Agg

You have to remember that when it comes to ED and release dates you have to add from six months to a year...or two ;)

The ED model sure looks great, to bad its a C-model and not an MLU though ;)

Well yeah, but alot of people on Vatsim tend to have quite an attitude towards people who wants to fly military hardware and not glorified school buses :P

What really bugs me about the Battlefield games is that they could be awesome if people had a more tactical and realistic approach to playing them, but most people just seem to run around like chickens with their heads cut off, shooting teammates to get vehicles and so on. Are there servers for people who want a more realistic experience in Bad Company 2?

How do you guys go about making the canopy? That's the part that's always troubled me when trying to make 3d models of aircraft. Do you simply cut it out with a boolean, or do you make the canopy a separate piece of geometry?

The model looks ok, but I dont really see the point of doing another -27 when we already have a great model in 3GOs -27. A -30 or -33 would be great, but I for one dont see the point in a new -27 model.

Pretty sure the "triangle part" is the elevator :P

She does look quite alot better than the early concept drawings of her :)

Hehe, the Harrier almost looks like its cell shaded :P Great work though, keep it up :)

The Stalker games are great, well apart from all the bugs and glitches that is, but I still feel that they are worth playing even though you'll run into quite a few bugs from time to time. Havent played "Call of Pripyat" yet though, how is that compared to the previous two games?

Isnt there a Harrier in the Strike Fighters series? Not that that series is very realistic though...

Flyable aircraft developed by third party developers for DCS would certainly be welcomed by me, of course I would prefer if ED had a final say as to what was released so we wouldnt get add-ons like the ones Alphasim releases for FS, where you get a decent 3d model, but no simulation of anything at all... As for SoW, FO, and JT, I am certain that SoW will be released sometime in the future, JT might, all though I cant really remember hearing anything about it for quite some time, and FO I think is just vaporware... I mean its in its fifth production year and all they have to show are some 3d renders.

I havent read through the whole thread, but this looks a whole lot like "Il-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey" that was released for the console market earlier this year, any relation there?

Certainly. The first obvious error is the base of the tail section which is way to "thick" and the shape is all wrong compared to the real aircraft. The engine is way to small, and so it looks all wrong, the shape of the antennas on the nose is all wrong, the pylons on the wings are all wrong, both the ones underneath the wing and the ones on the wingtips, its a bit hard to see from the render posted here, but the gears look to be much too long, the speed brakes look too short and too fat, allthough that might just be because the engine is too small, I dont remember what they are called, but the "pins" on the tail, wings and elevators that direct the static electricity away from the aircraft are too long. Do you need more examples?

That is exactly my point, we'll probably not see DCS Warthog until next fall, maybe not even then, and the next module a year or two after that. Its going to take ALOT of time to get DCS up to a decent level with more that two-three flyables if ED is going to do all the work by themselves.

To be honest, I really think that ED should out source some of the work so they could release modules more frequently. Letting third party developers develop new flyables would in my opinion be a great step in the right direction.

Yeah, I agree, I would love to see a Superbug of this quality in a sim like DCS, but I will certainly check it out for FSX as well.

The F-16 looks smooth enough, but it doesnt really look a whole lot like the actual thing to be honest, and so I wont use it... I would rather use the default low poly F-16...

Im not very concerned about poly counts to be honest, if someone can make a model look good with a low poly count then that's fine, but it all comes down to how the final model looks. I dont use the low poly third party models because I dont see the point of replacing low poly models with other low poly models.

How big is the ED team anyway? Im guessing its quite small, but it would be interessting to know how small.

I dont see any problem with this at all, if you dont want space ships in your sim, then dont install the "space ship add on" or whatever. Its not like you have to use every mod that comes out, there are a whole bunch of Lock-On and DCS mods that I dont like, and therefore dont use, but other people may like them, and thats just fine. So even if you dont want space ships in DCS, someone else might, I probably wouldnt install any space ship mods, but I would be happy to try out some user made aircraft.

What I think would increase DCS's playability and popularity quite a bit is if ED released some decent mod-tools, so we, the end users, could add new aircraft, new ground troops, and what not.

I too am a bit bored with BS these days. While there is a lot to love about the sim, like the complexity, and the feel of flight, it just isnt enough to keep me coming back for more in the long run. I take the Shark out for the odd spin every now and then, but I have to admit that I spend alot more time playing Flaming Cliffs than I do playin BS nowadays. I dont think I will spend a whole lot of time in the DCS "universe" until a multirole fighter is released (preferably an F-16). I have been trying to find other simulators to play in the mean time, but I havent really had any luck, Strike Fighters is too much of an arcade game for my taste, and Falcon 4 is simply way too outdated. Ive spent the last couple of months playing FSX with the Aerosoft and Iris F-16s, and while it certainly isnt a combat sim, it will have to do for the moment until we get a DCS module of the F-16.

Seriously? I think it looks very dated, and I agree with Kuky that it probably is a derivative of Falcon 4. The effects look very dated, and the ground is just a flat sattelite image...

This is how ;)