Cake

TACAN doesn't necessarily include VOR. If it does then the station is called a VORTAC, not TACAN.

http://www.everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-0100-0299/download.php?spec=MIL-STD-291C.011561.pdf

I think for commercial aviation to be interesting in DCS, more or all of the world has to be the arena and many things would need to be worked out in terms of managing air traffic, providing real world weather, etc. Clearly, this isn't the focus of DCS, but the same things essential for a civilian commercial component would also make the military aspect of DCS better. Certainly civilian aircraft could be used for supply and troop deployment duties, but give me a nicely modeled Edge 540, sponsorship from Red Bull, and a Citation Ten and I'll be happy.

I don't know why they should bet their hand on modeling anything less than the entire Earth as a next step. Clearly, it's feasible to bubble graphics and swap scenery in and out of memory. Moreover, It would be totally ok to have areas like Nevada, Hawaii, Vietnam be gradually released in high def while the rest of the world is in low def, someday to be uodated. I think ED needs to take a cue from their own approach to releasing aircraft and take a similar approach with mapping the entire possible battlefield. Perhaps they need to expand their skill set to achieve this and some fresh views on how to approach these challenges are needed - Not simply with just terrain, but also with other models of how to serve up the world as a simulated battlefield that can be run more efficiently in a grander scale.

Very nice.

I think the post below was the best argument so far in this thread. In fact, it is the flight model more than anything else that represents hi fidelity in a fighter simulation, and this is no where more true than when it comes to a manuevering battle. Sure, the buttonology is important, but that is coming. We should all be really excited for this as a giant leap forward. I don't see how this detracts from the big picture or getting other sims out. In fact, I'm sure what is learned on the way to putting the AFMs in F15 and Su27 will end up making DCS F18 even more robust when it is ready for release.

I'm with you, but I think that Wags is doing his best to let us know where things stand. Of course, a little info leads to a lot more questions, and I have a feeling much of this is not decided yet. Certainly, if I knew of the upcoming su27 and f15 modules, I would have never bothered buying FC3, but this announcement might save others. On the other hand, it hasn't been stated either way whether these will be included for FC3 owners. As far as a DCS quality fast mover, I have really good feelings that MiG21 will be very good. I am also very impressed with Huey and P51. In fact I enjoy them more than A10.

Ah, yes. They were part of the package when I bought FC3. FC3, btw, was released with these as part of 1.2.4, wasn't it? I have to agree that adding the AFM only and charging the same to someone who bought FC3 already as someone who bought nothing would be a slap in the face for the FC buyers. So far, I have bought all the modules, and I might be ok paying extra for the AFMs, but I've already paid for the model and 6dof cockpits.

So much negativity... First and foremost, I think it is great that Wags is coming out and sharing so much with us now. This is a very good thing. Of course, this also gives them a chance to see how we, the hardcore simmers, respond to their development plans, which is a form of market research in of itself. I feel very satisfied that I now have UH-1 and soon MiG21. This is a very good year indeed. Certainly, AFMs for the 15 and 27 will be welcome and the incremental improvements will be very much appreciated. However, having just bought FC3 primarily for the Su27 and the F15C, I admit I'd be a little disappointed to be charged an intermediate upgrade prior to full DCS. It has not been stated that this would be the case, and I took the announcement as an implication that people who didn't have FC3 could get into a AFM versions of the 15 and 27 for a relatively low price. Hopefully, the AFM will be complimentary for FC3 owners. Whereas I'd be happy to pay for a full DCS version, I certainly don't want to pay three times for these, unless of course it's upgrade pricing that reflects my prior commitment to the product line with FC3 and so on. I agree with those suggesting medium fidelity is good to build a user base in DCS. Personally, I think ED would be smart to release a free Block 1 F-16 with AN/APG 66 or even YF16 with no radar. The F16 is so popular I think it would draw people in a way that the SU-25 doesn't, and for those of us who really want a later block F16, this could come in full DCS fidelity down the road. In terms of classified radar, most people are not going to know the difference, so some assumptions can be made and creativity can be used in this area, so long as the performance is consistent with the public available specifications.

This is what I was thinking, too. So, when you create a mission or generate one, it can be based on the date including year and units available would be derived from this. Ideally, the variants of the aircraft and the weapons possible would also be consistent. Of course, the US does have the capability to send one aircraft carrier back in time so we can have f14 vs A6M, or maybe just a permit anachronism toggle.

But in the prior release they would taxi in circles, dissecting the island, on and on and on. That's a good question. As least they are semi out of the way. It would be cool if they were reloaded and then launched again, or put down below deck. My results were simply from a mission that was broken and somehow fixed by 1.2.4 without me changing anything but adding my Huey to fly off from the deck. Strange the Huey seemed to move just a little on the deck before even adding any collective. I took off before drifting off.

I was working on a mission in 1.2.3 that involved F14s and FA18s launching from a carrier. Invariably, two of the four F14s would end up catapulting in the ocean, and really strange behavior would ensue for the aircraft after they returned to the carrier. It seems both issues are fixed in 1.2.4. The airplanes even park themselves nicely. I was surprised, because I didn't see anything on this in the 1.2.4 release notes.

From Aviation Herald: "Several observers on the ground reported the National Air Cargo Boeing 747-400 had just lifted off and was climbing through approximately 1200 feet when it's nose sharply rose, the aircraft appeared to have stalled and came down erupting in a blaze... According to a listener on frequency the crew reported the aircraft stalled due to a possible load shift."

The crew apparently reported a load shift on the radio.

According to a friend who has been thinking about buying a Robinson, and who was also an Army Huey pilot, he didn't like the R22 because it was 'twitchy' and not very stable compared to what he was used to. He tried the R44 and liked it much better.

Nice recycle Shepski!

Do helicopter controls not have artificial feel like fixed wing? I've flown fixed wing aircraft with substantial control forces required because of artificial feel - Much heavier than the springs on a cougar or warthog.

+1 :thumbup:

I think the new 27 pit looks great. Full DCS mode will be awesome.

I think this is great news, but I'm also looking forward to the MiG21 and F104. In fact, it'll be fun smacking down some newer aircraft with these. It's becoming pretty clear we'll be getting great hardware to fly. Someone mentioned terrain, and honestly, the eye candy isn't that important in my opinion, but we do need much bigger battlefields. The entire Earth should be ours to master ;)

In version 1.2.3, I had the training videos installed for BS2. These have vanished. I selected "Install (EN)" in the training menu. A 1.6Mb file is downloaded, then the system seems to find my old files as a user account controls dialog comes up to confirm the installation. After selecting ok to proceed, the system pops up an error: check("c:\Users......AppData\Local\Temo\DCS\update\08\...............(3) The system cannot find the path specified. I installed the FC3 training materials with no problems.

I understand that $50 is a lot of money. I wish it were less, but consider what we are getting - A very realistic simulation of a complex aircraft. Also, this is not a game like COD that will have huge market share. We want companies to write super realistic high end modules, but there needs to be something in it in terms of reward. these are people with talent in related to aviation. in aviation, $50 is just enough to pay for two minutes worth of variable operating cost in a real UH1H, that is if you already own it. Seriously, these cost over $1500/hr to operate, and most of that is just fuel and Mx. If it's too expensive for you now, it'll probably go on sale eventually and you can grab it then. I think though, for what it is, $50 is a truly a bargain.

Question on a related note, once you've installed BS2 1.2.3 or 1.2.4, is there any reason to keep BS 1 installed on the system? Is it ok to go to steam and remove the local files for BS1? I'm also wondering the same for LOMAC. I re-installed LOMAC in order to get FC3 1.2.3 beta. Do I need to keep LOMAC or can I go to windows and uninstall it?

Thanks. I think most US credit cards like Mastercard / VISA charge 3%. 1% goes to the conversion and 2% is extra profit for the credit card issuer. I think AMEX might charge something like 2.7% I think some cards do not charge anything, such as Discover, AMEX Platinum, and there are many cards from companies like Capital One and Chase, but it depends on the card. So, I was wondering from others in the United States who have used PayPal but linked the payment through their credit cards if there was a fee added by their credit card / bank? Thanks.

It looks like I need to resubmit my FC3 purchase because of the April payment problem and I want to purchase the Huey. On prior purchases, I simply used my CC, but there was always a foreign transaction fee added at the end of the month. I'm buying from the US. Discover is not accepted - This is unfortunate because this card does not add foreign transaction fees. Does a Paypal purchase linked to a credit card eliminate foreign transaction fees?