outlawal2

22 pages of this... The level of WHINE-age is epic.. <SMH>

My setup looks like that overhead view of NEO in Matrix.. LOL

Any questions on how much interest there is in turning DCS into Xplane? Again no

Umm NO

Not sure where you have been Sith but you might want to read the entire thread as this is not the only civilian title announced.. As soon as this thing was announced, PolyChop announced their foray into the civilian world with the Civ Gazelle and they have already stated they are looking at further civilian modules as well as possibly walking away and creating module for some other sim..

Yes a MUCH smaller part of it... If it continues at all.. Time will tell..

Yep and for those of you that are saying "don't like it don't buy it" I agree... And for those that are saying it won't affect anything if civilian planes are allowed, let's talk again in a year when the 3rd party devs have flooded us with aerial versions of Chevy Chevettes and there are no complex combat planes even being planned moving forward... Remember WAGS already said they are making tons of cash on the WW2 planes due to ease of programming and much quicker time to get them out the door so all of the devs are going to jump on this money train.. Welcome to the new Xplane... Enjoy EDIT: And I just saw this little tidbit on PolyChops Facebook page... "Therefore, we want to branch into the interesting realm of civilian aviation and hopefully see some of our loyal customers on other platforms. We just haven’t decided which yet and want to make a smart choice. Our team is so small that any time we devote into a project is going to be about quality, not quantity and the choice of a non-military simulator must provide the company with the resources to continue improving with technology." Not to mention the already taslked about civilian version of the Gazelle.. So now PolyChop wants to do the civilian aircraft thing as well.. I am betting they are pressuring ED to let them provide civilian aircraft in DCS and jump on the money train as well. And even if they don't provide DCS civilian aircraft, they will be spending considerable time with it regardless so for DCS combat oriented aircraft, there will be a substantial impact. So everyone might want to re evaluate the statement that "civilian aircraft in DCS does not affect those of us that continue to want combat oriented aircraft" Civilian aircraft development ALREADY has affected DCS and will only get worse moving forward..

Thanks guys I will give it a shot again as this should help immensely..

OK for the life of me I can't find any indicator on the HUD for the nozzle angle.. I adjust the nozzles up and down and noth9ing on my HUD correlates to what I am doing.. Where exactly is this indicator? (Clearly I am blind!) LOL

And now nearly 20 pages of this.. Good LORD give it a friggin REST.. FFS..

Yep went with Ryzen myself and am very happy with it.. Anything I can do to create more competition thereby bringing better equipment out at better prices sounds good to me..

I was not aware of that price difference so thank you for that.. That seems reasonable and was about where I thought the price should be considering the differences in complexity and effort required... I still have the same concerns about turning DCS into Xplane but we shall see how this plane is received..

Well unfortunately this is only going to continue to get worse since ED sent their latest letter stating that they made a ton of money with WW2 planes... Simple planes such as WW2 planes and biplanes and civil aircraft have very little in the way of systems and can be churned out like an assembly line.. They can probably release half a dozen of them in the time it takes to release one modern warplane. I have bought every module available as I have been and will continue to be a DCS supporter, but I will not be purchasing thius module as I do not wish to perpetuate the metamorphosis of DCS into the next Xplane or MS Flight Simulator... My opinion of most of these planes is it is a blatant money grab and I won't support that business model.. Now if they want to ease the sting for customers then they need to at least adjust the pricing. Charging the same money for a biplane that is rolled out in a few months vs the F18 and it's complexity is absolutely ludicrous and smacks of a blatant money grab. Simply looks like taking advantage of the very folks that have kept you in business for so many years. Disappointing to say the least...

LOL 10 pages of bitching about the fact that a 67000 lb plane gets stuck when off the runway.. YES IT DOES. Don't run off the runway..

Make sure all drivers are up to date as well..

Release a full flyable version and it would be a day one purchase here.. Regardless, thanks HeatBlur!

And I have no issues with quantity... as long as we have the quality.. I have bought more than one airframe that I was initially not really interested in only to find to my pleasure that I really liked it.. But I am one of the old time "support the genre" kind of guys and I buy nearly everything to support the sim itself because if ED goes away we no longer have the hobby.. Obviously not everyone can take this attitude for monetary or other reasons and I understand that.. Just in my case I intend to support them and if they keep pumping out good quality FUN modules I will MOSTLY continue to buy them... I say mostly simply because I am not really a fan of WW2 modules... (Don't hate me, just how it is) and I have thus far bought the WW2 offerings but not sure if I will buy any others from that era... Which brings us back to a persistent and dynamic campaign mode is VITAL to the continued success of ED...If they could have 3rd party devs create a good workable dynamic campaign generator so that different persistent "wars" could be created offering different ranges of years, I think it would greatly enhance the interest in DCS as well as overcome some of the issues stated above with too many airframes and saturation.. I envision something similar to that OTHER simulation, but designed so that a 3rd party dev could "snap" in different terrains and assets and create usable dynamic campaigns tailored to whatrver range of years and theatre wanted.. The snap ins are already here, the planes, the maps the assets etc.. Just need a separate engine to pull these all together into a coherent world..

But do you feel that difference would be worth upgrading your system for it?

Considering how DCS works and is really only using 1 core for everything (except sound) I believe that 4.5 Ghz from your OLD CPU will provide pretty much the same performance as 4.5 Ghz with a newer one.. Even if a newer CPU had some new features to make it faster ED isn't a huge coding company like EA or something similar so they would not be utilizing whatever new features are available anyway.. (Look how long DCS used DX 9) I have seen where folks have overclocked a Celeron processor and compared with brand new chips, if the Ghz were the same the old dinosaur provided the same stats as the spanking new chips do.. (with single core games being tested) In a nutshell, if you are truly getting 4.5 Ghz with an older CPU I wouldn't look at a newer one if DCS is all you are concerned about... Now if you also do things such as video editing and such now that is a totally different kettle of fish and would require a different conversation...

Personally, I believe that we will see more 3rd party devs arrive on the scene, (And possibly some previous devs show up again) once they merge the code and finally provide one ecosystem for them to code for. Having multiple versions and multiple changes to each of those versions happening all the time would make bug squashing nearly impossible and I know for a fact that I would not want to jump in to that kind of nightmarish mess right from the get go.. My guess is that once we have one version of DCS running somewhat stable, then we are going to see more 3rd party devs join the party, but until then I will bet things stay pretty quiet on that front

Gee great, the biggest thing to hit PC computing in a decade or more and now we get to put up with another Beta / VHS pissing match which means we ALL lose.. Tremendous...

I would rather see the Alligator rather than a Black Shark3.. Just sayin'

True but the trouble with those hard facts is that Ryzen is MUCH cheaper than Intel and closer performance wise than they have been in the past. Emotions aside, if it costs half as much but runs 90% that is a good recommendation in my book.. (But if you want absolute performance at any price then by all means go with Intel, but that advantage only lasts until the next revision comes and then your expensive Intel chip is just another expensive Intel chip) Besides I like the competition and the innovation that competition will bring so my money went to a Ryzen 7 1800X and it has been a champ for me but I also do more with my machine than gaming so the extra cores are of more use to me too) I love the Ryzen and highly recommend it.. (Everything is a compromise one way or other, you just have to decide what is more important to YOU)

Even if that were the case any navy destroyer that gets close enough to another ship that they CAN ram them is an epic fail.. Why the Hell did the destroyer allow them to get that close in the first place? Sounds like a massive screwup here on multiple levels..

DCS is an absolute bargain when it is compared with real flight.. When flying a helicopter in real life costs $425 per flight HOUR, I finally had to give it up and DCS has filled this void nicely... For the cost of a few hours of real flight time I can build a kick ass machine and buy every module DCS offers...