Cake

Too bad we have no Texan II.

Assuming that the GPS satellites are operating, it should still be good for LNAV and it would still provide guidance for ILS.

Note the Garmin CDI in the picture. HSI would be nicer.

Let's hope for a GTN 750 for 2.x. :) But seriously, the 430will be a great addition for many of the aircraft. Also need a compatible HSI or CDI.... preferably an HSI. Will that be included?

Impressive build! Congrats.

My choice would be too skip the canopy scratches. We pilots should do our best not to scratch the glass and make sure the bugs are cleaned off before we go again.

+2

I agree with the idea behind opening up the development. It seems that it ought to be possible to more openly allow development for DCS World, but only allow developers sell 'certified' modules that have been approved under the guidelines of the program. Prior to certification, modules could be more openly tested with the community. These would be evaluated and discussed for realism, quality, etc and passed if certain standards are met. Once something becomes certified, it's can be adopted as part the DCS core and at that point the developer could require a fee for future use, or at least for "full featured use". So for example, if someone developed a Ford Class carrier, everyone could get the external model, but you'd have to pay a micro transaction to operate from it. This might encourage vendors to develop modules, knowing they if they are well accepted by the community and ED, that there will be a financial incentive for doing so. Could also work for terrain, airports, map features, etc with a system where what one was a cool mod could become part of the release and earn a hard working coder some type of reward. It might also serve as a way to bring good freeware into DCS and have some certification process with community / ED standards. I also agree that it seems a little more resilience between the modules and revisions to DCS World would be welcome. We need to encourage development, not create barriers to it.

+1

I've sort of wondered about that, too. If ED was more open with the code base would it get improved faster? If they focused on the code base and were more open with their SDK, would that achieve both goals?

Recent DCS news and events have set me to wonder.... I've been around PC flight sims for several decades. I guess you could say I've been more or less involved with DCS since being a beta tester on the original Flanker 1.5. I remember back to flight sims on the Apple II and MSDOS. During the early Flanker days, we all fantasized about something like what exists now with DCS World. In many ways, this is a fantastic achievement and the dedication of the community is impressive. Thinking back, some milestones in my enjoyment of flight sims include: 1. My first simulated combat in Strike Eagle on the Apple II 2. Cool graphics of Falcon on the Amiga 3. My first PvP ladder matches in Flanker 4. The immersion of the war in Falcon 4. 5. Modeling the whole world more or less in MS Flight Sim. 6. Getting to fly a variety of high fidelity aircraft in DCS 7. RIFT Over these many years, there has been a trend of increasing detail and fidelity in terms of the following: A. Aircraft Systems / Flight Modeling B. Graphical Detail C. Simulation of the Aerospace / Combat Environment The detail of the interface between the pilot and the aircraft systems and flight modeling in DCS World are fantastic. The graphical detail is also wonderful. To me, it is DCS World’s aircraft systems and flight modeling that make it beat anything short of a commercial full motion simulator. The graphics are also good, but what about the simulation of the aerospace/ combat environment? DCS maps are highly detailed, but does the extreme map/external model detail come at the cost of a bigger experience? For example, I was at the Boise airport a few weeks ago. The ramp was full of A-10s. A few of the ‘hogs were on the ground frequency requesting permission to load live ordnance. There were three transient F/A-18s being refueled in front the FBO, and there was a flight of Blackhawks passing overhead. Fire fighting aircraft were operating from the other side of the field, all of this during the 30 minutes or so while we picked up our PAX, and this was in Boise, which is not exactly the world’s busiest place. I thought this was pretty cool, and wonder if DCS needs to offer more immersion? I thought the feeling of immersion in Falcon 4 during the campaign was awesome. When did F4 come out, was it almost 20 years ago? I also wonder why the entire world modeled to some degree of detail? It’s 2017 and the sandbox is still small. It would be awesome to be able to operate our modules outside Nevada, the SoH, and Normandy. I know, these areas aren’t really THAT small if you’re on the ground, but they are for jets. Civilian jets can do NYC to LAX in 4 hours. How cool would it be to be able to fly to any airport in the world with an adequate runway? So many mission possibilities… For example, why can’t we fly our F-15Cs from the Westfield Barnes to P-67 to enforce a TFR, or stop in Portland ME and return with a couple boxes of live lobster in the back? Cool with me if we left the 3D lobster to the imagination, but I do think modeling the whole world combined with the strong points of DCS systems and flight modeling would greatly expand the user base. Maybe poach a bunch of the noncombat simmers in the process. The DCS community has an almost religious obsession with accuracy and details. This is great, but it makes me wonder which more greatly compromises fidelity, the lack of detail or the lack of scope? Could more of DCS with less detail actually be better if it modeled more of the environment? Not just in terms of more of the world, but also more aircraft, more of the system. I’m sure ED faces numerous questions of the future of its development, like questions of whether or not to open source and/or appeal to external vendors for more than aircraft, where the community fits in, whether to adopt DX12, server, network, multiprocess/thread, etc? I don’t really follow much on these things, but I do get the feeling that as the scope of DCS expands so will the user base and participation of external developers for more than just aircraft. I think DCS should continue to do what it does so well in modelling aircraft and systems in detail while trying to expand the scope of the environment these aircraft operate in, including the AI stable of aircraft, ATC, weather, aerodromes, etc. Ps. It would also be cool to be able to use apps such as ForeFlight along with DCS world like you can in the other sims. There’s nothing unrealistic about taking an iPad along in a P-51 in 2017.

Thanks all. Seems like you're all in agreement. I'll get the Viggen and hold off until this Hawk is better squared away.

I have all the aircraft and terrain except for the Viggen and Hawk and am considering one or both. The Viggen looks interesting. Any thoughts on the Hawk? Pro's and cons for either?

In the old days TM used to sell throttle quadrants and sticks separately. This seems like a good idea to bring back and perhaps they are.... I for one would be much more interested in a throttle quadrant with better controls for radar because the A10 stick doesn't seem to be missing much. Why not make an F22 throttle? Replica is cool, but the reality is many of us sim pilots use one setup for a variety of different sims. I'd rather have a knob that I don't use than not have one I need....

Nice

Does ED have to somehow balance the effort on developing the base simulation vs developing new modules? Seems like right now they are focused on a new modules. I know the revenue streams are tied more to selling modules, but it seems like there is in fact much room to improve the DCS world base with DX12, more threads, etc. We see game titles already in full release updated to higher DX versions with some regularity. I have personally noticed performance increases as a result. I wonder where we would be with this if the base was open source.

Wind noise, especially at lower density altitudes. So, more noise when the gear is down, brakes are on, etc.

Interesting discussion. I think DCS does a great job modeling the aircraft and systems. The scenery is great, but only where there is some. To me, part of realism is having a realistic world to fly in not just in terms of detail, but also scope. I think confining aircraft to relatively small geographical really limits the market that DCS appeals to. DCS is a good flight simulator, not just a good combat flight simulator. It could be a great flight simulator, if it were willing to model more or all of the world in lesser detail. Why not model the whole world, and fill in the detail later? Start with basic land and oceans, add runways and navigation systems and go from there. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not sure if it is just me and something wrong in my setup or a limitation for the flight model and controls, but the speed brake seems to only allow a fully extended or fully retracted position. My understanding is that the real F15 allows for any intermediate position as with the A10C. How can we configure this or any suggestions as to what I'm doing wrong?

Unlike turbofan aircraft, you can expect significant turning tendencies as you add power during the takeoff roll. You have torque effects, spiraling slipstream, P factor, and because the P51 is a talwheel airplane you can also expect a sudden tendency for the airplane to yaw left when the tail wheel lifts off due to the gyroscopic effect of the prop, and the P51 has a huge prop. I remember the strength of the gyroscopic effect surprising me the first time I piloted a conventional gear airplane, and that was a small 1947 Stinson with a fraction of the power and prop size of a Mustang. I think flying tail wheel airplanes in a sim is extra challenging because there is no seat of the pants feel for how the airplane is moving, only visual cues.

Oculus Rift Preorder Anyone get in on this? The order process was a pain, but I managed to get through it. Expected delivery in March.

Thanks for sharing, just came across this while working on my next system build. It certainly would be nice to see DX12 in DCS World to make better use of the hardware we have.

2x6990M CF

I have the print version at home, but my guess is it is the same as the FAAs PDF. I have all kinds of the print versions of this stuff and generally the FAA keeps the newest revisions online, so by all means take advantage of the free PDF. The hard copy I have as a big approx 8 1/2" x 11 softcover bound book. It's nice to work out of, but it would be nice if they reformatted the whole thing and updated some of the graphics. Then again, it's kind of cool in a nostalgic way.

What do you mean by being "perfectly banked over"? Aerodynamic principles hold true in combat and fighter pilots learn to fly before they learn to dogfight. Clearly, the OP did not understand that it is impossible to sustain a coordinated level 90 degree banked turn. I'm not saying the OP doesn't understand how airplanes turn, but clearly there is a disconnect in applying this basic knowledge to flying the airplane and my suggestion was an exercise for him to learn to develop a feel for the airplane that will translate eventually to ACM. It's easy to understand flight and then not translate our knowledge properly in the cockpit. As pilots, we should all be learning. However, if you can't make precise turns at 6g in an f15, you'll never make it to combat in one, except of course here in DCS where everyone wants near perfect realism. :pilotfly: My suggestion for you is to review Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators and then you can come back and explain your perfect 6g turns with 85 degrees of bank angle. Just to show me, you can demonstrate one at 500ft AGL. I'll buy you a beer after, or at least have one to remember you. :)