brewber19

ROFL, since when are you fighter guys able to "wait patiently"...that's an oxymoron isn't it? But yeah, I check DCS every day, this forum now just every now and then.

What he said... Couldn't agree more. CH pedals = super smooth, programmable, but stirrups a bit close together. Saitek = stirrups good distance apart, programmable, not smooth getting the pedal of its "home" position. My preference is CH over Saitek pedals because I'd rather have the smoothness and finess of control over comfort (and you only really notice the CH pedals after 1.5-2 hours flying).

MOABs? Voila! Russian: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hafVxEgfx4E US (has better footage): http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=H7tG7keSe-0 Pretty big bombs though, won't be strapping one of those to a 50 or 25T any time soon. I'm non-nuclear, certainly not strategic cos they're pointless other than as an interdiction/intercept mission idea...and there are other things you could use instead...and non-tactical either because the current gfx/explosions are "ok" but not earth-shattering (pun intended). Kinda pointless and especially so for BS. Might be less pointless when a strike a/c arrives and by then we'd hope for higher fidelity gfx also.

BGP, I just need to say...damn I'm glad there's a real ground-pounder as a beta-tester. Couldn't agree more with your post and I feel alot happier about ME and AI behaviour with input like yours :D Rep inbound. (edit: stupid forum won't let me :()

Sweet ;)

@ Leafer: I've screenied the TB profile I made, bear in mind I only fly the Frog but...gives you an idea of how you can customise what you see. Ruggbutt did a really good F15/Fighter profile as well. Both of ours are downloadable from the TB site. @ Andyhill: Couldn't agree more with your sig ;)

Pink is just my colour :pilotfly:

I love you too man, just had to say that ;) (in a non-ghey way of course ;))

SWEET :smilewink: @ Flyby: Thanks for asking, I'm a wide-screener as well (24" dell monitor + 40" HDTV both @ 1920x1200 for LOFC ;)) @ Wags: Thanks for replying, thanks for the start-up vid, looking fwd to the next one.

Games, particularly flight sims, should be built with the future in mind and not what is possible or average at time of publishing. Why? Flightsims generally have, and intend to have, a longer "shelf-life" than more traditional genres. Just look at LOMAC (and I don't consider FC a new game, simply an expansion of lomac). It is effectively 3 or 4 years old and here we all are still playing it, here we few of us are still maintaining squadrons and other community stuff...and irony of ironies, here is a community of mod-makers working their asses off to bring LOMAC in to 2007/8 gfx with all the terrain/texture mods etc. As it happens I have a reasonable rig, and upgrade as the mind/budget allows...thats PC gaming. A game that can offer more than I can see encourages me to upgrade to experience those things...and is one of many things that encourage me to continue playing it. If LO looked as dated as Falcon I would likely have stopped playing, because there are better experiences out there...thats why I stopped playing IL2/FB/AEP/PF, because LO was just so much more immersive in the virtual world environment. IL2 had high(ish) fidelity FMs just like LO but...after a while the "world" didn't compete well with LOs virtual world. I'm with Yellonet, and ED (since their principal the first time was "max it up", remember LO 1.0), and crank up those polys/resolutions etc etc and bring my current PC almost to its knees...then in 2 years time when we're still waiting for the second DCS module (just kidding) we will still be immersed in the virtual world of BS. P.S. By ED planning for the future and having higher poly/res textures for A/C is what encouraged me to make a skin for my Frog (see sig pic)...I happened to do a similar one + winter version for the vanilla frog but only cos it was an easy copy/paste deal. The vanilla is so "low res" compared to the T that the end result barely justifies the effort. It took me 45 hours to do the skin for the T-frog..and 15 to do 2 similar skins for the vanilla. I was happy to spend that time for the T, I would never have spent 45 hours for the vanilla skins.

Hi Leafer, I have Touchbuddy, fantastic piece of kit. I don't know if Zorlac will develop it further, but it does everything I need it to do for the Frogs so I reckon it'll do all we need it to for BS (like a nice automated start-up ;)) As for pedals, I have CH Pro pedals which, as you say, feel too close together. I thought I'd try the Saiteks as their spacing looks better...and the spacing was, but the "feeling" of the mechanics was just so rough compared to the CH and jerky, so I couldn't get the precision on cannon runs with them like I could with the CH. In the end I sold my Saiteks on eBay and went back to my CH. I'd rather crush my nuts and kill tanks on gun passes, that waste an entire "clip" cratering the ground ;) In a few words then, Tbuddy is great, get it, and CH pedals are still the best at that price-point.

YES am disappointed at the length of time to release however... ...I am getting keener on BS as I grow more confident of EDs ability to deliver the "details" that make a sim/game have longevity. I can already see it has much more detail than the 25T which, combined with the flight model, should make BS a nice steep and long learning curve for proficiency (i.e. anyone can quickly learn to fly an a/c, but it takes hours and hours to learn to be a good virtual pilot) Yup, the more I see on DCS via develop journal, screenies and Wags' video(s), I grow more confident...which in turn makes me more patient in getting a more fully featured product. Hell, things like the mission editor etc are as important to me as button pushing fidelity etc, so lets not rush that either!

Damn, that actually looks good, whereas most of the other screens we've seen the terrain looks...marginally better/bit more detailed. This gives me hope the aesthetics might actually keep up with the fidelity of simulation...which together work toward immersion (suspension of disbelief etc). Wish ED would release more screenies of the terrain, give us confidence, but perhaps thats one of their "wow" factors they want to hang on to?!

Couldn't agree more, I am sure there is a large fan-base for euro a/c...but even though such a fanbase exists, it still hasn't been sold to...so is it "untapped" or "not worth it"? History so far tells us its the latter, sadly. I would pay dearly for Harrier, Jaguar and Tornado (IDS, not F.), because I am partisan (aren't we all?), to the tune of £100 per a/c for the quality of Su25T/anticipated BS but...I can't see it happening since it hasn't happened in the last 12-15 years of "simming". Once again though, I agree with your thoughts entirely.

ROFL, I remember that :D And I hear both the arguments for (a) having a massive area for replayability and (b) not needing to start at one end of the map from the other BUT... 1. A2A refuelling is a joke 2. Massive transit distances are not fun. If we wanted to do that we'd fly FS 3. Realistic distances can be fun provided the surrounding tools/technologies exist to enable realistic tactics and philosophies...but they don't, see item 1. For BS, a super-highly detailed 200 x 200km area with decent AI might be sufficient, but for fast movers the size requirement increases exponentially, and LoD decreases. Should be interesting to see how ED manage those conflicting requirements ;)

I feel ya Bro, but its never gonna happen, not for helos or other a/c because the two biggest perceived audiences are Russian and American, therefore the modelled/flyable a/c will be Rus or US - its a crying shame but...that's my view :( I don't see either of those audiences paying for a Euro-a/c sim. I would love to see a Harrier Gr.5-9, Tornado IDS/Gr.4, Phantom (ok, F4 is US but...), Jaguar, and Mirage (pick a model, they're all useful). However, because I want the best of both worlds, A2A & A2G, I chose the F-18 in a recent "what a/c do you want in future etc". Edit: I'm British btw (but currently fly the Su-25/T only with my squadron).

I don't think it'd be much fun for helos due to travel distances etc BUT..yes for fast-movers so...when DCS do a fast mover, then more areas would be of benefit. (p.s. we all know the hog is not a fast mover ;))

I'm happy with ED's decision to expand/develop/enhance the Caucasus because that's where the interesting topography is. The Crimea is very "flat"/geographically dull in comparison. (In my 3 years of flying LO, 2 of which with the 504, almost all of the A2G missions were in the Caucasus, only using the Kerch straits as a convenient Red vs Blue divider).

2171 for me. Nice flash-back for me, playing Scramble on the Vic 20...which for you youngsters, is the predecessor to the Commodore 64 ;)

I'll be sticking with my TouchBuddy ;) Bloody fantastic piece of kit, unlimited functionality, can get feedback from the app using LUA...need I say more? AND its less than that CH MFD :D

/signed re: a RW/FF function when playing tracks.

Nope, mine isnt loading and its <14k, and the right dimensions. However, life is too short to worry about sigs. http://www.avkh16.dsl.pipex.com/vvs504_brewbersig_small.jpg From the forum rules: 2.1 - Signatures may include images and/or text. The overall height of the signature must not exceed 150 pixels and overall width must not exceed 600 pixels. When using images, the image size may not be greater than 50 kB (50,000 bytes) if the image is hosted by a 3’rd party server. If the signature image is uploaded to the forum for hosting, it must be no greater than 19.5 kB (19,500 bytes) in size. These limitations pertain to the image once it is made visible on the forum and can be verified via the ‘image properties’ function by right-clicking on the image.

There's not been any mention of even proper WS support which, given some of the detail on other things in the recent release, leads me to be less than confident (I have 2 WS devices, a 24" Dell and 40" Samsung)...and a config.ini FoV tweak is useless in FC for the 25T and so will assume just as useless on BS.

@ BGP: rep inbound for responding maturely and constructively to Goya's baiting posts. @ Goya: BGP made a polite and well thought out response to the original topic. I'm curious as to why you gave him such a hard time about the F-15 thing. Actually, no I'm not curious, I don't want to know. I appreciate we all want our favourite a/c to be the best/highest fidelity it can be so...I'll attribute your responses to hormones ;)

Wags: Great news and excellent choice. EB: Good luck in your new role ;)