danilop

+1

BINGO! :thumbup:

Do you think that they would go so far if we didn't complain? They're in business to make money, and we, the customers, decide if their product is worth the money or not - ED is obviously listening to our complains and is trying very hard to improve and meet community expectations. That is why most of the people who constructively complain already bought FC3 beta showing support for their work. ;) Soooo, where is the promised improvement on ground handling? :P

Great news! :thumbup: Not there yet, but getting better in every new announcement! Glad to see that good old SU-25 got some attention! :pilotfly:

Setup 1 (minimum I would consider for serious simulator like DCS; there is basic twist rudder functionality and you could upgrade later to full pedals): Saitek X52pro+trackIR Setup 2 (much better durability and great programmability, best after sale support, throttle lacks features): CH Fighterstick + Pro rudders + Throttle pro + TrackIR Setup 3 (A10 replica, perfect for Hog, high quality hardware and software, price according to qualitty): TM Warthog + Saitek Combat Pedals + TrackIR Of course, there are other more exotic solutions like Saitek X65F and Logitech G940 (this one doesn't work properly at the moment - FFB is screwed).

Crosswind?

Cold War Gone Hot scenario? Absolutely. Bring it on! It would be relatively easy to model technology from that era to DCS standard (all technology is probably declassified). We need CA to evolve into complete land operations simulator (with infantry), and new Naval Operation module is needed; if all of this happen, I would probably get a brain implant to permanently switch into DCS world! :D

That is highly subjective view without any scientific background. We can take that as a good indication what current systems could do to second and third class Airforces around the world. Fighting export variants of MiGs and SUs (first thing Russians and Americans do to export weapon systems is to cripple software) don't give reliable information on which you can base definitive answer.

You can't judge complete missile performance according to any weapon deployment manual, period. General ballistic parameters yes, but all important tracking performance, anti-ECM performance and such, you can't. Reprogram the missile software (you probably need half a day in RL) and you have completely different behavior while tracking/homing. Modern air combat is fluid thing and it all boils down who have better ECM and way to beat it. And no, weapons technicians/maintenance personel, hell, even pilots don't have enough clearance to have any clue what's going on in missile software. That's basically top-secret stuff. So ... you'll have to compromise in flight simulator software intended for general public. :)

Sorry about 670 ... It's same for 680 though:

Well, according to this page you can have three displays in surround and one accessory display on single 670: http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/3dvision-surround/system-requirements Maybe DCS is not supporting this?

Very real: http://simhq.com/_air13/air_440a.html EDIT: ahhh, they've beat me to it ... :D 531-Ghost is THE guy to talk about CH products! :thumbup:

It's not that simple ... HOTAS market (especially hard core simulation) is niche market with very few software releases, and you need to have perfect timing when releasing new hardware product. CH have A-10c HOTAS (as real as it gets outside cockpit) for military customers, but decided against release on civilian market (Why, I don't know - it could be contract with USAF or their market research findings): Thrustmaster jumped on opportunity and we know the result. Logitech and Saitek tried as well, with mixed success. I think that next major push on HOTAS market will coincide with release of DCS: Fighter project - couple of years from now, at least. And yes, FFB properly executed is great stuff.

531-Ghost, Is Franken-Potato Mod still available, BTW?

:worthy::megalol::thumbup:

Although FFB would be great, I would like to see some design improvements on fighterstick and throttle pro, especially the later. Not in quality department (CH products are arguably the best if you look for long term reliability), but in functionality: dual stage trigger on the stick and redesigned throttle (not far from franken-potato mod). Pedals need some attention as well.

+1 Ideally, there would be a lot of civilian activities going on during combat, especially near towns and cities (just like in RL). One of the biggest concerns in modern warfare (not the game :D) is well-being of civilians and strict adherence to RoE. Civilian casualties are huge negative propaganda (and big moral impact) and it would be great to simulate negative aspect towards the side which ignores collateral damage in campaign - less public support results in cut budget back at home so no more endless supply of AIM120/R77 in later missions, or opposing AI gets particularly aggressive and brave, for example ... However, CPU toll is huge even without lot of civilian activities at the moment, so that is another side of the coin ...

+1

Yes. Russians could do it, like any other nation which has uranium enrichment /nuclear reactor possibility. Basically, DU is nuclear reactor waste and/or byproduct of uranium enrichment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium Russians do not expect massive armor assault by NATO, so basically DU round is unnecessary for their Air to Ground doctrine, although they have DU rounds in 115 and 125mm caliber guns on T series tanks, probably more ...

The only real world advantage of GAU-8 vs hypothetical 2xGsh-30-2k would be in ammo; armor piercing round specifically - that depleted uranium core does the real damage to armor (and environment, BTW). Kinetic energy is highly overrated ballistic property - projectile construction plays much more important role than modest difference in KE.

Happy New Year! с Новым годом! Срећна Нова Година! :drunk::cheer3nc::beer::yay:

As far as I'm concerned FC3 was waste of time (I got it anyway, just to support ED :thumbup:). It's obviously only meant to fill the gap until DCS: Fighter(s) arrive, and the difference is huge if you compare any plane from FC3 with DCS modules. It just feel inadequate after so much candy like AFM and such ... WE ARE SPOILED NOW! :lol:

No. Exclusivity in sense that you had the best simulated Russian jet at the time (Flanker series)

Exclusivity? Or how about feeling that you have the best possible simulation of Russian jet possible on the PC? I remember times when SU27 was "cutting edge" in sim world. Now it's only part of survey package, even SU25T has far better flight model in DCS ;)! We need it as a stand alone DCS module for the reasons I already stated in Russian Jet Wish List thread.

Beside velocity and projectile construction, there is ballistic property known as Sectional Density of projectile which is very important to penetration. Basically, longer projectiles in the same caliber, launched at same speeds have much better penetration. That is why US military experimented with ultra high velocity (beyond mach 4) aluminum projectiles for defeating armor (less specific weight result in longer projectile in the given caliber) GAU-8 round, being conventional in speed, benefits greatly from Depleted Uranium (ultra high density) projectile construction ... Also round and flat nose projectiles have greater penetration than spitzer construction (which is counterintuitive on first thought), however, ballistic trajectory is worse for non-spitzer construction - so designer have to make a compromise.