Rotorhead

Thank you for reminding me all the reasons why I've been pre-ordering in the past, and why I pre-ordered now. Also thank you for considering my arguments as of why I don't... Oh nevermind. No way, you can do that? Thank you for letting us know, will look into it!

This. As I said, I've been around for long enough to know how ED is with dates, and that's why I brushed all the previous delays to the Apache being a mighty complicated piece of machinery. But deliberately keeping the appearance of everything going as planned, while already knowing they will be unable to deliver in the forseeable future strikes me as especially dodgy. Maybe not as sad as seeing (adult?) customers defending company's questionable practices... But hey, people putting group identity above their own interests is a known psychological phenomena. One could argue that a few careers have been made because of that. But anyway, I'd love to see a company I supported for years to do better. Apparently you don't. Yep, I guess you could say that and probably be right. However, I think there is a certain line beyond which the "everything is subject to change" excuse can't cut it anymore. I'd argue that to me, most previous releases, while sometimes rough and delayed, kinda fell within that line. The Apache does not, by far. I keep hearing that ED is definitely a honest company, and I am apparently a conspiracy theorist for seeing a deceitful pattern here. So maybe instead of saying it's my fault not being a conspiracy theorist and trusting a completely honest company, maybe ED could admit they went a little too far and offer a gesture of good will. Or is it "you knew damn well I was a snake?" Who said that, anyway? EDIT: Also, uninformed?

And I would be all for it.

Yeah, that's how I understand it, too. Just that this "thought experiment" reminds me too much of those "simulated excercises", where a fancy, hyper-modern, billion-dollar super-fighter is pitted against a not-so-fancy, slightly old, relatively cheap bog standard plane - except they are limited to guns only, max 6G turns, with pre-defined starting positions, they carry devices to equalize their RCS, and so on. And the super-fighter loses to the ordinary one, and then the internet generals are all like "I can't believe our government just wasted so much money on it!" Yes, with that defined set of starting conditions, the lesser airplane might as well defeat the fancy one. Except, in a real fight, the older plane won't ever get in gun range. Neither will the other pilot deliberately allow him to enter the merge at his 6 o'clock. Or not going to use his airplane's ful maneuvering potencial. Etc. So what we have here is a very realistic assetment of a very unrealistic situation. Sure, as a thought excercise, not bad. But it just must be taken for what it's worth.

Now, I probably suck at thought experiments, but it really begs the question why on earth would the F-22 pilot even want to fight the Fokker? Unless the archvillain is escaping in a Fokker to his evil underground base, and the F-22 is the only fighter available (since we are already speculating, we may as well go all the way, right ;)), wouldn't it be most sensible for the F-22 pilot to ignore the Fokker and mind his/her own mission anyway (since the Fokker has no means to hurt the F-22). As GG correctly pointed out, for the F-22 it would be nothing else than intercepting a helo, or.... wait for it... attacking a ground target, but still, it doesn't even matter. Who cares whether F-22 wins or loses to a Fokker, if it wasn't meant to fight WWI planes in the first place? It's bit like theoretizing that the Abrams tank really sucks at hunting rabbits - yes, I guess it does, and that's why we use hunting rifles instead. As I said, I suck at thought experiments, so sorry for being a spoilsport. But eh, still better than the time I put a cat in a sealed box with a Geiger counter and a bottle of neurotoxin. :D

@238thFalcon Now that was crazy... :shocking: Imagine you are in one of these cars on the road... "Officer, honest, i was just driving along, then out of all sudden, an airplane started to overtake me, so I moved out of the way and hit that tree over there, see?" "An airplane, sir?" "Yes, officer, an airplane, flying at about the same height as my car!" "Sir, please close your eyes, tip your head back, and touch the tip of your nose with your index finger!" :D Meanwhile in the U.S.:

Notice to all students: Do not lick the metal railing in front of the school building! I say again, DO NOT lick the metal railing in front of the school building! :D

Well, I agree and disagree - just as Wilbur says few posts above mine, current 2.0 lighting looked more than good enough, and things that aren't broken are usually better left without fixing. On the other hand, what's wrong with keeping up with the Joneses? I am not one of those who claim that a good simulator has the right to look ugly as long as it's detailed and realistic in the simulation aspects (read: physics, instruments, etc), or even that true simulator must look ugly :doh: Why, if I can have both good simulation and good looks, of course I want both! After all, visual fidelity is part of realism, too! What's the use of having wonderfully modelled avionics in an ugly 2D cockpit that constantly reminds you you are using an computer program? For me, not much. And as for DCS looking good as it is, yes, it does. However, luckily for us, DCS is a platform that is here to stay for a while, and will start to look dated sooner or later. Just compare pre-1.5 Caucasus with current Nevada, and you know exactly what I am talking about. Give it a few years and this is how 2.0 NTTR is going to look like compared to other sims. Just compare the two first screenshots in this post, with and without Deferred shading. Can you honestly say there's no difference and no future potential? Sure, unlike other things, like the improved spotting you mentioned, it's not an immediate concern and we could hapilly go without it for a few more years maybe. But I can see why ED wants to have these things out of the door before the big 2.5 merge. As long as the intention goes, I am certainly happy with what I see, that DCS is constantly moving forward and is going to stay THE simulation platform to go for years, maybe decades to follow. As for the execution though, it's not just there yet and I will only repeat myself if I agree with you and say there is something wrong right now. But again, I am sure ED will iron it out before it goes out of alpha.

Correct, but people are reporting to lose performance even with deferred shading OFF, some say it's even worse than having it ON (haven't tested myself, just going by what I read on this forum). If so, it's definitely a bug. Also, if I remember correctly, both Wags and some pre-release reviewers (not completely sure about Wags though) claimed that the Normandy performance isn't significantly worse than then current NTTR version (small performance drop is to be expected due to higher level of details in Normandy). Now both terrains suffer noticeable performance drop compared to 2.0.5. And even if the new shading is really intended to eat 30% FPS even on high-end graphic cards (I am all for better looks and immersion, but at some point, the tradeoff for more eye candy just stops to be worth it), it still doesn't justify the vibrant blue, fuzzy shadows, trees that stand out in distance like landing beacons and other visual artifacts. If something, more demanding rendering process would make the image more believable, not the other way around! Again, not bashing ED in the slightest (this is what Alpha is for!), but it is time to admit there's something wrong with the current graphics engine.

Very true. I remember playing sims - or "sims" - on my 75MHz Pentium I in the time where a few colored polygons was considered the pinnacle of graphic fidelity and realism. And I, as a small kid back then, always dreamed of a sim where there would be graphics that look like in real life, with trees and grass that move in the wind, and gardens with toolsheds and greenhouses, and people walking on the ground, and power lines I can actually crash into, and plane tyres that compress on the ground, and rotor blades that droop when standing still and cockpit doors that actually open and million other things I knew never will be possible. And now, some 20 years later, look what we have. Hell, there even are bycicles and clothes lines in Normandy! Talk about dream coming true! But now wait a little. Sure, we all know that flight sims are amonmgst the most dermanding PC applications, in fact, you can safely say that for flight simming, you can never have enough computing power. That's why people around here invest a lot of their earnings into absurdly powerful rigs. Mine is rather middle of the field these days, but my graphic card is probably the most powerful (and newest) part of my whole build. But that is irrelevant anyway, because the point is, people who used to get 60 FPS yesterday are suddenly getting 40 FPS today with the same settings. I don't see anyone here bashing ED because their high-fidelity product doesn't run at stable 120 FPS on their second-hand laptop with all settings maxed up. In fact, I (and I believe I talk for the majority of users here) have great faith that ED will sucesfully fix the current issues. But there's no way around it, there's simply something broken in the current version (and just as Weta says, in an alpha it's to be expected). Blaming it on users' unrealistic expectations and inadequate hardware (when it was adequate just a day ago) isn't going to help anyone and anything.

My download finished very late night, so all I have "tested" so far was a quick look at two AI Mudhens flying over Vegas landing at Nellis, just to see how the new effect look like. Sadly, I can only repeat what others say: -FPS drop is noticeable. In 2.0.5, flying over NTTR with no (or few) AI units, most settings to High, vis range on Extreme, I was able to stay very close to 60 FPS even over downtown vegas. Not anymore. -Shadows, both from scenery and planes, are innaturally blue. Plus, aircraft shadows are waaay too blurred. I see that ED was trying to achieve "soft shadow" effect, which is great, but it is extremely overdone. Just walk outside on a sunny day, shadows are black and well defined. You would need a studio lighting to achieve such effect, and even then, it wouldn't look exactly like it does now in DCS. But on a sunny day in desert? No way. -Trees are too bright and stand out innaturally. The same issue was present in early Normandy videos, in the latter ones, it seemed to be not so pronounced. Haven't took a look at Normandy yet, maybe it's better there, but in Nevada, you see distant building blending with terrain and fog just as they should, and bright, almost luminous trees right next to them, as if they weren't affected by distance at all. That's all I have now. In fact, I am pretty busy with other hobies to spend much time in DCS right now, but hopefully will spare a few moments to take a closer look (and to chack out Normandy!). All ind all, I am happy with what ED aimed to do - the new lighting, reflections, etc, are all steps in the right direction. I am, hovewer, very unhappy with how they done it - what are we seeing now certainly wasn't the intended result. After all, pre-release screens and videos didn't look nearly that horrible, and early reviewers praised the smooth performance. So hopefully, this won't be that difficult for ED to fix, and soon, we will all be enjoing what we have seen in the previews. In the meantime, fly safe! :pilotfly:

Doh! Next time I comment on anything, I should probably watch the whole thing first, not just with the corner of my eye while doing other stuff... :doh: I stand corrected then, thanks for pointing it out for me, mate. Oh, and your real life experience certainly is interesting. :thumbup:

Well, a video from a crappy head cam with crappy autofocus, compressed down, and watched on a not-so-perfect computer screen can hardly be measured up to actual human eye. That said, I had only one chance to try it in real life so far, and despite I knew from ATC comms where to look for other aircraft, I failed to spot every single of them. :) So yeah, not that easy for sure. But then again, my eyes certainly aren't the sharpest ones there are.

Hey, show me an aviation / simming enthusiast who wouldn't like to see the Apache! Of course we'd all pay an obscene amount for it! :thumbup: About VEAO developing one, this comes as news to me. But I know that the website of ED's "military version" of DCS mentions AH-64, too. Wonder if they are related, and my apologies if it was already answered - but I guess it was not and will not, due to all those NDAs and stuff... However, I like to believe that somebody developing an Apache, even strictly for military consumers, is a good sign - remember, both Ka-50 and A-10C initially started as military projects, and unless I am mistaken, Belsimtek has done a professional Mi-8/17 sim before DCS version, too. Before anyone calls me out on that, I am NOT saying that because there is a military simulation in development, it will be released in DCS later. But there is at least a slim chance that DCS license will be issued some day, and for the developer, it will be easier to "just" convert their already existing military product into DCS module than creating a new one from scratch - just saying...

Wow, not sure what to think about this. I remember when the MiG-21 project started under completely different name, then the entire thing blew up under circumstances unclear to this day, and LN team was then formed to finish the work... And now they are breaking up again, this time luckily in far less dramatic / more transparent way. I sincerely hope that both developers will be able to secure enough funds and talented employees to keep running with no issues, and we will have two companies sucesfully creating high quality content instead just one. Wish you all guys best of luck and hang tough! :thumbup:

As a civilian working completely outside the aviation bussines, my only contact with real aircraft (military or otherwise) is pretty much limited to airshows. By far, the closest "hands-on" experience was sitting in Su-27 cockpit some four years ago - a dream I never imagined to come true. Also been inside C-130 and Mi-17 since then, the last one was with my father. He was wondering how could anyone start her up with all these switches, was quite surprised when I started to tell him "Well, I'd start with flicking the battery switches over there, then switch on the inverters down here etc..." :) As far as flying airplanes go, my nearest encounter was last year, when a RAF Typhoon flew some 200 ft above me at full A/B (they cannot fly over the crowds of course, but somehow it doesn't comprise the road people use to get to / from the show :noexpression:). My ears stil hurted a lot at the train station half an hour later! Other than that, been close to B-52, B-1, AH-64, Tornado, F-4, E-3, KC-10, Spitfire and many more. Seen the startup procedure of L-39, MiG-15, JAS-39, V-22 etc. That's the advantage of smaller airshows - while on the big ones, all this stuff happens somewhere far behind the scenes, on the small ones, you can often see the crews preparing / securing their planes, and they are so close the jetwash can sometimes blow your hat off :).

Well I expected more than just a blank texture, but certainly not nearly that detailed. If this is what ED calls "low detail", I will hapilly accept more such low detail maps! :thumbup: Agree that little details like clothes or bicycles can indeed come later, but nobody said there are no other things to do while they add these. While part of the team might be fixing serious issues, other part can use that time to make the map look more pretty. Texture artists won't help you much with scripting ATC or defining runway directions or whatever, so why not to give him / her something to do in the meantime? Besides, ED surely wants to make good first impression, and with all those details, they sure as hell will! I mean, clothes lines in a flight sim? As a small kid, playing , I always dreamed of a flight sim where I would be able to fly realistically modelled helicopters and planes in a lifelike environment, with things like trees, and garden toolsheds, and power lines that I could actually crash into... A dream I knew will never come true. Some 20 years later and guess what? :clap_2: P.S. And my greatest dream was to fly a Mi-24 over that landscape, simulated with useless details like tyres deforming while parked, rotor blades drooping when not moving, or doors I can actually open. In other words, all the things current DCS modules normally do! And see which helicopter is currently developed by Belsimtek! My personal life hasn't been exactly what I would like it to be during the last few years, but looking back at my childhood dreams and seeing them come true is somehow... satisfying. One of the many small things that make life seem more pleasurable. Thank you ED for that!

^ Yeah, surely remember seeing it somewhere, not sure if it was here though. Of course it was staged. But still fun nonetheless. :) I've seen qiute a few aviators to do the "drunken pilot" aerobatic routine, but none of them with such dramatic and authentic introduction.

And how could they be effective, if there ale like... HOLES in them?? ;)

Short answer: No. Long answer: Absolutely not at all. A-10C is a very modern (or rather extensively modernised), slow and stable CAS / attack aircraft, which, (while it can do go down low into the weeds if needs to be) is mainly intended to loiter high above the target area and deliver precision guided munitions (often with the assistance of AFAC). It has highly complex sensor, weapon and avionics suite, including (insanely good) TGP, navigational unit consisting of combination of traditional INU, GPS and whatnot, datalink etc. Personally, my most favorite feature of this plane is how all these systems, from HUD to every single Maverick seeker, are interconnected and work together as a single unit to help the pilot. You set the target position, no matter if through inputting its coordinates via CDU, locating it using the TGP or simply designating it on the TAD, and all other sensors instantely know where to look at. All the information is comprehensively displayed on several large screens and most of the pilot inputs consist simply of selecting an item from the menu, and while the sheer number of controls might seem intimidating in the beginning (I'm still trying to wrap my head around the CDU), once you get the grasp of it, you found it's really matter of using any other modern computer-controlled machine. (BTW, when my father saw me destroying a tank using GBU-12, he was very surprised it's much more complicated than just hitting the big red button :)). Oh, and it has a monster 30mm gun, scratch that, that gun has an airplane bolted to it. What's not to love? The Viggen, on the other hand, is a supersonic deep strike aircraft, based on a fighter. It's certainly not slow, actually, if the A-10 is a gun with a plane built around it, then Viggen is an engine that comes equiped with a plane. And it pretty much determines what's it intended to do - to fly low and fast under enemy radar, to strike ground targets and especially ships in an enemy-controlled territory. This also determines "one pass, haul ass" as pretty much the only viable tactic for this bird. While it's also been modernised, it's nowhere near our A-10C (and there are even more advanced versions of it in real live). The navigation system relies on a simple INU, which of course drifts, and must be corrected by the pilot (although the TERNAV is a great feature and I was quite surprised to hear of it, especially in an aircraft this old). The only precision-guided weapon (barrign the Maverics), is also INU-dependent, so if your plane's position is misaligned, no destroyed targets for you today. As for TGP, moving map or AFAC, you can forget about it (although our creative community may sooner or later come with some solution for the latter). Also, there are no MFD's or displays altogether. The only way to either read or input your navigation, targeting or weapon release parameters is to flip warious switches, turn knobs, and type randomly-seeming numbers into a flight computer which consist of a few buttons and a row of blinking numbers. Unlike more advanced aircraft, you can't simply go to the menu, select "load flightplan" and be done with it. No, you flick the IN/OUT switch into the input position, turn the master mode knob into the correct position, enter 9099 on the keyboard and hit enter. Logical, no? No. :) As with any simplier tech, things are easier to get into (the startup procedure, for example, is laughably easy compared to A-10), but get more complicated and demanding for the user as you start digging deeper into them. Then again, there are things (besides going really fast) that A-10 simply cannot do. Like air-to-ground terrain, standoff munitions or actively guided antiship missiles. And, while most of bothe NATO and Russian-built planes use some standards that are a norm in their country of origins, the Swedes used many of their own original solutions and for us, people familiar only with eastern or western harware, learning the Viggen with all it's peculiarities might be a welcome challenge. Oh and the thrust reverser. Forget anything else, it alone is a good reason to buy the Viggen right now. :D So to sum it up, no, those two aircraft are two absolutely different beast built for vastly different missions. I believe they can work together in a well planned mission, but for any of them usurping the other's role, I have no fear. If there's anything that's going to lower the interest in A-10C, then it is the Hornet. Weapon and avionics wise, it can do pretty much everything that A-10 can, plus has an air-to-ground radar, anti-radiation and anti-ship missiles (here, it will compete wit the Viggen as well, I think), and unlike both of these two, can also do proper air-to-air fighter stuff. An carrier landings. And can refuel each other mid-flight (not sure it will be modelled in DCS). You can hardly go any more multi-role than that. After all, it's hte most anticipated aircraft in DCS for years and I believe there's also nobody who wouldn't buy it at some point in time (if not immediately at release - I know i will!). But that other aircraft will be abandoned because of it? That I'm not afraid of. ...Ooops! For someone who doesn't know much about airplanes, his was an ominously long post. I Better shut up now...

After the recent changes in one completely unmentioned country (OOOPS! Politics! :unsure:), I wouldn't consider the former option totally impossible but come on, it's not nearly that bad. Sure, things aren't going forward as fast as envisioned (if they would, we would have F/A-18, Typhoon, , P-40, Normandy, 2.5, F-14, Su-33 PFM, Carriers and probably few more out by now), but on the other hand, look how many modules do we have now. Certainly more than I am able to sucesfully learn, not counting those upcoming already on my to-buy list. Also note that while ED have to focus on improving the engine, while third parties "simply" release modules for it. To the todays newsletter, it doesn't bring anything groundbreaking, but I thing this would be the good place to congratulate the video contest winners. Considering DCS: Normandy is not even released, they surely made great job capturing that WWII feel. :thumbup:

If current NTTR is something to go by (and it should be, considering it runs in the same engine), FPS should be just fine for anyone with a decent build. While current 1.5 still gives me rather poor FPS even after GPU upgrade, I can fly across downtown Las Vegas with mirrrors and all bells and whistles on (except with terrain flat shadows on, the better ones look nice but really kill my FPS). So I hope that Normandy, though very detailed, should not be any worse. And there's hoping that 2.5 will make maters even better.

Maybe they could add a different radar shade for the "urban" terrain type, just like they did for "forrest" terrain (trees aren't treated as "normal" object in 1.5 either, and yet wooded areas give different returns (right?). Assuming there is something as "urban terrain type" on DCS of course.