Pman

I very much believe in having open debate with the community and try to answer as many questions as I can and this thread has been quite interesting. Some aircraft are simply excluded due to the lack of access to an airframe. Take the Jaguar for example we do not have direct access to even a ground running one. As such it makes it alot harder to work on. I will always pick aircraft that we have access to or detailed knowledge of, over ones that will take months of research to get up and running. We also have to take into consideration IP rights from the aircraft manufacturer, if they veto it by refusing us a licence then we cant do the module. Deciding which projects to proceed with and in what order is a painstaking task, it took me many weeks to make the final decision on the 4 warbirds we have announced now! Pman

Pman

yeah the support we have had from the community has been amazing and we appreciate it deeply and thank everyone of you for it Pman

Ah my misunderstand then apologises Pman

We have said it many times before, We have multiple teams working on multiple projects at once. Anything we do with warbirds / hawk / typhoon / whatever has minimal effect on any other project. The ACTS programme will have no effect on release dates overall but is more of a theme rather then a dedicated DCS package. It will allow people to experience everything there is to experience about Fast Jet Fighter Training. See the above :) Pman

no problem, We try our best to communicate with the community as best we can as much as we can. hence me being in this thread [emoji1] Pman

Was this aimed at us? If so I will respond, if not however then its not for me to respond to it. Ok a few points here to cover. You seem to think that developing a trainer is an easy option, I can tell you that by the time the Hawk is done that the development costs could never be considered by anyone as cheap. Its easier than doing something like a full on front line jet but its certainly not cheap :p As for the overdose, Again I ask you to bear in mind that all the 3rd parties (us included) have to learn as we go, Trainers are easier no doubt this is why devs are choosing them. Also perhaps some people like the AvioDev guys have close ties to those aircraft and just want to make them, and why not indeed :D I'm glad the Skyraider got a mention as a few months back when I was researching what aircraft to do for DCS I did look into the Skyraider and I made a few enquiries to people who operate them and I didnt even get a reply from them. We can only work with people who want to work with us. If the owners/operators are not interested and we cant get access then this makes it alot harder. Option A) Aircraft where you have complete access to Aircraft, Ground Crew and Pilots or Option B) Aircraft where you have to go by a manual you may find on the internet. I know which I believe would produce a much more authentic aircraft. I spend alot of my day's talking to people who own and operate aircraft and the more people I can get "on board" with DCS the better as far as I am concerned. But especially for our first wave of prop aircraft it was considered essential that we can get direct access to the above. Actually we have spoken about it many times before, We even started a sign up sheet in January : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=119308 Please also bear in mind that we have only shown renders of the Tucano and the Tutor, Neither of which has been announced as a DCS product as yet. It is our intention to bring them to DCS but it is not confirmed yet. Not everyone wants to get into a jet and just burn around until the engines explode, or spend all their time crashing a tail dragger because they dont know how to handle the aircraft. I laid out our vision earlier in this thread, This is why we have gone down the path we have. As for the other Dev's I cant answer for them they may have different reasons :) Hope this helps highlight some of our thinking on this topic, however I now feel that this subject has run its course and will leave you to your debate. Regards Pman

Haha who am I to argue considering I run the Virtual Aerobatics non combat server lol Glad that you think so! Your welcome End of the day we obviously need to cater to demand and one thing we know well is that demand is varied and vast. Hopefully we will be able to offer a product to suit any potential customer for DCS :) Pman

Programming in DCS is very complicated to say the least, it requires very in depth knowledge of both the simulator and the aircraft in question. Again I cant speak for Razbam or any of the other 3rd parties but as regards to VEAO I laid out our vision earlier. Developing a training aircraft is by far and away less work than a full on front line combat jet. For one thing there is alot less paperwork with regards to classified material, If you guys could see the list of stuff we have to go through with the Typhoon, even without weapons the list is huge. All this needs signing off and agreeing before we can even release screenshots of somethings. Aircraft like the Tucano will for us at least be available as a standalone or as part of an ACTS pack further down the road. Of course I am sorry that some people do not see the value in these aircraft, however we think they have enormous value and nothing everything in DCS has to be about weapon deployment. Aircraft like the Tucano is capable of weapon deployment although that is not its main purpose in the RAF. Same for the Hawk. Thats not to say we are not making combat aircraft as well, As I said in my previous post we are looking at things like Gripen as well, although it is some considerable way off. Dont forget the Warbirds Collection. They will most certainly be combat ready. There is no reason to state that in the future we wont do a WW2 era trainer for a tail dragger conversion campaign. Pman

Yeah, we are very very excited about it, we have some excellent information to compile what we hope will be the most imersive and encompassing experience we will see in Flight Simulations. I obviously only speak for VEAO, I dont know what other 3rd parties have planned But as for ACTS there is a thread on our forums about it :) plus we have discussed it in our Q&A videos Pman

Seeing as some of our projects are being discussed I thought I might chime in here if thats ok :) With things like the Hawk, Tucano and Tutor we very much want to be able to recreate the experience that a real life pilot goes through when learning how to fly in the Royal Air Force. Sure we can all just jump in a Typhoon and crash to our hearts content right? Well what about being able to buy a pack of aircraft with a progressive campaign dealing with things that people have problems with. Crosswind landings, cross country navigation, Low Liz / ILS approaches, the list is endless. We have a vision of being able to get a total newbie into the Tutor and with the assistance of a comprehensive campaign and assiatance from real world instructors be able to get them up to a good flying standard of handling the latest fighter jets. Also worth noting that we have said on a few occasions we have Gripen and Rafale firmly in our sights in the future as well as the Tornado. So if you will, imagine being part of a 50 man squadron with help from us and some of our instructors being able to go through the training programme or through the OCU and learning how to use the aircraft as much as possible without having to actually sit in one. Having a team of friends who you can trust to use the aircraft and know how to handle situations that are presented to them. ACTS is something that in the future we will be pushing hard (Air Combat Training School) and for that you do need training aircraft for it to be effective and have an authentic touch. We believe in this vision and it is something that I and all the other members of VEAO have in mind for each of the trainer aircraft we are working on. This is our vision Pman

Whether something is classified or not has no bearing on age or the like, its all to do with the military that uses it. On top of that we have some pretty good contacts in the UK ;) If you have agreements with the military forces concerned there is no reason you couldnt do a redacted version. But for us access is another major obstacle other than BMS Pman

An F16 is something that we have discussed in the past and sadly all but ruled out. There are a number of reasons for it but BMS is def right up there. It's a major development risk. Making the F16 to dcs standards is a major undertaking. Not least because large chunks are still classified. Any modern fighter being completed to DCS standards has issues with availability of information and what we are allowed to include, something we know all too well with Typhoon. I don't think you will ever get a modern front line fighter in full fidelity without agreement of the relevant air force and in some areas at least being quite heavily redacted. We sincerely hope that our war birds will start rolling reasonably quickly, certainly a minimum of 2 a year. But we are in the foundation stage for those as they have only been recently announced and will take some refining. Helos is not our area of expertise, that said I'll not rule it out for the future. We are really excited about the modules we are working on, even if they aren't always the obvious choices :) Pman

Apologises I missed this Server rental is 73 GBP per month

Although Im not going to quote how much we pay people that number is way off ...

Glad to know that it is appreciated David :thumbup: There is alot of work going into these modules and I am sure that keyboards are a blazing at RRG as we speak :) Pman

Hi Guys, Thought I'd chime in :) All of our modules are made to military standards, that's regardless of any military use of our work. Any work that is undertaken as part of a military contract is seperate from our consumer works, things like the warbirds, for obvious reasons I cant get into discussing this in public so I hope you appreciate what I am saying at face value. With that said we have made no secret that we have several independent teams working on different projects and are always looking to expand our pools of talant should the opportunity present itself (keep an eye on our forums for more info over the next few days) It is my sincere hope that although we will not be releasing maps in the immediate future for well known reasons one of our warbirds will be rocking the skies by the year end. Pman

Never too early for Chicken!

and you accuse ME of teasing :p Btw, im in Nando's anyone wanna join me? Pman

Simple lua edit Copy the server.lua from here : \DCS World\Config\View into : C:\Users\XXXX\Saved Games\DCS\Config\View (Where XXX is your user name, you may have to make the view folder) And then edit the first part --------------------- function default_fighter_player(t) local res = { CameraViewAngleLimits = {20.000000,140.000000}, CameraAngleRestriction = {false ,90.000000,0.500000}, EyePoint = {0.05 ,0.000000 ,0.000000}, limits_6DOF = {x = {-0.050000,0.4500000},y ={-0.300000,0.100000},z = {-0.220000,0.220000},roll = 90.000000}, Allow360rotation = false, CameraAngleLimits = {200,-80.000000,110.000000}, ShoulderSize = 0.2, -- move body when azimuth value more then 90 degrees } -------------------- to read --------------------- function default_fighter_player(t) local res = { CameraViewAngleLimits = {20.000000,180.000000}, CameraAngleRestriction = {false ,90.000000,0.500000}, EyePoint = {0.05 ,0.000000 ,0.000000}, limits_6DOF = {x = {-0.050000,0.4500000},y ={-0.300000,0.100000},z = {-0.220000,0.220000},roll = 90.000000}, Allow360rotation = false, CameraAngleLimits = {200,-80.000000,110.000000}, ShoulderSize = 0.2, -- move body when azimuth value more then 90 degrees } ------------------

I have to admit I miss the extra viewing space, especially in sniper mode, If I play on one panel :D Pman

World of tanks I noticed a massive improvement , gone from 30-35 to 50-70 at 6040x1080p

Tested with my 780ti's No difference in sli or single card Pman

Go on then One screenie from me

lmao Good to see you on both days Joey :thumbup: Pman