Rotorhead

OK, guys, go ahead now and call me a noob if you wish, but I've never heard of this Froogle guy before... However, he's got his hands on an exclusive DCSW 2 video, before any press did, even with a little interwiev with Wags himself. I find it rather cool, and I believe that ED showing their recent work publicly is a really good sign. Actually, I excepted that video to realy pump up the hype over here, and so far, nothing happened... :huh: ..but id certainly did for me, hehe! :) Anyways, few things I noticed: > The terrain, the buildings, everything looks superb, even the runway textures with cracks and all. Can't wait to take any of my choppers for a low-level ride. > The HDR effects look so much realistic now. It's really dangerous and demanding to fly into the sun, as you can barely see anything. Also, the lens flare effect (that used to bug me so much in the previous video :P) seems to be gone from cockpit. I like. > Those power wires seem still too easy to spot for my taste, especially against sky background. But still light years better than those infamous ones we have now. > Matt flies like crazy. :D Overall, I'm really happy about what I see. Only thing I'm not sure about is the alpha release they talk about. Sure, there always are beta releases, but they are usually almost identical to the following stable release (unless some critical bug surfaces of course). But now, they say they are going to release feature-incomplete alpha? I was always thinking that EDGE is taking so much time exactly because ED don't want to release incomplete product. I'm really hoping they're not going to push an incomplete product just because they feel that the release is long overdue and they don't want more negative publicity for another delay. Which is by the way true, but releasing something incomplete doesn't make it justice either. But what do I know, it might be just semantics. ED keep working on DCS and adding modules and features to it all the time, so it can be hardly called feature-complete at any point.

:megalol:

I don't know what to say. So sad and angry at the same time... At least if this tragedy would open people's eyes and make them realize what's the true cause of this all evil... And by this true cause, I don't mean some group of bad guys in the Middle East. I mean something much, much deeper. If something of this makes other people think, then those poor victims haven't died in vain. Otherwise, I fear for the future of humanity.

Wonderful video, thanks ED for this nice New Year's present! Love these clouds. And seeing how well the NTTR map already runs and looks, makes me more optimistic that DCSW 2 release is really not far away. Only a little bit of criticism if I may: That lens flare effect we see several times during the video will surely look great in external view, but has no place in cockpit! The cockpit view is supposed to simulate what you see with your eyes as a pilot, so no camera artifacts please! However, I'm pretty sure guys at ED are well aware of it, and it's just some leftover related to WIP state of the engine or something. Thanks once again, keep up the good work and DCSW 2 will be great! :thumbup: Oh and Happy New Year to everyone!

Not completely sure without checking with the manual, but I am pretty confident that you have to set the handle back into neutral only after gears up. After you set your gear down you simply leave it there. As Flagrum noted, there is most likely no need for any compressed air (not hydraulic) to be used up after gear down. And besides that, there are good safety reasons not to touch you gear handle after you've set it down for landing.

Hate to be rain on your parade, guys, but... Didn't the last Christmas banner feature Su-27? And Su-27 with PFM was released like... next November? Go figure... :tomato::D

Not in the initial release I believe. But it was said somewhere that in DCSW 2, main menu will be part of the engine itself (i.e. no more separate launcher.exe and dcs.exe). This would mean 3D units in encyclopedia, livery preview in editor, and yes, 3D editor would be possible too (although I don't know any details about this one). But it was said that DCSW 2 won't make use of these features right from the start, they will be added in later.

Well, the last one featured wasn't that stupid. It's reasonably small, packs enough firepower (but unlike the others, still in realistic amount), and utilizes stealthy optical sensors instead of radar. When used to deliver a surprise strike on high-value target without anti-air defenses (as showed in the video), it could probably work. Although I still wonder if there's no easier way of achieving the same result, and I don't see how is it better than current UAVs. About those truck-sized ones... Come on! While it's convenient that they come with civilian carriers (those Geneva Convention guys will surely love that... :mad:), if your enemy is that stupid to allow you to assemble and launch this monster in range of his airbase, without his air defenses shooting it down, then he probably deserved his fate. I mean, this thing is HUGE! Isn't one of UAV's main advantages its mobility and stealthiness? I think this one sort of defeats the purpose. If it's even technically possible to build such thing, that is. So luckily, this is either just an entertainment video, or its creator is slightly overtly optimistic. Unfortunately, some bastards will always find their ways to hurt others... Without using truck-sized quad-copters. :(

Of course I would. Why do you even ask? ;)

Good ones, here's one more: A young student pilot is trying to impress a lady in an airport café, at mixed civilian - military airfield. "So you really are a pilot?" she asks. "Yes. Yes, I am." "And what type of airplane do you fly?" "A Cessna," he replies, "C-152, namely." Then, he slowly points at a Hercules standing on the tarmac: "That one over there, for example, is a C-130..." :D

Uh, not really I believe. The red button, as I understand it, simply disengages the autopilot - it terminates any A/P mode you might have set earlier (just like it does in MiG-21). Our "S" button is actually a switch located near the throttle.

So, few days ago, I downloaded it and configured all the controls... then I had to left as I had something else to do... and then I finally did some tests... My first impressions? Meh, it flies just like the old one! Low speed handling still seems heavily scripted, and that famous 'Cobra button' does nothing! :unsure: And then, then I realized that I installed it on the beta branch (where else), but for my testing, I launched the ordinary one! :doh: I facepalmed so hard that my hand almost come through my forehead! So, my real first impressions? Very good! Sure, you guys over here have found a few things with the flight model that aren't supposed to happen, but during normal flight and some aerobatics, all felt very stable and believable. She handles like a dream, even in the hands of such an inept pilot as I am. Landings are surprisingly easy, nailed it like a pro on my first attempt (wish I could land the other birds easily like this)! Even the Cobra, though not that easy, is quite manageable. Overall, great joy flying her! Now I have even much more appreciation for my beloved airplane! Thank you, ED guys, you made me really happy for once! Guess I have enough entertainment for the following weeks. Now just iron out those few bugs and she will be perfect! :thumbup:

Mr. Wags has birthday? That calls for a very special cake! :yay: Have a good one sir, and thank you for all the work you have done for us during those years!

Don't worry, I'm gonna tell him that as soon as he shows up, which, by the way, is happening any minute now... at least that's what they keep saying last 2000 years or so. And yet we whine about EDGE being delayed some insignificant three years... shame on us! :D

Really nice newsletter, thank you ED! Tons of new exciting planes inbound! Very much looking forward to the Flanker, Albatros and MiG-15... these will be all mine! :clap_2: However, seems like good news never come without any bad ones... Sad face about 2.0. I was hoping that mid-November, at the same time as Flanker release, might be a realistic estimate, and from previous newsletter, I've got the impression it's even ED's plan (dunno, maybe just wishful thinking on my side). Now, the careful wording of the latest newsletter makes an impression more like "We are really trying to make this by the end of this year, but unless we are really insanely lucky, it won't be here before 2015." Feels like a little deja-vu. How many times now? I've stop counting already. I'm happy that EDGE finally reached a crucial milestone, but let's admit it, this constant shifting of release year gets tiresome.

Thanks for quick reply, Cobra, nice to hear! Let's hope you will be able to pinpoint and fix it soon, so we all can join the other, happy sim pilots in full MiG-21 glory! :)

Wow, just a while ago I found out its already out! Nice surprise, Leatherneck, I surely didn't expect it one day earlier! :thumbup: Still waiting for my backer's key to arrive though, but I'm sure it won't take long, and I don't have much time for flying right now anyway, so no big deal. After so long period of waiting and uncertainty, it feels almost unreal. Huge thanks to everyone involved! However, good news never last long, do they? Why it always have to be us people with FFB sticks? :mad: Seriously, FFB in DCS products seems to be broken more often than is reasonable. I said it last time and I will say it again: Don't they really do any testing with FFB sticks? So, after a long period of neglecting my flightsim hobby, finally there is a module that I really want to fly (while waiting for EDGE of course) - and you say I can't fly it properly? :wallbash: I seriously hope it will get fixed soon. Good luck with that, Leatherneck.

It's been a while since I last activated any of my modules, but IIRC, just play any mission with your newly bought F-15, and a window show automatically appear asking for your serial code. Just enter it here and you should be good to go!

Yeah, but in this case, one of the sides is not even regular army. They don't have any means of doing any of the above, and hell knows if they even care. Which is only one more reason why the airspace should be closed long ago. And, while some say that the Buk launcher was smuggled from Russia, there are some rumors that it was Ukrainian, captured by the rebels. Which would mean that Ukrainian officials were well aware what the rebels have at their disposal, and didn't close the airspace even after that. Of course, it's just only a speculation. One thing is sure. If someone has closed the airspace, none of this would happen. Funny how these things always become obvious only after something tragic happens, isn't it? :(

Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking since I first heard about this Su-25 thing. Only thing that remains unclear to me, what would a Su-25 do in such altitude, near its operational limits? I presume it's not normal procedure, is it? Yes, it's known that the separatists have MANPADS, so staying high would be a good way to avoid them, but then again, Su-25 is not A-10C to actually hit something from that flight level. Paint me confused. Further regarding to the article, it's misleading. It states that "aircraft was not hit by a missile in the central portion." Is the author aware that anti-aircraft missiles don't hit their target directly, but explode in close proximity of their target, and destroy it with lots of tiny projectiles - which would of course create entry and exit holes as he mentions? Or the statement that the fact of airplane breaking apart is proof of internal explosion. Firstly, internal fuel stores could possibly explode after SAM hit, but more importantly, the shrapnel cloud will of course disrupt the airplane's structural integrity, after which aerodynamical forces simply tear it apart. As with any such incident, it's no wonder that conspiracy theories quickly start to surface, but I will rather wait for some official results. However, it's pretty possible that those results will say "shot down by SAM", but whether will we get to know who really launched it, remains a question.

Hi, I'm back after a long time! ;) On a slightly different (but highly related) note, look what I've seen few days ago on a Czech news portal, in an article regarding MiG-29 crash in Russia: You know, MiG-29 is very rare type of aircraft, so some real pictures of it are so hard to get. Gee. :D

^ :megalol::megalol: Luckily not, I made it just in time. ;)

So, finally an announcement! :clap_2: I am very happy to see this project back on track! However, there are few things that still irk me. Firstly, I fully respect the company's decision to keep their private things private, but still, I'd like to know more of what happened. Now, it feels a bit like "Something horrible has happened, we made you think that this project is definitely lost (remember that infamous announcement?), we can't tell you what it was but we want to assure you it won't happen again, as we took precautions which we will no further discuss..." Secondly, so the crowdfunding money is gone? It's a nice step to give all the backers what they paid for anyway, but it does not cast a good light at the idea of crowdfunding in general. Yes, we know it has its risks an it can go wrong, but not in the way it did. One project was already sunken by general lack of community trust, and when there is a project people trust in, something like this happens. So, the team's leading person ran with our money? Or the rest of the team forced him to leave? Or has he lost his mind and threw all this money into slot machines? Hell, we haven't the smallest idea. But I'm sure it will make many of us to think twice before funding anything else in the future. Finally, I hope that Leatherneck (Who came up with that name, anyway? :doh:) is not planning to focus on Western (especially US) planes in the future like anyone else does. This MiG-21 was a first Russian jet to feature full DCS standard, it would be immense shame to be the last one as well (until - if ever - ED makes DCS Flanker).

OK, talking about aviation dreams, I had two worth mentioning. First one, I was flying an airliner, when suddenly, the master caution light went off and alarm started to beep. I checked everything, and seeing there is nothing wrong, I pushed the caution light to reset it and silence the beeping. The same situation repeated at least twice, until I realized it's my (real world) alarm clock beeping, telling me to wake up and go to work... :D The second one has some lengthy backstory to it: I have a new co-worker who recently moved in from the other end of the country, and he found out I am an aviation fan who occasionally visits airshows. He admitted he'd like to visit one with his kids as well (he never did before), and asked which good ones are taking place somewhere nearby. So I gave him a few tips, and promised that I will bring him an USB-stick with pictures I took at those shows. I uploaded those pics on my USB-stick, and went to bed. Before falling asleep, I remembered: "Oh, I forgot to put that USB into my bag, now there is no chance to do it morning before leaving to work, 'cause I'll surely forget it overnight. No matter, I'm not getting out of the bed again, I will bring it another day." And I fell asleep. And I had a dream: I was onboard a rescue helicopter, sitting in the back, while there was a nice looking young lady flying the chopper, and an older instructor telling her where to land etc. Sort of familiarization flight or something. After I woke up, I thought: "That was a weird dream, I was flying in a helicopter... Oh! Helicopter! I have to bring that USB-stick!" :D True story. :)

Of course you are right! I, and, I believe, many others of us, sincerely hope that current events will be solved peacefully and without further violence. But, even if those events don't evolve into a real war (and again, I really hope they don't), it does not mean we cannot use them as an interesting backstory for our fictional missions. When I fly combat missions (I usually don't), I want to have some believable backstory. Like, there were military tensions in Abkhazia. Sure, nothing that big as we have in DCS, but still - you can take real world events, make them a bit more dramatic, and you have a believable scenario that just could have happened. Still better than a war breaking out in downtown Las Vegas, right? :music_whistling: I hope that there's no need to say that playing fictional wars on my PC does not make my respect to innocent victims of any war any lesser.