Rotorhead

+1 Unfortunately, I don't see it coming in the foreseeable future...

Hey, what's this? Everybody round here is having birthday these days? :P All the best then, mate! :)

Generally speaking, the less crap is running on my PC, and the less online services I'm registered into, the happier I am. Therefore, I resisted Steam for quite a time. Then, a game I wanted (Train Simulator, please don't laugh on me guys), required Steam to run. So I kinda had no other chance. Since then, I got used to it. The benefits of easily buying and downloading games without having to register on more and more sites are great. But then there are also issues, as mmaruda already mentioned. When it comes to DCS, I've bought all my modules from ED's shop, and I plan to keep it that way. So please ED, do not make your sims Steam exclusive as long as you can. Thanks!

Happy Birthday, Mr. Viper! :yay:

Haven't tested yet, but IIRC that flashing "H" means altitude warning, not airspeed.

Sorry, haven't looked there. I'm staying safely away from that contraption some like to call Social Network, and I'm pretty happy that way. So you are saying that peeps on FB are voting for high fidelity too? That would be indeed good for us, but there's still issue with (majority of?) DCS users who are not registered neither on Facebook, nor here. Well maybe they are silent, but their money is as same as worth as ours, isn't it? If most of ED's income comes from mid-fidelity modules, it surely means something? If it was just me, ED wouldn't waste any single minute developing mid-fidelity modules, but it's money what matters, not our personal wishes.

I think this thread is a little bit pointless (no offense). Because it's pretty obvious what people on this forum want, even without a poll. But still, I added my vote too just for the heck of it. :)

Agreed. Ground AI could really use an overhaul. And easier troop loading / unloading (ArmA style preferably) would be nice, too. But collidable trees is what this wonderful helicopter sim needs most IMO. That would improve everybody's Huey / Shark experience by 1000%. Hopefully one day...

...and this is how The Friday Update Appreciation Thread has turned into It's Already Friday Where The Hell Is My Update Thread. :doh: Come on guys, Matt will deliver. And if he posts his Friday update at Saturday instead, would you worry much? ;)

Exactly that. What Viper engages in here is called a "false dilemma", a rhetorical technique very popular in some circles (Either you vote for me, or you support terrorists, sir! :doh:). No need for radical claims like that. The only "ALL" way is to become a Russian national, enlist into the air force, start training for helicopter pilot, become good at it, and maybe one day, you will end flying a real Ka-50 (If they don't assign you into Mi-28 unit, bummer!:mad:). Everything else is the "NOTHING" way, right? Come on, it's not like that, it has never been an will never be. Nobody asks ED to dumb down flight model, to simplify avionics, or anything like that (which they have already done with "Game mode" :music_whistling:). But we use a wide variety of control devices here, ranging from home-made pits to cheap plastic sticks bought at local mall. All we want is to have more options to adapt the controls accordingly to our hardware, to make the sim, in fact, as realistic as possible within our hardware limitations. As you can see from wess24m's post above, with right hardware, the option to not center rudder pedals is actually very realistic.

As PeterP says, it has nothing to do with lack of realism. Real pilots don't have to re-center their pedals after trimming, so why should we? Yes, if you look at this the way you do, the only right and realistic way is to have FFB pedals. Since there are no such devices widely available on the market (at least I don't know about any), compromises must be made. In the same way, flying without FFB stick is unrealistic. Flying a chopper with 7 inches long stick as well. So are twist grip sticks, keyboards and loads of other devices. Yet DCS supports them, because not every customer has a full-motion FAA approved flight training device in his / her basement. In summary, our hardware is not realistic. Therefore, steps must be made to compensate for this. If we are trying to achieve maximum realism with unrealistic hardware, results may actually be less realistic. This is exactly the case here IMO. While still having to press pedal and act against its pressure even after trimming is certainly not realistic, having pedals centered and yet applying rudder is far more unrealistic. I'm not going to start any forum outrage about this, I know ED has their priorities, and as long as I have PeterP's little mod, I'm pretty happy, but I think this one is not that hard to implement (ask Belsimtek if you need advice or two ;)), and would be very useful adition for us helo guys.

Few things you surely didn't know about the Moon: Although I'm not sure if it's actually funny. Cause this poor guy looks to be serious. :doh:

Yeah. Want this: C'mon guys, even Flanker 1 had it.

^ Yes, civilian helis are definitely easier to develop, because they have no missiles, no radars, no ECM and stuff (although you might need working FLIR to search for missing people), but implementing half of the idea you are suggesting would require MAJOR engine overhaul. The idea of procedurally generated events (is it the right phrase anyways?), like randomly happening accidents and rescue squads responding accordingly, is awesome, but I doubt we will see it in DCS in the next decade or so (if ever). Right now, we don't even have a dynamic campaign, which would utilize only the features that are already implemented (combat), not talking about real DCS:Life, where the entire map lives on its own. But I would be pretty happy if those events were pre-scripted, so ambulances will head towards accidents only if mission designer puts them there using the editor. But I completely agree on more detailed word. Living streets with restaurant gardens, children playgrounds with so little room to land, building sites, radio towers, castle ruins and forest clearings, so many things comes to mind. I hope some day, ED will make it come true.

My words exactly! Forget that company management thing, pure flying is what we are here for! :)

Definitely +1! PeterP's little mod is quite nice, but why be forced to use an unofficial mod when we can have it implemented by default? We can see 3rd party modules having some added features compared to ED's own work, like this rudder trim thing in UH-1, or windscreen fogging / freezing on Beczl's MiG, to name few. I hope that ED will make some kind of agreement with those devs, to implement these features into their current modules. That would be really nice.

Nice idea! Honestly, I was thinking about DCS: SAR before, and this would be my dream coming true! Having dedicated map with urban / sub-urban environment, villages, agriculture, forests, highways and railroads, etc., would be nice. This would give us many possibilities, like rescuing car crash victims, searching for people lost in the countryside, or transporting patients from one hospital to another. Of course, current DCSW scripting system is not very well optimized for that, we would need new 3D models of rescue personnel, patients, cars and ambulances etc. (the easier part), and entirely new scripting for things like working hoist, forest fires and so on (the harder part). And while the current UH-1 and the upcoming Mi-8 would fit into this environment pretty well, I would love a dedicated civilian SAR chopper. EC-135 anyone? :thumbup:

Great Hippo Belsimtek! Now when my desperate waiting for UH-1 is finally over, you give me something else to desperately wait for... :no: Thank you a lot, guys, can't wait to give her a spin!:thumbup:

I'm in! The recent change in ED information policy was much appreciated! Yeah, the last update wasn't exactly what I wanted to hear, but nevermind. I prefer being informed right away, even if the news aren't exactly good for me, rather than waiting forever in uncertainty. Thank you Wags and ED for those updates, and don't get discouraged by our ranting. We are hard to please, you know. ;) But even if we might be sometimes unhappy with the news, I think nobody here doubts the benefit of regular updates. Good work guys! :thumbup:

Believe it or not, but that's exactly what I did. Yes, that would actually make sense.

It seems to me you just misunderstood my original post, mate. Nowhere I said that FC3 are pointless or not worth anything. Although I am not interested in lower-fidelity modules, I don't doubt that FC3 have their place inside DCS World and their fair share of customers. However, my point was somewhere else: When I buy a game, a sim, anything, I expect all of its contents to be on the same quality level, which is not what is happening in FC3 at this moment. Just look: A-10A has AFM, 6DOF cockpit, and updated 3D model (at least I think so), Su-27 and F-15 both have new 6DOF pits, but no AFM yet, Mig-29 has at least new TWS mode, Su-33 has nothing. See that imbalance? As I stated several times before, I can see the marketing reasons behind this, I am rather annoyed by this "multiple standards inside one product" issue. And this leads me to my original point: It's nice to see ED to develop and update FC3 content even after final release, but when Su-25 and A-10A got AFM, they weren't marketed as new modules. The same for Su-27's new external model and its (and Eagle's) 6DOF pit. Of course all these updates are warmly welcome, and AFM is indeed a major update. But still, I see it just as an update. A significant one, but still an update, not a brand new module. So please, calm down and don't jump to conclusions I've never implied. No need to google anything, I'm pretty familiar with that one. ;)

I know it was already explained. I was just expressing my personal opinion that this is not right decision IMO. For me, DCS has become a synonym for a highest-fidelity-possible sim and I think I am not the only one on this forum feeling this. Personally, I think that high- and med-/low-fidelity modules should be visibly differentiated somehow.

Well, those saying "Better something than nothing" are probably right. True DCS Eagle and Flanker are ages away, so ED is throwing us some "lite" version to make our waiting easier (and hopefully updates it to "full DCS" version for a discount price later). So far so good. But, no matter how much I respect Wags and the whole ED team, I think they messed up really badly this time. First of all, I was never fond of this "multiple standard" thing in FC3. I mean, why some aircraft have AFM, some have 6DOF pits, some have new models, some all of it, some nothing? Yes, I understand that developing all FC3 stuff to that level would need many extra time and resources, but as a potential customer, I really don't care. So basically, they took FC3 plane, gave it something that it already should have IMO (the AFM), and trying to sell it as a new module? ED, if you're trying to improve FC3 planes even after release, great, I am thankful for that, but please, don't call it a new module! If you took one product (Flanker / Eagle) from a bigger pack (FC3) and decide to sell it separately, great again, but again - it's not a new module for goodness sake! :wallbash: Another thing is the degradation of DCS brand. It should be reserved for high-fidelity modules only, as previously thought (or at least so it was understood by the public). Or at least call those med-fidelity modules DCS Lite or whatever, and advertise it as such from the start. So next time, your loyal fans don't have to be excited (and later disappointed) for no good reason. Sorry guys, but I'm sure you can definitely do better than that.

DISAPPOINTED! OK, so I've been waiting for a properly simulated Flanker literally for years... ...just to find out it's not going to be anything else than current FC3 Flanker with AFM strapped to it. In other words, it will just get on par with Su-25 and A-10A which already are included in FC3. You might talk about marketing reasons behind that, and you'd be probably right. But after all those great news about Huey, MiG-21, Hornet and EDGE, this is just disappointment of the year for me. I'm a helicopter guy and Flanker is one of the few jets I really care about. And now, DCS Flanker (and I mean, real DCS Flanker) is so far away, when it already seemed so close. Don't mean to blame ED, but.... ...no. Just NO. I will have to face it.

Come on, guys, do you really suppose me to spend my hardly earned 50 bucks for the most realistic sim just to play it in game mode?! :doh::D There is only right way to learn and that's the hard way. Nuff said. :smartass: