Rotorhead

Uh, NO. This sim is about flying. As Mouse said above, the fusion of military and civilian sim would be a win for everyone. Military aircraft fly side by side with civilian ones IRL and I don't know why they cannot in sim. And just like IRL, you can choose between military and civilian flying career - or try both. If you don't want to fly civilian aircraft, don't buy them. But others might welcome this possibility. And, modding purely civilian simulator to allow military operations is not easy, limited or just impossible in some aspects - because civilian sims don't have to handle things like weapons, radars, combat damage, enemy AI, yada yada. On the other hand, turning military sim into civilian one is rather easy. Civilian planes aren't different from the military ones, they just don't blow stuff up. DCS as it stands now has everything what is needed to model a civilian aircraft. Advanced flight model - check. Detailed avionics - check. Electric, hydraulic, mechanical systems - check. Damage and failures - check. You can start working on a civilian module at this very minute, without having to change the basic DCS engine. Throw in bigger maps and better ATC (which is needed anyway) and you have the ultimate mix of civilian and combat sim. It's just up to you how to use it.

Exactly that. I'm not very fond of this plane, but flying the VTOL variant will be a blast and I'm totally going to buy it as soon as it is done. Actually, I'm eager to throw my money in right now, but I'm not going to. Four minutes video of developer talking about his goals and footage of real F-35 is not very convincing to me. What I want to see is their F-35 within DCS environment, showing at least a trace of flight dynamics and avionics. Sorry, there are many people out there who can make a beautiful 3D model of a plane, but very few people who can make it work inside DCS. I donated for Beczl without any doubts, but mainly because during his funding campaign, he already had something to show off (and besides that, he had already done his Mig for FC2, alongside with another addons). And even with those prerequisites, we can see Beczl lagging pretty much behind his schedule. Now what can I expect from a company that showed nothing so far? Sorry for my negativity, KI, I don't mean to be offensive. I wish you to be successful in your goal and bring us a excellent simulation of this fascinating plane. But I hope you understand my concerns. For now, I'm staying outside the AO with all sensors running. ;)

Personally, I'm all for smaller frequent updates. I'm really not happy when I have to wait for a major update for several months, just to fix a small bug which is already known and even fixed in the internal version. And although I'm not fond of Steam very much, automatic updates are one of the few features I actually like. And I am happy that DCS has the same feature too, but unlike Steam, you don't even HAVE to update in order to play. Only thing I really want is ED to properly test the updates before release (having negative experience with bugged updates in the past), and I have no problems with them.

Just love this one! :thumbup: Show me video of her flying in DCSW and I'm ready to jump in! Oh, and that please:

FSX had this feature years ago IIRC. It's really something I can live without, but yeah, that would be nice little feature. But pretty low on my list, to be honest.

I've always said that I'm not going to buy anything below DCS standard anymore (don't get me wrong, I had tons of great fun with LOMAC back in the day, but it was before I was spoiled by clickable pits and hi-fi avionics :)), but now, when FC3 are in sale, and will have 3D pits and AFM, I will be tempted for sure. :thumbup:

When somebody decides to make purely civilian aircraft like Cessna or Airbus for DCS, I would definitely let them. DCS is currently the best simulation gaming platform IMO, and having civilian planes simulated on this level would be a blast. To succeed in this goal, however, DCS would have to improve things like ATC and weather at least to the level of other civilian sims. Oh and of course bigger, bigger maps. I hope it's all coming. But what I really dream of for long time now (and I have expressed it in another thread already), is civilian SAR chopper in DCS. Give me a proper map and missions with it, and I wish nothing more. And, SAR around the world is often flown by military operators, like these examples: This way, both sides would be happy. These birds can not only fly civilian missions, but will satisfy even those who don't want purely civilian modules in DCS. UH-1 and upcoming Mi-8 from Belsimtek are both great steps towards it IMO. Oh and as it was already suggested, civilian coalition alongside with blue and red would be nice. So you finally have to think before blasting everything that pops up on the radar. ;)

Hah, still better than the news article about an aircraft landing with 9000 tons (!) of fuel aboard. Or that poor guy who climbed a transmission tower and was hit by electric current of 25.000 volts! :doh: And don't get me even started about airliner pilots who have to "step on the gas a little bit more" during headwind. :wallbash: When I heard it on TV, I almost pissed my pants laughing.

Yes, lots of AI can hurt the performance quite a lot. But what is weird, I have similar issues when looking at STATIC units, even if far away. I know that every unit in the FOV means lots of polygons to draw, but the FPS loss seems inadequate to me. BTW, that's what LOD's should be for, right? Normally, I can maintain stable 30FPS (capped) even on pretty high settings, and 60+ on low. But with bigger number of static units in FOV, it easily drops to 20-25, no matter the settings. :dunno:

Sure, new designs are naturally prone to failures / design errors. But some people like to scream "It's a total crap! Cancel the project before we spend more money on it!" just when first little failure in prototype phase is experienced. I have a minor hobby in railway stuff, and I can tell you one thing - it's the same there. When steam engines were replaced by diesel ones (which were very faulty in the beginning), everybody was crying "Scrap those ugly crappy diesels, we want our steamers back!" And guess what! Those design flaws were removed, and todays, those same hated diesels are considered some of the most reliable, successful and iconic vehicles on our rails. And when they are slowly getting replaced with more modern stuff, guess what the railfans are saying... :doh: When you are flying the F-35, all other aircraft are your target drones! :thumbup:

Looking for rent free lodging? Look here! But there's a little snag in it: :no: Unfortunately, it seems to be already taken...

Not good, eh? Because it's pretty essential detail for planes like F-35. Is there a possibility for 3rd party dev to work around it, or must it be changed in core engine?

Spot on. Mainstream movie and videogame producers are giving their consumers what they want (and expect) to see and hear. For example, how many movies or games has speed of sound taken into account. You can see the explosion, and hear the BOOOM at the same time, no matter how far it is from the camera. I still remember when I first set off an explosive charge in Operation Flashpoint (one of the few games that have it right). The tank blew up, and some second later, I heard the boom. First I thought "Weird, the sound is bugged", and few seconds later "Oh, wait, that's the way it's supposed to be! How great attention to detail!" But I guess most movie spectators would be surprised to hear delayed explosions.

Pretty mixed opinions have we here, don't we? Not surprising to me, because I don't know what to think myself. On one hand, we have endorsement from Wags himself (and that means something), and even a license from Lockheed, on the other hand, we have heard claims like "we are sure you will be flying open beta in April". Don't want to be negative, but it sounds too much over-confident to me. I'm yet going to see a DCS module released exactly on schedule, let alone such a complex one. Let's see what Mr. Kinny can pull off. On the other hand, I can't get how some people can scream SCAM two days after first announcement. It's always good idea to be skeptical, especially about surprising and unexpected news, but denying something without seeing any evidence, neither positive nor negative, has nothing to do with skepticism. I'm going to support this project for sure, as soon as I will see serious proofs. KI claims that beta is some 10 months away, which means they must have pretty share of work already done (you can't develop a DCS-level module in 10 months from scratch, right?). Let me see how it looks and works, and I will be probably convinced. And finally, for those saying that F-35 will ruin MP... Forget about it. As already said, it's up to mission designer to choose participating aircraft, their number and balance, and it's up to you to which servers you visit, which plane you select and how you use it. Besides that, I'm sure that accurately simulated F-35 will be lots of fun in SP, don't you think? So good luck guys, and prove my disbelief to be wrong. :)

See? I told ya, it's a April Fools Day prank! :P C'mon, c'mon, just joking! ...but I must say, you haven't set the bar for yourself low, sir! Good luck to you, then. When it will go as intended, interesting times are ahead for us all! You really got my attention with B and C variants, if you deliver, I'm all yours! :thumbup:

Here, here! :bye_2:

Rather shocking news indeed, especially since I just woke up. :) To be honest, my first line of thinking was "wait, it's April 1st again???" But they seem to be serious. According to their website: I have no idea how many information on F-35 is really classified, but general opinion on this forum was "enough to not be possibly modeled to DCS level". Now there comes somebody who claims the opposite. If they're right, it would be great (although I'm not a great fan of F-35 in general), but what I really don't want is DCS turning slowly into HAWX. So I hope they're right and those who said "impossible" were wrong. You know, never say something is impossible to do, because there might come somebody who does not know and gets it done. ;)

Yeah, that's what I do with all my games. Works pretty well. :megalol: Yo da man brotha, yo da man!:D

That would be soooo sweet! DCS is without any doubts the best sim available on the market today, and it's a bit of shame to utilize slightly more than one core at time. Especially since this high-fidelity simulation is very resources-heavy. Multicore support is surely not a magical cure for all DCS ailments, but it would certainly bring our beloved sim to 21st century, and fix many of the annoying bugs. If it means no more slideshows on every artillery barrage, and no more transparent forests, I don't ask for anything else.

Excellent news! It's great to hear about ATC improvements (they were needed for loooong time, it's the first step on this journey), and especially about the new engine. :thumbup: Hawk video was nice, too. Only thing I don't quite get: Soldier skeleton animations. What is it good for? I mean, as long as we have tanks and choppers that can see, fire, and even move through trees, AI units that have problems navigating trough urban areas, CBU's that bring even the best computers to their knees, and million other things, do we really need this type of eye-candy? I know, it will be improvement for sure, especially for CA players, but I think it should be pretty low on ED's priority list. I'd rather have good simulated ground combat with ugly looking soldiers than vice-versa.

^ I knew that Russian is a hard language to learn, but that much? :D

OK, I guess nobody doubts that there indeed ARE certain people or groups of them who are quite powerful and have "higher interests". Owners of international corporations, financiers, that kind of people. Unlike regular politicians, they are rarely seen, but be sure their influence on politics is no lesser. After all, where is power in capitalism? Where the money is. And while world governments are usually in red numbers, those businessmen flourish. Make your own judgment. BUT, while I'm certain that those rich people are surely pulling many strings, accusing them from making deals with aliens, spraying us with chemtrails, projecting holographic moon on our skies or controlling our minds through vaccines is far beyond ridiculous. I was shocked when I recently found out how many people believe in this vaccine thing. But I guess it's still better to let you children die from easily avoidable diseases than to support Bilderberg, right? :chair: Poor, poor little minds.

Every time I visit this thread, I'm leaving with persistent urge to have either DCS: Ka-52 or DCS: Su-35 installed on my computer. I must not go here anymore. ;) Wonderful pictures guys. :thumbup:

This exactly describes my feeling about all this UFO nonsense. :thumbup: Well, not sure about that. Its perfectly possible for equally or even more advanced species to evolve in other part of our space, just like mankind did. Theoretically, they might be out there... :alien: ... or they might not. We don't really know. I will happily accept existence of extraterrestrial life as a fact, as soon as somebody comes with proofs. But by proofs, I mean solid proofs, not wild calls of some, uh... how to call this old man without offending him? :huh:

Heeey, wait! He's no lunatic! I'm sure he's got proofs for all these claims and is prepared to show them publicly at any time... ... but he decided not to. :doh: Well, everybody move along. Nothing to see here.