Pman

Lack of access to aircraft, airframes, data, personal, licence. Then there is the bms issue. On top of that it would take 2-3 years with a new team as i dont have spare capacity for a team to spend 2-3 years on a project So no chance of an f16 from us Pman

Yeah would be a great addition for sure. Pman

As a dev working on alot of WW2 aircraft I can completely agree and understand. Once an aircraft has been picked the focus is then on replicating that aircraft as accurately as possible. My goal for DCS is to move away from the deathmatch 1:1 , 2:2 scenario and move into a more immersive scenario where you might have 5:2 or the like where yes there are aircraft that are obviously superior but there are other forces to make the sim interesting Pman

Yes, Yes there is and he is called Mervin... Pman

That will work fine until the mission on the server is updated and you have to download it again ;) Pman

Well the problem is that it would take signifcant investment to build a G2-10 and to be quite honest I doubt there is enough people who wont buy the P-40 as it isnt there and/or enough people who would lay out $50 on a G2/10 when they have the K-4 It doesn't make commercial sense at this point in time. I really dont want to take over this thread with VEAO matters, If you have any further questions about this or any of our lineup I suggest you post them here : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=127100 Pman

Nope it's not at Duxford its in raf Hendon and although we have access to it we felt it was too close to the 109k to justify a separate project at the moment. Pman

I am sorry you feel disappointed however this is just how it is. Our aircraft will be combat capable but I have a very clear roadmap of what aircraft we have access to and an interest in bringing to DCS. As DCS WW2 expands I am sure aircraft will come along that our aircraft can fight if that is what pilots want to do. But in the same way that we do not balance our aircraft I can't start chasing aircraft to fill certain roles making the work of my teams harder when there are better aircraft more in line with what we want to develop that are easier to access For example, someone mentioned the Zero's in the states, although we have contacts over there and some good friends we live in the UK, over 3000 miles away. Where as Duxford or Northweald I can get to in an hours drive... Pman

Spit V is on the cards, Beaufighter, Avenger and Mk VIII Spitfire are not in our plans. Sorry guys but the Pacific theater really isnt something that we are VEAO will be getting involved with. We are much more about Europe, Africa and the Med Hah, although TFC has one sitting in the hangar you and I know the chances of that thing flying anytime soon ;) Anyway lets not hijack another projects thread with VEAO projects huh? Pman

Its not really any different then when we have to exclude any aircraft, the list of aircraft that I would love to do for DCS is huge, but there are so many constraints that I have to be pragmatic about which ones are viable to do. Most of the aircraft we have on our development plan are planned to be on the EU theater, we have no plans to expand this to the pacific theater. Alot of the aircraft in our plans have at one time or another served in the RAF. Being a UK based company that should be understandable :) Pman

Its not our job to make aircraft to fight each other. Its our aim to make aircraft simulations to the highest possible level. We have some Axis aircraft planned but they are further down our roadmap. Pman

You should know better ;) Im looking at our Wildcat now....looks tasty ;) Expect more news in the coming months ;) Pman

Incorrect, You can make a model of a Skyhawk and its fine, that is an artistic impression If you want to use the systems accurately in a sim of DCS level then you need IP rights as someone was paid to make the designs for the fuel system, electronics etc etc and therefore those designs are patented (as well they should be) and as such you need agreement to use them If your not going to use the original designs and specs then you are just making stuff up as you go along or "simulating" the result as opposed to programming the systems accurately and working the data out "live" Pman

Hi Guys, As has been posted above, all of the agreements that we have with aircraft manufactuerers are strictly confidential and even those we may not agree to proceed with will not be discussed in any detail. As per my original post about the termination of the Skyhawk project, we were offered terms by McDonnell Douglas (Despite being part of Boeing now they have dedicated lawyers who look after some assets from historical periods, A-4 being one of them, this should without being specific answer some of your questions about F-18, P-51 etc etc ) however in the scheme of the project along with other costs associated with development of the A-4 the project simply was no longer economically viable for us to continue with it. We could go ahead and make an A-4 without using any of their IP data for systems modelling, but that is against what VEAO stands for. Military spec or go home, in this case sadly we had to go home. Pman

Flagrum is right in what he says, developing for DCS is a very time consuming job and takes alot of time, effort and money to do properly. We do have a couple of vacancies and are genuinely open to taking on people with core skills who want to get more involved in developing within DCS, be that adding them to one of our existing teams or building a new one around a premise. In my personal opinion I think that trying to do an entire module by yourself is a very tall ask and chances are that you would burn out long before it was complete. Just my opinion from experience working with this kind of thing. Not too mention the legalities of getting contracts in place with aircraft manufacturers to be able to sell an ASM level aircraft. If the OP wants to discuss my experiences further he is welcome to PM me and we can chat further. Pman

Although I like using our DK2 it is not that great for things like combat, it may say 1080p on the box but I've said ever since we got ours that although its good, its abit of a novelty for DCS anyway. Things just dont seem that clear Reading gauges etc can be a trial at times when doing something moving fast and furious. Personally I'd buy a couple of good monitors instead ;) Whenever the next iteration comes along will probably be more ready for things like a2a combat Pman

Well it helps that I am on first name terms with most of them ;) Pman

Not everything is about afterburners and BVR engagements ;) The trick is to cater for everyone, there is already a good number of modern jets (which take considerably more resources and time to make then pre 1980's aircraft) Pman

You should know better then to suggest such things ;) Pman

Its not out of the realms of possibility thats for sure I know that we have been approached by two operators of WWI aircraft if we would want to use their aircraft as a reference type for DCS. I think that for the time being we are concentrating on the couple of jets in production and WW2 / early jet era. But in the future, who knows we may get around to it, Although I think a Gladiator is more likely before any true WW1 stuff Pman

Great job, one of the best videos I've seen from DCS. Really well done Pman

Technically the Americans had a flying wing as well in the 30's and 40's and when the b2 spirit was made they used more tech from the American flying wings then the German ones Pman

Looking great guys, Look forward to seeing more of this as it develops :) Pman

No problem, it's a great read :) Pman

It's also worth asking ourselves how much we can learn from reading subjective articles without actually being able to speak to a pilot who has handled these aircraft There is know so much you can learn from an article on the net without actually have climbed in the cockpit of one of these aircraft. Pman