mjeh

I agree. This could be a very simple operation by default, but since it is not included it is a quite complicated operation in hintersicht

if you have a HOTAS, bind it to axis. then you can lower saturation rate and have it on acceptable rates. By default, it is wildly oversensitive

Yes, from a programming perspective it should be no harder to implement than the blackouts from g-loc (point being it's already there). To have a different sprite for different atmospheric conditions should also be relatively trivial. Unless there is some arcane working unique to the dcs engine, unbeknownst to us. Then again, it could just be that they're putting it off until EDGE, which supposedly will improve graphical effects as well as terrain (unless I misinterpreted Wags' interview)

always a good idea :) that said, I think for the most part knowledge from FC2 should transfer well to FC3

I agree, I recommend watching youtube tutorials instead

Erhm? The question is whether or not it is possible to implement a multiple seat cockpit aircraft for multiple players in the DCS environment. How many cores the engine runs on, how efficiently the engine runs, whether it takes advantage of "all of your hardware" etc has nothing to do with this, other than possibly allowing it to run more smoothly. But again, that is another point entirely. On a side note, where do you take your information that EDGE will use more than two processor cores from?

I doubt edge will matter for dual cockpit implementation, as far as I understand edge is a graphical engine mostly impacting terrain and effects. After all, multiple player aircraft would still have to work over the caucasus map, which uses the old TFCSE engine. IMHO it makes more sense to keep the implementation of the aircraft (avionic systems, flight model, cockpit and airframe 3d model) separate from the graphics engine, otherwise all the modules (a-10, p-51, ka-50, fc3, ca, mig-21, ...) would have to be rewritten to work with the new engine

it would seem as if you are in luck

if coded with a bit of foresight, ground radar interaction doesn't need to be different at all - so long as it's scalable. eyecandy (better graphical effects, high res textures etc) doesn't have to mean anything in this respect, I assume the relevant difference would mainly be in terrain mesh resolution and in number of objects with simulated mass (as opposed to the fly-through-see-through trees of the caucasus map, for example)

Just finished listening to Wags' radio interview, he does confirm that there's a 'study sim level' (read: dcs a-10c level fidelity) F-15C coming, as well as a Su-27SM and F-18C (a bit unclear on whether the 'study level' applied for the two latter but I think so), all from ED. He also goes on to confirm that EDGE is a new graphics engine alltogether, allowing them to break free from some of the limitations of the old TFCSE engine, which he refers to as 'a bit dated'. So that's why Nevada is taking a while :D EDGE will allow for larger worlds, better effects and higher resolution terrain mesh (yay mountains) amongst other things, and will include SDK for map makers. So long, Caucasus! There's also repeated mention of naval ops, although nothing specific about how/what/when. FW-190 is confirmed to be on the way, but no mention of who is making it or what model. There is also indication that there will be more WW2 aircraft in the future. All in all most of this information will be known to many, but it is nice to get official confirmation on some key points, as well as clarification on some others.

anyone know where I can listen to that radio interview Wags did? (_without_ registering on that dodgy site)

Oops, I stand corrected :)

The NATO reporting name (SA-3, SA-10 etc) has nothing to do with range AFAIK. Consider that the Igla MANPAD is named SA-7, whereas SA-3 has quite good range. Blue side has a lot more than just the patriot system. (Hawk, linebacker, chaparral, roland, stinger, SPAAAs) The patriot system is not 'one size fits all', it is comparable in role to the S-300 system

In TrackIR settings you can bind the 'pause' function to a key (it's F7 or so by default iirc). This way you can turn TrackIR on/ off without shutting down the entire client - quite useful if you're jumping between aircraft and ground vehicles within the same mission

Aye that's what I meant to say, corrected in op now :) Thanks for the input!

Haven't fiddled around with airborne FAC yet so I can't say, sorry. Quite cool to assign targets to eachother in MP though, but that's another topic all together!

I have Saitek Pro Flight Combat Rudder Pedals and I can confirm this issue occurs with DCS, where after releasing a brake input the brakes will sometimes (quite often, actually) "stick" at a certain input percentage. The video in the OP illustrates the issue perfectly, as this will occur both within the options menu and in the simulator. What I found is this will occur with quick inputs. If you push the wheel brake down quickly, you will likely not get a full deflection, more likely it will stop somewhere between 70-90%. Likewise, if you release it quickly, you will likely not get a full release, usually it will stop between 10 - 40% brakes applied. The issue only ever occurs within DCS for me. It can be somewhat mitigated by giving slow and smooth inputs with the brake pedals, but even then a rather large deadzone is necessary

Like the A-10A? Certainly ED wouldn't make a high fidelity A-10 simulator when it was already there... :smilewink: I don't understand where your pessimism comes from, in the video it was stated by Wags (producer) the FW-190 is the "next DCS Flying Legends aircraft". For now we have one DCS Flying Legends aircraft out, the P-51D, so if that's the standard that the FW is built to then things look rather bright IMO

Actually, listen at 29:00. He specifically calls it a future DCS flying legends aircraft :joystick:

Amen to that, would make the process of making missions so much faster :)

I just tested this with a friend, the client will as expected not get JTAC radio options if he is not present when the mission starts, but JTAC answers him just fine when he is, and assigned targets properly. I included the mission used for testing as attachment JTAC Test MP.miz

the AI su-25's likely won't engage you till you give them air to air missiles, at which point you won't notice they're engaging you till you're going down in flames :)

There :) EDIT: You will need to set the aircraft to ramp start before the option will show up

lol, awesome!

Yes, it seems the way around this bug is to have all clients in their aircraft before host unpauses the server and starts the mission. Sadly this means that all late joiners will not have access to JTAC