Pman

To a certain degree me too, esp the night fighter version Pman

Gr1 is the likely variant I feel. Pman

Spam chaff, flares! Rubber ducks! Oh wait... See you in hell sith! Pman

Speaking as a consumer and private pilot, ie not my role within dcs Dev. I actually would fly whatever sim gives me the most real simulation available. To me the kind of scenery is nice etc but I wasn't to simulate flying aircraft as close to the real thing as I can from my home pc. Big air liners are not my thing, hell although I fly (and have flown for a long time inside dcs before veao) alot in dcs I have probably done 10 combat missions in 5 years. During my ppl I would happily have flown on flight aircraft for abit of virtual stick time and I can say with no doubt that flying dcs has improved my real life tail dragged technique. So the value as a learning tool in addition to a pure entertainment tool is there. In my personal opinion there is so much more to the potential of DCS then BVR missile combat. Pman

As I said that's fair enough and we respect people's opinion :) However one of the focus points we have to consider is expanding DCS's customer base. One of the most effective ways to do that is to offer something different, if they already love what's going on they would already be here right? ;) Now before anyone jumps on the maps/scenario bandwagon to attract people, it's not as easy as that to just make a map. By my rather conservative estimates it would take us at least a year to push out a map and we haven't done anything more then research at this point. Expanding into different aircraft types is a quicker and move divergent way of bringing new people to DCS As a pilot id love to see people clocking up hours in dcs c172 then xplane *burgh* Pman

I wasnt going to comment on this thread however... Just because its not your cup of tea doesnt mean that its a "complete waste of time, work and resources" I have a very clear development plan for VEAO and although not everything we do will be suited for everything I do believe that we have something for everyone. Although this game has an element of combat in it, I do not believe that is all DCS is good for :) I can easily envisage that we will at some point release a non combat aircraft or two Pman

I remember from talking to Erich Brunetto at Duxford last year that he said in the 109 is was common to have to use toe brakes both during the take off roll and for steering on the ground to initialise the turn and a tap of opposite to brake to straighten up. Whenever I've flown the 109 in dcs Erichs words go through my mind and his advice helps with the handing of the 109k4. Therefore I'd say it's pretty close. Pman

I have seriously considered it As well as having a reference for inside I have design blueprints and tech info. Not confirming it, but I have seriously look at it and it will be further considered going forwards Pman

Yes there is, well we have enough anyway ;) Pman

Im out that way in a few months, I'll pop by and say Hi ;) Pman

No, dcs world. Private mod for airshows that he has spent alot of time working on :) Pman

We know there are some streaming problems with Livestream, sadly this is outside of our control, We will look at using another provider next time! We will endeavor to get replays and videos of all the displays onto the VA Youtube channel as soon as we can Pman

agreed, sounds like a routing issue to me Pman

Currently 3 screen/surround is not supported by shadow play Pman

I can assure you that this guy is nothing to do with ED. Just for the record (as he is proclaiming to be making Typhoon, Tucano, P-40 etc) he is nothing to do us either. This guy has a reputation within the DCS Community for re-using assets without permission Nothing to do with us and never will be. Pman

Thats really neither here nor there All that matters is where the IP rights lay, not how they got there ;) Pman

That's pretty close Pman

Corrected for accuracy. They are not the same thing. Pman

Not always the way, especially not with the Great Warbirds Historic Flight Mods But as for reasons, See Rocks answer above Pman

nope, its a side effect of using surround, I have never got a fix for it If you find one I will be interested to know how you did it Pman

With respect to VEAO's plans, no tis is not the case. We are purely focused on Europe and Africa :) Pman

I can only speak for VEAO and the decision that we make regarding the modules that we invest in and proceed to develop. We are not interested in the Mirage F1, its not within our field of expertise or interest. I gave some reasons about the F16 in my post above, This isnt a decision that we will be revisiting without a military contract pushing for it, Really is as simple as that. Although commercial viability of course has to be considered it is not the principle aspect for us. Perhaps another of the 3rd parties may be interested in doing it, I really have no idea, but I dont expect so. As for Harrier, we are looking at the SeaHarrier as it fits in with other things we are doing, like the Falklands map There are numerous other aircraft that may make a better financial investment but as I said before we will only undertake projects that are we are passionate about. Thats our bottom line Pman

Glad to see you approve of our reasoning :) Pman

I dont mind weighing in on this, I have always tried to maintain a clear and honest relationship with you guys and this is the same when it comes to things like the F-16 As Sith quoted said earlier BMS is not a single knockout blow to us as a dev looking to make a Viper, We wouldnt shy away from an aircraft because it is being done in another sim. However it would be a lie to say that it isnt a concern, when selecting aircraft for development we have to weigh in EVERYTHING. Regarding the F-16 specifically, Yes I did look at it and I made the decision that VEAO will not be doing one. Some of the reasons as follows Access to Aircraft Access to Aircrew Locality of resources Interest within the development team** VEAO Mantra Classification Issues BMS Complexity of Aircraft ** I always plays a very very high importance on this, We do not develop aircraft that we are not personally passionate about. People have to enjoy their work and I stand by this on any project. To list just a few of the issues that have to be considered for something like this to even get to the modular planning stage. So yes BMS is an issue, but there are so many other issues that weigh in. As Sobek also said, the other point is why do an F-16 when we can do something that isnt as well simulated? Like the Typhoon, Gripen and Rafale. Also we have to bear in mind that we have Military contracts and connections we have to bear in mind, what potential is there for us to use any F-16 in a military contract? Sadly the answer is almost none. This isnt meant to be an exhaustive list of reasons but some insight into some of the things that I have to consider before something makes it onto the roadmap. Pman

Me personally I'd love to fly some non military aircraft in DCS. I have spoken to a few flying clubs who are actually interested in having DCS as a prep sim for some of their classes as well. Do I forsee a future in DCS where there is a host of non combat aircraft? Yes absolutely, we will at VEAO dev any of them? Yeah I think there is a fair chance that we will do at least a couple of non military aircraft. Pman