Echo38

This technique looks unconvincing at normal altitudes, and horrible at lower altitudes. "Photoreal" is a misleading term, even if real photographs were used. No, thanks.

If I remember correctly, I've seen multiple posts by ED devs and/or testers, stating that this was a WIP/known issue, along with the climb rate. Can't say for sure; sorry. Maybe do a forum search with various terms, if you haven't already. I know it's been discussed a lot.

Understood; esoteric aircraft modifications are generally outside of the scope of a warbird sim, anyway. My point on "completion" was that, in theory, one could reasonably say that a complete simulation of the aircraft would allow the user to make such modifications (along with others, e.g. fuel grade & governor limits, and gun convergence/harmonization pattern) in the virtual hangar. But, then, too, one could also say that this goes beyond a pilot's simulation of the aircraft itself, being rather a simulation of a ground crew & such, in which case the simulation can be considered complete without such modification features. (Especially if such modifications--at the behest of the pilot--were uncommon or unheard of, as it seems to have been in this case.) So, in the end, I'm "on your side," as well as on the side that'd like in-hangar control over such things. As odd as that might seem, I don't think it's self-contradictory for me to recognize "both sides" as having at least some validity. : ) At any rate, I agree with you, that implementing such a "hangar work" trim limit-adjustment feature, in the forseeable future, would be largely a waste of resources (such as your time), which should be (and are being) spent on more important & relevant things. I'm guessing that you have your hands quite full with many, many things which are more valuable to us sim-users, than being able to modify Me 109 trim-limits for the purpose of making up for deficiencies in our gaming joysticks. But, I do have a hope that, perhaps years from now, when there is less to do in the field of flight simulators (because more of it has been done), then such a "virtual hangar & ground crew" feature might be created. Not that I'm saying it should be on the visible priority list. Like I said, I understand that it'd be a lot of work, it isn't particularly relevant to the present scope of DCS, and you're working on many more important things. But one can dream. In the meantime: one can thoroughly enjoy an accurate simulation of a given factory-fresh Me 109K, from the pilot's perspective, without possessing the ability to tweak trim tabs in the hangar. Perspective, folks ...

If it were just repeating it for the sake of reminding Yo-Yo that some of us would like this feature, if implementing it is ever viable, then I agree that there's less than no point in rehashing once more. Yo-Yo knows, and he's given his answer, and it's a reasonable stance. There are bigger fish to fry, and--within the cockpit--it's pretty accurate the way it is. However, I don't believe Pilum was repeating it for the sake of repetition. Rather, he posted in response to Rogue Trooper's inaccurate implication that "our side's" stance is baseless & irrational. As I stated before (link), both sides have a solid foot to stand on. Bottom line is what Sithspawn said: ED doesn't feel that the benefit of the extra "ground-crew feature" would be worth the development time, at least at present. And that's fair. That isn't the same as saying that the "naysayers" have no factual basis for their request, though. Certain people on both sides of this debate need to take a chill pill [looking at Rogue Trooper]. This isn't a binary question--right vs. wrong--and I've demonstrated why, in that post. In short: "The simulation is inaccurate, the trim is wrong" isn't a fair statement, but on the other hand, neither is "the simulation is complete, the trim system works entirely like the real thing." The truth is somewhere in the middle. No one, regardless of which of the two "sides" they take on this issue, should be implying that the other side has an unreasonable stance, at core; I've already explained at length how both sides have a valid point. I hope that this concludes the now-pointless debate, reserving this thread for new information & discussion which consists of something better than simply repeating what's already been said several times before, within this thread and others. In any other Internet forum, I would consider that an overly-optimistic objective, but this is DCS; I expect better.

Another thing: the Saitek pedals aren't up to the task of matching the Warthog. I use Saitek pedals & recommend 'em to simmers on a budget, but if you're using a Warthog, you should be using Crosswind or Simped with them, not Saitek. Saitek pedals are only recommendable for being "good" for ~$120. They are far from being a great controller, so you might want to consider getting better pedals which allow for more fine control. By all accounts, the Crosswinds are excellent, though closer in price to the Warthog. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=119419 (Don't even think about CH. Similar center precision to the Saitek pedals, and much worse ergonomics. Not remotely worth the price tag.)

Interesting--I see that the P-38 is the most-desired fighter that we aren't already scheduled to get from ED. This is heartening to see! An ED-developed P-38L (or even J) would be the culmination of my life-long flight-simming experience--in terms of flight sims, DCS: P-38L completes me.

P-38, naturally. I really wanted to be able to vote for the P-47 as well, though. Poll's a bit flawed. The bombers shoulda been dropped, and the poll should have then been "which fighter" instead of "which aircraft." Here's why: there are only two bombers on the list. So most of the bomber crowd voted for the more popular of the two. Meanwhile, the fighter crowd is all split up between all the fighters. So, with the B-17 having the most votes of all the aircraft on the list, this gives the misleading impression that a bomber is the kind of aircraft that most players want. However, note that the number of people who voted for a fighter is currently more than three times the number of people who voted for a bomber. In other words: just glancing at the poll, without noticing what I noticed, one would think that E.D. should prioritize the B-17, because more players voted for it (in this poll) than for any other aircraft. However, far more players want a fighter than a bomber, judging by the same poll results, which means that (if aircraft prioritization were done based on number of players who wanted it) E.D. should prioritize the most popular fighter. In short: there really ought to be separate polls for fighters and for bombers. And, if necessary, a third poll asking simply, "Do you prefer fighters or bombers." Not that I think it necessary; E.D. doesn't (nor should they) prioritize aircraft development based solely on what's the most popular.

Seems to me that a tiny icon (that doesn't look like an icon) is the best solution you can get on a P.C. monitor. At least it isn't actually getting the model size wrong. The two methods may effectively have the same result, but I'd rather go with the one that adds a subtle game-overlay cue (we already have a game-overlay chat window, so the dot is a merely a minor addition to the overlay), which doesn't screw with the "within-sim" model sizes. Examining the problem closely, the one that doesn't mess with the sim-world & objects in it, but rather adds a small subtle icon to the interface, breaks the simulation less; or maybe I'm just daft. But I like what E.D. is doing with this. We'll have to wait & see how well it works at medium range. Adjustable size means that one can fiddle with it to get a personalized balance between accurate scale, and more-like-real visibility. : )

How big is your monitor?

Yep. When I was talking about a falling piano, I was thinking of a Thunderbolt diving on a 109 at a near-vertical angle. Big, heavy, and you don't wanna be underneath one!

It's a situational maneuver. In many cases, it'd be unwise to do (there are a number of reasons why this can be so, the most obvious of which is that you're a sitting duck for any other enemies to hit, when you're hanging there at low speed). In certain situations, it can be the right thing to do. I myself seldom-to-never perform anything like this, in a normal multiplayer fight (e.g. at "angels ten"), because of engine cooling problems alone. However, at high altitudes (where overheating is less of an issue), or when my energy/angle state is superior enough that can afford to throttle back extensively (it is rarely so), then you'll see me do this occasionally. I'm most likely to do it in duels against fighters with inferior energy-fighting ability, after prolonged maneuvers have resulted in very disparate energy states (e.g. my energy fighter has been maintaining E while maneuvering, while his angles fighter has been "turning & burning," for several minutes). For an example of a real-life ace, Bud Anderson, using this maneuver to win a dogfight, read "Vertical Duel at Angles [sic] 33": http://www.cebudanderson.com/ch1.htm (The full description is below the part labelled "He Was Someone Who Was Trying to Kill Me, Is All.") This story demonstrates one of the other reasons why this maneuver can be unwise; if the 109 pilot had just a slightly better energy state (or the P-51 a slightly worse E state) before the beginning of the maneuver, it would have been curtains for Anderson.

For some reason, I find the notion of a falling piano apt, when talking about the Thunderbolt. : )

Very cool interview! I noticed that you had him wearing a TrackIR in the beginning, but he never used it in any of the flying sequences. I'm guessing he found it too disorienting, because TrackIR's exponential rotation is totally unlike what you experience in real life. Is that why he didn't wear it in the flying segments? Also, Yo-Yo, I noticed in the credits that both you and Mr. Kuznetsov did the music for this video. Can you tell me which parts you composed and/or played? Was it the song at the end of the video? It was seventy years ago; memory works a little oddly at that point. My own brain contains decades-old memories of my childhood, that I normally do not remember, but the right cues can recall these.

It's an international community; the sim itself is developed by a mostly Russian team. Can't expect everyone to have an upper-class British accent, you know. [puts on monocle] The more you speak with people who struggle with English as a second language, the less you'll struggle with accents. As someone who speaks a little German--barely comprehensibly--I can assure you, any non-native English speaker you have trouble understanding, has even more trouble understanding you, because it's more difficult to understand a foreign language being spoken, than to understand your own language spoken with a foreign accent.

Hey, I understood it before I read the subtitle. "Put up a video what is to be a bit different." You guys are mean. ; D

I use the T-16000M. It's a decent stick, for an SPJ. I'd even go as far as to say that, compared with other commercially-available mass-produced joysticks, the T-16000M is one of the best (there are about four contenders in this category, if you count the discontinued MSFFB2). However, although I'd definitely call it an upgrade from the Saitek X-52, overall, make no mistake; the T-16000M is no Warthog. Each individual T-16000M I've tested (at least five pieces) came with defects in the form of hardware deadzones of varying sizes, on the outer limits of travel. So when you're pulling back e.g. 90% of the way, trying to save 10% travel to spare, you'll actually get full elevator deflection instead. This cannot be compensated for within the software, as it's a hardware defect. (CH Fightersticks have the same problem, but the same percentage of deadzone affects the TM more, because the TM has a shorter throw than the CH; I still prefer the TM to the CH, though, overall.) Furthermore, there are few stick-hand usable buttons (three, plus trigger & hat) on the T-16000M. Not a problem for a WWII bird, but don't be expecting to trying to comfortably using the A-10C with this. The throttle slider is also too short-throw for making precise manifold pressure adjustments. You aren't going to kill your engine, but throttle control is going to be a bit clumsy. You may wish to keep your old stick plugged in, to use the T-16000 in your right and and the throttle of the Saitek in your other. In the end, the T-16000M is the joystick I still recommend to anyone on a budget, as there are sticks twice or three times its cost with the same defects (and less precision). I don't think you made a mistake buying it; there are very few mass-produced simming sticks with better center precision (the Warhog's the only one that comes to mind). However, set your expectations reasonably. It's a good stick, for its price, and one of the better commercially-available simming sticks out there. But it's still an SPJ, and--like any other plastic-construction joystick--won't feel at all like a real aircraft stick.

Actually, the "10 for the Chairman" videos were exactly what I was thinking of when I referred to the arm-waving hype generation of other game developers (although traditional trailers for popular shooters also fit the definition of that phrase). The 10 questions Matt Wagner answered were solid, factual, conservative discussions of features. This is good. The "10 for the Chairman" videos, on the other hand, are largely comprised of the developer whimsically tossing about extravagant plans for the distant future. Most of said casually-laid plans are now doubtful to ever happen, due to the sheer volume of these intended features. Relevant terms are "over-hyped" and "feature creep." Mr. Roberts would do well to look at how Mr. Wagner picks & answers 10 questions: picking 10 that are able to have a solid answer given, with a goodly amount of relevant info (which isn't likely to significantly change), on topics that the community is particularly interested in. The way not to do it, is how Mr. Roberts has been doing it: picking 10 suggestions, formed as questions, which he thinks are cool, and answering with "yes, we'll probably do that at some point," and then explaining how he'd like to do it, without seriously considering the viability of making them all happen in a practical timespan. The "telephone game" ensures that the community as a whole ends up hearing about these ideas as promised features, which is a setup for disappointment.

Very cool. I like how the promotional materials for DCS 2.0 are matter-of-fact, as opposed to the hand-waving hype-generation propaganda that seems to be standard in the gaming industry these days. If you've got good content, it speaks for itself; you don't need to try to convince everyone of how awesome it's going to be. : )

Yes, there is an auto-start cheat/aid; no, only putting cold-start aircraft in the mission doesn't actually force people to learn to start their aircraft, because of said cheat/aid, which is not disable-able server-side. The game-crowd cannot be forced to manually start, as long as the cheat/aid is hard-coded to be always available. There are two other problems with forcing all aircraft to cold-start on a quick-action mission. Firstly, the warmup time means that people will literally be spending more time on the ground than in combat, whether or not they use the cheat. Secondly, the hardcore sim-crowd isn't going to use the cheat/aid (because it violates the simulation), and so are going to have to spend even more time on the ground (due to failed starts) than the game-crowd using the cheat. This gives the latter an unfair & unrealistic advantage over the former, and--from a competitive PoV--results in an overall situation which is less realistic than forcing everyone to spawn in engine-running airplanes. Having the option of getting into aircraft which have already been started & warmed up by the ground crew, on the other hand, is a way of getting into the air quickly, without violating the realism of the simulation (whereas having it done by magic, via the auto-start cheat/aid, does reduce the realism). If both cold starts and warmed-up engines are available in the mission, then everyone in the sim-crowd has a realistic option to get going the way they want to--quickly, or methodically.

Good to know; thanks.

Really! No work on the wiring or anything?

FWIW, the two deadliest virtual fighter pilots I knew both preferred the MSFFB2 to the Warthog (they each owned both). Those appear to be the two best commercially-available, mass-produced sticks (although the MS has, of course, long been discontinued), but I've found more high-skill simmers to prefer the MS to the TM. Almost all of the high-performing VFPs I've known, however, ended up using one or the other. Furthermore, those who stuck with the Warthog, invariably modded its length (and usually the spring, too). I've never had the opportunity to lay my hands on either stick, myself, so I can't speak from personal experience, but I used to duel many high-scoring VFPs back in the day, and I always would ask them their equipment setup (& often discuss it at length). The most common complaint about the Warthog was indeed the stiffness, from users of all skill levels. In fact, other than the fact that it doesn't have force feedback, it was the only complaint I ever heard about it.

An authentic simulation of flying in the Second World War would usually involve for flying for many hours without ever encountering an enemy aircraft; I certainly don't want that, and I doubt many (if any) others here do, either. I love flying, and mock-dogfighting, not war. I'm not trying to immerse myself in an authentic WWII experience. I am, however, trying to immerse myself in an authentic WWII-fighter experience. In other words, I don't actually want a realistic simulation of flying an accurately-modelled P-38L in the Second World War; rather, I want a realistic simulation of flying an accurately-modelled P-38L in frequent dogfights amongst my friends & acquaintances. See the fundamental difference? DCS is unique in that most of the aircraft's systems are accurately modelled, as well as having high-quality flight physics (for a P.C. program, anyway). There aren't any other sim/games that allow for as realistic of dogfights in as accurate a depiction of WWII fighters. That's why I'm here, despite DCS's shortcomings in terms of aircraft selection. [cough]P-38[/cough] ; )

I'm baffled. If you say that a pilot must be able to manually figure out where they are on a blank map of the area (and I agree that they should), then why would you then advocate giving them a GPS so that they don't need to learn? This looks like a self-contradiction ... unless, that is, you're suggesting, rather, "The virtual pilot you're controlling knows where he is, so you the player don't have to, because the virtual pilot is navigating for you." Which is going into "virtual character skills" instead of "actual user skills;" but this is a high-fidelity simulator, not a stat-card RPG. If you continue that "pretend character skills" line of thinking, and apply it to engine starts as well, then it'd be fine to use the automatic engine start cheat/aid because "the virtual pilot knows how to start the engine, even if you (the user) don't." Which, I hope you see, is insane, for a high-fidelity simulator. Take it further and you'd turn on the AoA-limiter cheat/aid in the P-51 because "your pilot knows how to avoid stalling." The only abilities that the virtual pilot is supposed to possess that the player/user does not, are abilities which flight sim users are incapable of acquiring themselves (as part of the learning process). Virtual arm strength and G-tolerance are the only ones I can think of. You can't build up those two sitting in your desk chair, and many sim users are medically incapable of real flight, anyway, which is part (or all) of the reason why we grounded-for-medical folks are doing sims instead. But everything else, including navigation, is something the sim user can learn, and would have to in order to be able to effectively fly the airplane. It isn't an RPG, and the virtual pilot isn't supposed to be doing things for the user that the user could learn to do himself, as part of the simulation of operating the aircraft. Navigating is part of the pilot's job of operating the aircraft, and there's no reason why a hardcore sim user shouldn't be required to learn this skill, which is as important to the safe operation of a P-51, as learning to start the engine properly is. Now if, on the other hand, you're making the (valid) argument of "I'm just playing a computer game, and I should be able to pick & choose which things I want to learn & which things are done for me with aids," then that's another thing (although it'd still seem odd that one would be making that argument in this thread, given that the OP implied that it was to be a sim-style server rather than game-style). DCS can be both a simulator & a game, yes, and the developers gave the users the ability to choose. But, it just isn't consistent that engine starts be manual but navigation not, if you're approaching this from a sim-user point of view (rather than that of a game-player). If it's a sim, and the user should thus need to learn to start his own engine, then the user should also need to learn to figure out where he is on a paper map of the area, 'coz the real P-51 didn't have a GPS, and a pilot needs to know how to do both of those things. Agreed; this is why I suggested the option of both. For myself, I cold-start when I have time to fiddle around (e.g. I'm the only one on the server), but I want my ground crew to already have it running for me if time is pressing (e.g. there are people waiting for a dogfight). Now, if you're cold-starting so infrequently that you have to look up the process in a checklist when you do cold-start, then you're not learning a skill that you should know, as a virtual warbird pilot. However, you don't need to cold-start every time to remain comfortable with the startup process.

[nod] And, furthermore, the F-16 has that full-authority FBW, with all the assists; the computer's doing much of the flying for the pilot. Hell, it won't even let you exceed max alpha. Good diagram--it pretty much sums up what I've spent hours trying to explain to various people over the years.