Charly_Owl

"Cleaned up" the F-86 and MiG-15 guides a bit to use a uniform presentation template.

CH-47 Chinook!

Problem solved :)

1) Is it with the MiG-21 only or with other modules? 2) Did you try deleting your whole Input Control folder for the MiG-21, starting DCS and re-mapping everything from scratch? (on top of my head it's located in your C:\Users\WhateverUserNameYouHave\Saved Games\DCS\Config\Input\MiG-21bis ) 3) If you have no idea about what I'm talking about I can hop on TS tonight and help you out

Please post screenies for those of us stuck at work! ;)

That is correct, it happened with my guides and had to transfer them to google drive instead. Problem solved since.

Picture 1: Mirage 2000 cockpit, Picture 2: Mirage IIIC Two completely different beasts There is an image of what a Mirage III mesh could look like http://galgot.free.fr/MirageIIIC-Gallery/miiic/475.jpg

Picture 1: Mirage 2000 cockpit, Picture 2: Mirage IIIC Two completely different beasts

The UH-1 has an ADF system implemented too, but with US-made radio systems. I guess France and America just had different design philosophies.

Mirage III? Wow... you guys have taken THE jet that defined my childhood and sparked my whole interest in aviation. I have a special emotional connection with that plane. That comic book is the very first comic book my dad gave me when I was a kid. I still cherish it to this day. You guys are incredible.

I'm sure I'm speaking for everyone when saying that we really appreciate the effort, Chief. :thumbup:

I think there should be some kind of "counter" somewhere to show how much money has been donated so far.

Donated.

Probablement sur Ste-Cath en train de manger de la poutine. :lol:

There are actually many more of us Quebecois online than you'd expect. :smilewink:

Three words: Wish List Forum http://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=438

War Thunder did a very similar transition. First, only planes were available and then the game was gradually updated to include driveable ground units, mud, deformable terrain, transmission systems, collision models, armor penetration models, tank shell ballistic models... and the tanks are simple enough to drive. The game is still arcadey but the result is still quite impressive on the tank side of things. This update took easily 2 years (if not more) to implement and required a massive overhaul of the game engine. ED is still updating EDGE technology at the moment... and I'm not sure they really have the resources available for yet another engine overhaul. But, once again, I'm just guessing at that point and what I say should be taken with a grain of salt since I am not affiliated with ED nor aware of ED's plans for the future. TLDR: If a bunch of motivated people want to create tanks, by all means go for it! But they have to make sure that their objective is attainable and that they will have the support necessary to accomplish their project within a reasonable schedule. It'd be a shame to see people invest months, if not years of their time in a project that could end up being impossible to materialize for reasons out of their control.

Combined Arms is currently the extent of DCS "tank simulation", which is insufficient for a "DCS-level" tank simulation model. A third party could develop their own module, but ED will have to integrate the module to the main DCS World trunk, which means a) developing tank-specific new features within the codebase b) rework all current maps (Georgia and NTTR) to set up more advanced terrain properties for ground units c) integrating a new ground-based collision and physics model d) updating their SDK to create other tank modules for other potential 3rd parties So yes, resources will be taken "away" in the sense that ED coders can't do everything at once. Work is not only performed from the 3rd Party side, it also performed by the ED for integration.

My personal thoughts on the matter, for what it's worth: DCS is a study sim that appeals to a very specific kind of person: someone who wants to learn. I love to learn about everything: military aircraft, civilian aircraft, tanks, ships, submarines, SAM sites, radar stations, you name it. If DCS could do it all to a high level of realism, I'd gladly pay for it. The community's needs are as varied as each man: following this train of thought, it is clear that our "needs" are infinite. However, the developers' resources are finite. Let's be real. At the moment, the vast majority of people want three things: new maps, new aircraft, and era-specific ground and air AI units to create an immersive combat environment. These three things are what I'm dying for, and they're mostly what generates hundreds of pages of heated debates and discussion on the forums. Of course, I'd love a tank. Who wouldn't? But I see resources being spent doing a tank I might like as resources being taken away from other projects about planes I am sure I would definitely love to fly. If I have a choice between a tank and a plane, or a tank and a new map, or a tank and a new set of AI units for a Korean or a Vietnam war... the tank will lose this "battle of needs" every time. I see a tank project as a "nice to have", but not as a "must have" like these three things I mentioned earlier. Maybe it's just me being pessimistic, but I can't help but think that developing something to the detriment of stuff that we desperately need is not an efficient way of expanding the world of DCS. So, speaking for myself, as much as I commend an effort to create "something new", I would say "pass".

Nice! Best of lucks to you!

My poor, poor wallet... Ka-ching! Can't wait to fly my trusty CF-5!

Well, it's probably a bug ;) The KC-135 can use a drogue fixed after the boom. But the current KC-135 we have in DCS isn't equipped with this particular drogue ;) .

Good to see the men behind the team! Glad to have you folks aboard. Your incredible commitment to the flight sim genre is very much appreciated here.

Most of the stuff in here is aimed directly at new guys who start from scratch. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=135765 No matter how many training missions there are... in my experience the most important part of teaching a new aircraft is to 1) Have a structured approach that is gradual and flows naturally 2) Explain in simple terms that do not require a NASA course in aerospace to understand 3) Not cram too much stuff at once and go step by step in order to not overwhelm the student

Mirage guide updated on 19/05/2016 -Air-to-Air refueling section added -HUD logic changes reflected -Cockpit layout fixed and new switches added -Corrected some typos -Added a Buddy Lasing section to practice GBU strikes with JTACs -Modified control setup to better reflect new radar changes -Further explained radar modes (TWS, RWS, STT) -Corrected Start-Up procedure -Added IFF section -More stuff added that I'm too lazy to remember