (at least in part) with products like WoWP, IL-2, War Thunder, etc. That audience will quickly dump a "game" that does not give a reliable online/MP gaming experience. I hope they are very successful with it though.

Oh right... and that's the same update in which ED will be releasing the F-16 as well right? :thumbup:

well honestly, based on the rest of the article it may actually make sense, however it has to be done right, or else you are correct it could lead to a number of issues. i think the goal is to make DCS world contain all full fidelity study level modules with the expected high degree of accuracy in systems and the flight model. Then MAC will be a separate product using the same engine and many of the same assets. As i mentioned, it was noted in the article that there may be additional products as well. So if that is the case you have to figure there is a plan for a number of them and how they will fit in with their business model. It could be a good thing if done well or it could get mess if its not managed well and things are left to hang all over.. something we already see in places today. If MAC can draw in a larger audience and serve to really expand the customer base then it may allow ED the financial ability to do more.. but i think i am far enough into the land of speculation and talking about things i dont know enough about. We will have to wait and see how ED does it. I hope it works and brings in a lot of users for MAC and gives DCS:W more exposure and more customers as well. It will could be good for business :-)

the way it was described, this "Simulation Operating System" (SOS) will use a comment set of assets for both products (DCS:W and MAC), but again i suggest reading the article.

I think it's great news, and the right thing to do especially if there are things that are delaying the ATFLIR. It will be up to us to maintain the level of realism we want. Just because a jet is 'designed' so that it can be smashed into the deck doesn't mean, in the real world, you would want to force that wear on hardware or wetware (people)... but this is OUR sim and if one wants to flare, they can flare.. and if one wants to smash, they can smash.. we don't have to pay for maintenance or feel the results.. so except for technical details, let's leave that discussion to just "to each their own (sim)" Back to the pod, i hope the work on the IR rendering continues with a decent priority. I am not sure how portable the code will be, but there are a lot of aircraft that would benefit from improved IR camera views, something that has been a topic of discussion for many years.

First, i think if you are interested, get a digital (or print) copy of the issue, the digital copy is $4. For those that just are not able to, here is a summary: * There was a decent amount of discussion around the targeted audience and the reasons why, such as those that want a jump in and fly game that can be done without a lot of costly hardware (and hopefully as a gateway drug to DCS:W *my 2-cents*). * It will be a separate product and not part of DCS World, but existing FC3 owners will get a good discount offer. * We already have the lists of the aircraft and maps and know about them. * There is a bit of discussion about the online support and having the dedicated server with a target of supporting 60 players, i am not sure if that number has been shared on the forums or not. These topics and some others like training and combat missions types are talked about, and while there are some 'generally new things' talked about, i don't think any would be new to those that follow existing DCS news closely. The only thing that 'might' be new is that Matt talked about a common "SOS" or Simulation Operating System that will be the basis for DCS World, MAC, and "future products" as well but no other details. That said, i would say to take a look at the magazine in general or at least this issue (#119). You can get the digital issue for $4 and read the full article, or subscribe and support the publication which personally i think is important for a niche genre like ours. It's a lot of work to put together something like this on a regular basis. Those that are able to, should try and support it if they feel the content is worth it. Mods: Delete, edit, correct as appropriate

Very well put, and i agree. Additional i want to also say thank you to ED, all the third parties, and to the community members that put in so much work to make DCS such an amazing sim and that make the community so great... Demanding and with very high standards.. but great [emoji6] Goodbye 2018, I look forward to whats in store for 2019. Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

I apologize if i get the terms wrong im not fully up to speed on A/A radar terms and such. I recall in a previous A/A Radar video that if you had the radar set to a small scan area or a very large area where a contact will fade before the next pass, you could put the TDC in the spot after the contact faded away and push TDC to get a STT (i think that's the term) as it would focus the beam on the TDC point. That said, with the ability to now mark the A/A radar with the bullseye, and to get 'picture' from AWACS, would it be possible to put the TDC in the correct location to lock a target with little or no exposure of your active radar before the lock? So to go from from passive or standby (or whatever) directly to STT lock, or to go from a very focused downlooking beam that may not light up a targets RWR directly to a STT lock?

Same here, THANK you for posting/sharing i didnt know about it.. good info

Awesome, thanks for confirming

Are the training missions Wags has been showing on YouTube available somewhere or are they just training missions to be released in a future update? If its a future release that's ok, i just wanted to make sure i dint miss them be available somewhere.

I have been following the project for a couple years now and its amazing to see it finally available. I hope to check it out soon but wanted to say my congratulations to the whole team for all their hard work on this project and to openly contribute it as a community mod. Reminds me again why i have always liked the DCS Community so much. I hope to see many adopt it and hope to see the development on it continue until it gets to a point where you guys are totally happy with it (within the confines of what you can do without the SDK). Thanks guys you guys are all awesome..

No worries, was just curious.. I did a weekly podcast for 3 years, I know how much work it can be.. will check it out when its released. Thanks for the update. Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

should we expect episode 3 today? based on the first 2, it looked like you were gonna to every other Tuesday.. i haven't read the whole thread so if its mentioned sorry.. just curious about Ep3