ishtmail

This is under the assumption that the graphic engine renders that particular pixel as a black spot. What if the thing you're looking for is smaller than 1/2 of a pixel? The graphic engine wouldn't show anything there. For example, you're looking for a black tank on a green surface. The tank, as viewed from a large distance on a low-res monitor, would be less than 1/2 pixel large, so all you would actually see on your monitor would be green. In this regard, a monitor with a larger resolution would have smaller pixels, thus the tank would fill out an entire pixel and would show up on your monitor. Clearly, the advantage would be on the side of the one with the larger resolution. Of course, I'm simplifying here, graphic engine wise, but you get the general idea. If you're looking for an airplane from 8nm away, a monitor with low resolution wouldn't show you that airplane any better than a high-res monitor. You'd only see blue sky.

It would be cool if the ground crew would have more options for interaction. This is a perfect example where the airplane does work as a real one, but the procedures differ from real life... While we're at it, it would also be pretty cool if ED added a first-person walking around option, so one could make a visual preflight check of the airplane (and clicking on the plane tires would make the virtual pilot kick the tires :) ). This could later be expanded into Combined Arms, to add infantry to the whole DCS World...

How does playing on a low resolution and graphics help you gain an unfair advantage? One would think that a low-res low-detail gaming would put you at a disadvantage...

1st: I thought that if you own the DCS P51D, you also have the manual, so you also have this list. If you don't have the manual, then you probably don't have the DCS P51D, so you don't need this list. And anyway, the manual IS free to download on the digitalcombatsimulator.com web page. 2nd: how do you get the ground crew in DCS world to pull the prop for a few revolutions? Is this something that's even possible in DCS P51D? I haven't noticed any such option in the Ground Crew Communication menu.

1st: resolution of a human eye is a bit bigger than that of a regular computer monitor 2nd: to get that picture on a computer monitor to 1:1 scale, you would need quite a big monitor. An airplane at 8 miles distance on a 24inch monitor (where you sit about a half a meter away from the monitor) is quite a bit smaller than in real life. So, what we need is a monitor size that would get us up to scale (say, a 40 incher, where 1cm on the monitor would be equivalent to 1cm in real life, as seen from the same distance), AND a monitor resolution at the Retina display quality, where the resolution is so high that it's impossible for a human eye to see individual pixels (which would effectively mean you don't need any AntiAliasing to see smooth edges on the screen). Only then would we be able to compare the virtual world to the real one. At this point, it's not DCS but the monitor technology that needs to step up. There are some 27-inch displays capable of throwing 2560×1440 resolutions, which is (at a normal viewing distance) enough for a 'retina display' quality. Prices range from 800 to 1300 USD. Dell and HP have nice 30'' displays with the native resolution of 2560 x 1600. The price tag is at about 1500 USD (atleast over here). Larger displays don't exist with this kind of resolution, and the reason is simple: anything larger than 30'' is usually bought as a TV set, and you don't watch a TV from 50-100 cm distance, you watch it from 3-5 metres away. That's why TVs are currently stuck at HD resolutions.

I use a 27'' full-hd screen, and I can honestly say that this size is almost too small for any kind of serious flying and am already seriously considering an upgrade. For a decent situation awareness, I'd say a 38'' or larger screen size would do the trick. To play it on a 15 incher is... well... unimaginable. EDIT: Considering the low prices of today's large LCD screens, and considering EVERY laptop today has a HDMI output, I don't understand why you don't buy the display and attach it to your laptop? I mean, if you can cash out $500 for a Hotas Warthog setup, a $250 LCD with 27'' screen isn't that big an investment.

It's a great video, and very informative, but it shows it's basically a propaganda material for this Russian plane. I'm a big fan of the Flanker, but all those superlative adjectives make me dizzy :D

Or upload the track file to Dropbox, Wetransfer or some other online file sharing service, and just pop the support team a link to that.

I have no critics towards ED. I do, however, contribute to making DCS products better, by reporting bugs that I find. Criticism in the form of 'ED is screwing things up', 'ED lied', 'ED's transgressions' and 'ED is not doing enough to please me' are not constructive. They are just an expression of someone's own frustrations, when that person is incapable of seeing the big picture (the overall quality of DCS products) and keeps insisting on finding flaws, just so he can complain. This type of behavior does not help anyone, least of all the products we are fans of. Instead, make constructive comments by posting in the Wishlist, by finding bugs and reporting them etc. And DON'T b*tch and moan if your wishlist doesn't make it into the product, or if the bug you reported takes a while before it's dealt with by ED's dev team. And make your constructive comments with some respect to a team of people who are obviously not thinking about profits (as there just aren't any in this business), instead of belittling them and insulting them. In the end, everyone has to realize one thing: the things ED did well by far surpass the things ED did poorly.

If I recall correctly, DCS modules did have incremental patches, that were smaller. In fact, don't take my word for it, see the 'Downloads' section of the Digitalcombatsimulator.com webpage. As for the auto updating online feature in computer games, that is a bit of a novelty in the gaming world, which was made industry standard especially with the rising of popularity of Steam - and Steam really gained in popularity after 2007. After that, many large companies incorporated the auto updater function with their platforms (for example, Ubisoft incorporated it into their Uplay platform in 2009). Today, most developers don't have their own auto updaters, but depend on the updating functions of the distribution platforms (such as Steam, Origin, Xbox Live etc). Large companies like Ubisoft can afford developing their own stuff. For a small developer such as ED to make their own auto updater is actually quite uncommon and is by far not an industry standard, and no, there is no logic in your statement that ED should have had it in there since day one. It would be far more logical for ED to go to a large distribution channel like Steam, and take advantage of their distribution network (servers) and their updating service. But seeing how DCS is a highly specialized niche, it makes more sense to do it the way they're doing it now, and I love how they embraced the possibility of using torrents, where fans can take some of the bandwidth for the distribution. And last (but not least), DCS World was officially released (i.e. OUT OF BETA) in the summer 2012. The auto updater function was introduced on October 03 2012. In my book, that's almost day one. For some people, it's obviously not fast enough. If you're not satisfied with Eagle Dynamics, their DCS products and their public engagement, you always have the option of leaving the DCS world, the forums, and finding another highest fidelity combat flight simulator developer.

He thought Vader's helmet could use a hearing upgrade. Mickey Mouse ears fit the bill.

ED is continuously upgrading and updating their product according to the community's wishes and desires. Take the Updater, for instance: all of a sudden, you don't have to download the entire 5 gigs of data, uninstall and reinstall to get a new version set up. You just run the updater, the patch is relatively small compared to the entire DCS World package (where you got the 'extremely long and large downloads, I don't understand, as each update is done in a minute), and you keep all the settings and your activations. This was obviously a feature that the community missed or wanted implemented, so ED did it. What I'm trying to say is: they DO listen to suggestions on how to make their products better. As you can see on the forum, people keep reporting bugs, and those bugs get fixed in the near future. BS1 to BS2 upgrade within DCS World COULD be done better, that's true (for instance, instead of looking for an installed BS1, the upgrade BS2 could simply ask the user for the original BS1 activation code). As for the FC3 installation (the need for the original Lock On), that was already explained by ED as something Ubisoft demanded. It's a bit unconventional, but nothing that should twist your nipples the way it seems to. It seems to me like a lot of people here complain that ED doesn't communicate with the users enough. But on the other hand, that's perfectly understandable if you only look at the problems the overly-early announcement of the Nevada map caused. ED announced it, people expect it (for a while now), ED wants to make it perfect, people complain, ED announces a 'release soon', people's expectations grow, ED finds more problems with it so the development gets even more delayed, people get frustrated and start b*tching and moaning about it, and the whole discussion gets so out of hand that ED just stops posting about the progress. Just looking at THAT, I can completely understand why ED won't announce anything concerning new airplanes, before they are 100% sure they can and will do it. With the impatient lot that lurks these forums, looking for something to complain about, it's better to make pleasant surprises than unpleasant ones. A hard lesson to learn for ED. Now, users complain about the 'lack of communication about new projects', which is definitely better than having disgruntled users complaining about broken promises and long delays. In this particular situation, the complainers just end up looking needy, petty and impatient for no reason. Especially since ED keeps issuing new stuff on a regular basis. Just in 2012, DCS World, DCS P51D, DCS Combined Arms and Flaming Cliffs 3 were released. Not too shabby for a company that (as far as some users are concerned) aren't doing anything and should get off their asses and make some Russian planes.

Wonderful bird - can't wait to park my ass in there for hours and hours :)

No, it's a matter of simulating everything. You need to simulate tens of different MFD pages alone, so that they function as in real life. Just remember how many switches you need to hit at A10C start up: all those systems (AC, battery, APU, even simple things like slew in MFDs) are simulated. If you have a switch for anti-collision lights, you need to add actual functional lights to the airplane's model. If you have a switch to turn battery power on, you need to simulate the battery and everything that comes with it. If you have a switch for wing fuel tanks and pumps, you need to have those systems simulated, and you need to simulate what happens if you forget to switch them on when you should. For example, during start up sequence, you have to turn on the battery. If you don't, you can't start up the plane (I'm of course simplifying here). So, just because you make that switch clickable, it doesn't mean it turns the battery on, if that battery isn't in the sim to begin with. What I'm saying is: if a system isn't in the simulation, the switch has no function. And to add all the systems that are missing in the FC3 F15E, so that all the switches would work as they're supposed to, that's not simple work. If it were that simple, then it wouldn't take over a year to make a DCS fidelity plane.

Severum, visit Sim market and check prices for individual aircraft. Better modeled airplanes cost 30, 40 USD. For instance, MILVIZ F15E for FSX costs well over 50 USD. What I'm trying to say is that this is perfectly normal pricing for higher quality stuff. Another aspect to think about that was elsewhere discussed: a DCS plane (like A10C) takes well over one year to develop, and if the price is set at 40 USD, over 10.000 copies of this airplane need to be sold for the developer to brake even (and this number is probably very underestimated). Your pricing idea is of course nicer for you, the buyer, but a company like ED just can't afford it - they would go bankrupt in a few months with that approach. I doubt that 5x more people would buy DCS products if the price was reduced to 1/5 per airplane, as you suggest. Personally, I prefer having ED around and doing the highest quality stuff possible, and I'm more than happy giving them 50-100 USD each year for new airplanes, new modules and whatnot. And finally: as the development of each DCS airplane (A10C fidelity, not FC3) is so long, your expenses to ED really aren't that much, are they? FirstPersonShooter players pay more than that to Treyarch, the developer of the CallOfDuty franchise (where one CoD game comes out each year, and it always costs 60USD). And to make things even more in favor for ED: just to really get the hang of a DCS quality airplane, such as A10C, over a hundred hours of gaming time is needed. And then the real fun begins when you go online. Compare this to 6 hours of game time for each CoD game, and then remember that A10C cost you 40 bucks while CoD cost you 60. 200 hours for 40$, 6 hours for 60$. I think DCS planes are maybe even too cheap, considering how much time you can spend on them, compared to a CoD game.

I don't think F15's problem is the compatibility, but simply that most stuff that you have switches for in the pit isn't even simulated (for instance, A10C's switches all function because everything the switches turn on, off, is actually implemented in the sim). Basically, if you don't have a system that the switch should operate, it's pointless to make that switch clickable.

*in my best possible George Takei voice* Oh myyy!

Awesome news. Will this model include a more detailed cockpit (on par with F15's) and 6DOF?

Good comparison. I would maybe also mention Arma 2 alongside BF3. However, Battlefield is only one of the many branches into which Doom evolved. Today, CoD is much closer to Doom, being more arcade oriented, simpler, while Battlefield turned into a whole new beast. And the Battlefield players are quite different from casual FPS players that enjoy, for instance, the Crysis series. There's a lot more commitment to a Battlefield player compared to one that runs CoD or Duke Nukem 4 or Fear 3. Like DCS A10C isn't for anyone, as simmers who just want to shoot at stuff won't really enjoy the entire clickology necessary to take full advantage of the DCS game, and will prefer FC3, while pilots who are dedicated to 100% realism won't settle for anything less than a DCS quality aircraft (as is evident in many threads about 3rd party airplanes, where everyone's first question is: will it be DCS fidelity?). So: different branches, different markets, different players. Anyway, DCS definitely pushed the hardcore sim to a whole new level. The idea of a hardcore sim existed before, but for the past several years, DCS has been the benchmark of what a real hardcore sim is.

Are you saying that DCS fidelity of modern military aircraft is 'nothing special'? Are you saying that DCS isn't a giant leap forward in the simulator business?

Five years ago, there was no market for DCS fidelity aircraft. I have no idea why ED chose Ka-50, but developing that bird opened an entirely new world of simulations that us PC pilots never knew before that. Maybe ED had the Ka-50 info on hand and made it as a hobby. Maybe it was originally developed as a simulation for the russian army, like A10C was for the US. In any case, before Ka50, there was no DCS-fidelity sim market. Ka-50 was a success, so ED went on with A10C, which they already had ready and just had to tweak it for consumer use. Another success. Now they have to start from scratch with the next airplane, so it's obvious they would choose one they can get the info for and one the community is interested in. Seriously, comparing the situation 5 years ago with today makes no sense. Today, we live in an entirely different world. In a world where FC3 seems 'poor' and 'outdated', because ED spoiled us with their DCS products. 5 years ago, FC3 would seem like the best thing ever, today it's "meh" compared to A10C.

This has nothing to do with ED and the claims by several people in here that DCS is 'biased' towards the west. ED did not decide that those 2 3rd party devs should both make the same plane. The 3rd party developers made that (obviously silly) decision on their own. Why that was, I don't know and honestly, I don't care, as it's completely irrelevant for the discussion in here. Which fighter ED will develop next is still unknown. Who's to say it won't be an FA-18? Once and for all: The criticism in this thread keeps flying towards ED, and yet everyone keeps proving their point with what aircraft 3rd party devs are making. DCS is Eagle Dynamics product, and Eagle Dynamics is only responsible for what Eagle Dynamics does. The fact that other groups and companies are making addon planes has nothing to do with ED, except for the fact that ED created the platform for those addons. Basically, this is like someone would blame Microsoft for specific planes that other devs created for FSX. If people have problems with what 3rd party devs are doing (or rather, not doing), address the issues there.

No, the western poll has been online since october 2010, and not from the beginning of that thread from 2007. See page 101 and 102 of that thread, where someone suggested a poll should be made (post from 2010), and a few days later someone noticed the poll running. That's roughly 25 months for the Western poll and 4 months for the Eastern one. 301 people voted in the Eastern poll, that's about 75 people per month. 2641 people voted in the Western poll, that's about 105 people per month. So, PER MONTH more people voted in the western poll. Let's go to specific aircraft (winners from each separate poll) FA-18E received 1537 votes. That's 61 votes per month. Sukhoi Su-27SM3 received 121 votes. That's 30 votes per month. So, PER MONTH, twice as many people voted for FA18E than SU27SM3. That's hard statistical fact for ya.

Then I suppose ED's marketing team was totally in the wrong, when their market research suggested a western fixed wing fast mover would be the best course of action for ED, and ED should instead base all their future work on the opinion of a few anonymous people from a public forum, who have no factual data to support their claims? I must have missed this lesson in the Marketing classes.

Not perfect as in 'bugs free'. I already explained that bugs in a released software are NORMAL, and that bigger and more commercial-oriented gaming companies have released products with far more bugs than ED has (see any Bethesda game to date, for example, or ID's Rage, or Assassin's Creed series). Each and every game in the history of gaming was released with bugs, and every single one of them was patched in the following months/years. Fallout 3, for example, was patched 6 times (major patch versions) since initial official release. Skyrim was patched over 14 times since release (8 major versions and several minor patch releases), all within ONE YEAR. Lest ye forget, iPhone 4 and 5 were released with serious problems that were later fixed. Even Mercedes A, the first one, was mass produced for the public already and later they discovered it wasn't safe (they pulled all the cars back to the factory and fixed the problems). Even Sukhoi Su27 was already in mass production before they changed several critical design flaws. Your point is thus void. I said 'perfected' as in 'the most detailed simulation of a single aircraft in the history of man so far'. Of course, if ED were to perfect every module to the point where it were completely bug free, people like you would go and complain about the long developer times. Basically, some people are impossible to please, you'll always find something to complain about. If it's not the bugs, it's the slow release times. If it's not the Nevada map, it's the lack of Russian planes. In real world, developers need time to do stuff, choices to develop a product are made according to market research, and occasionally products do come out with bugs.