emg

You can find Tom Cooper's research on his site as well: http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=35&Itemid=47 http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=36&Itemid=47 http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=47

Download DCS world: http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/world/dcs_world/ Then in the main menu, click module manager, log in with your e-shop account, and you can download the modules have activated. Alternative: you can download an installer for each module here: http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/modules/ but I think the module manager is easier to use.

MiG-15 has nowhere near the the acceleration or top speed of an F-22. MiG-21bis vs F-14A is a very different matter. No it's not a "fair" matchup but it's very far from hopeless. (What's fair anyway? Let's say the MiG-21bis build cost is 1/3rd of the F-14A build cost. Is a fair matchup then 3 MiG-21bis vs 1 F-14A?) Sure the radar needs to be fooled or the BVR missiles have to be defeated... which does happen in Red Flag type excersises, according to pilot interviews. They still end up in a lot of WVR situations even when they simulate AMRAAMs.

I think many here are aware of that, but starving DCS vpilots make do with what they have. Btw the 109K4 and 190D9 are not the correct variants for the Normandy map either. When ED gives you an orange, you can still make some kind of apple pie... just with oranges... uhh, yep.

Absolutely, the tone of the article was very positive towards the devs. Reason I mentioned it: IMHO this one single line can be enough to make casual vpilots go "nah, don't want to try." I've been trying to convince people to try DCS in various forums, and people are often negative because they think DCS only/mostly has Russian planes. Anyway I'll get off my soapbox now.

Nice that DCS gets attention. Unfair to say DCS has been Russian-minded, though. This misconception is one reason many casual western vpilots don't try DCS... and propagating that misconception isn't cool.

Valium, SH development is paused, check the DCS mods forum for the Coretex thread.

Hard to make a conclusion. In addition to the probe-less versions, some had a fixed but removable refueling probes. I don't remember which versions.

http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/content/search?SearchText=&img=1&SearchButton=Go :megalol: from ESA ops twitter.

:thumbup: Ohh nice! Get hyped!

He did? Nice work!

We'll see if DX12 actually brings real world improvements, not just on microsofts powerpoint slides. DX10 brought a few new features but was mainly a hoax to force gamers to get Vista. Someone hacked Crysis to use DX9 and it looked almost exactly like the DX10 version.

One interesting thing; they said they have a military contract, they're talking to the government or Airbus about which systems they can implement, and which systems they have to fake. And probably, how they're going to fake them. So, compare this to a well-informed 3rd party dev without a military contract, using reaonable, qualified guesswork for the classified systems. Would we regular DCS users be able to tell the difference? What do you think?

DCS A-10C has omitted, classified features too, as will the ED F-18C. Same for DCS ECM and IFF. IMO the question is, can you make the aircraft 90% true to life... 50%... 10%? And at what point, for you as a paying customer, do you get acceptable fidelity?

P-51 is on pretty much on permanent sale as I see it (30$).

And it was not some unusual practice, Tornados had no targeting pod in 91 but dropped lots of LGBs. Buccaneers were buddy-lasing with the (huge) Pave Tack.

Not the same situation, they have a military contract, 3rd party license and a contract with ED to make the EF.

Thanks for the insight. :thumbup:

In terms of overwhelming Il2 players, the difference is the systems startup. Just direct them to a server (or SP mission) with hot starts or air starts. If they don't get hooked by the cockpit immersion and flight dynamics, then I guess you know DCS is not their thing. Once hooked, they'll be more enthusiastic for learning the startup, which always looks more complicated to new players than it really is.

I think the market for trainers may be getting saturated; Hawk, C-101, T-2 (on the backburner probably until new naval features arrive), L-39.

That was a clear breach of ROE though, same for the Soviet shoot-down of the Korean air liner. The ship captain and Su-15 pilot (and ground controller) should all have been court martialed and sent to prison. But yes, in a desperate total war, passenger airliners would be grounded and friendly fire would be more acceptable. This is why I think F-104G can still be a rewarding and effective plane in a DCS scenario. I mean, there are MiG-21 pilots on the 104th server who bring short-range IR missiles only, and still get victories vs F-15s and Flankers.

It's from the quote in the posts above and below mine... ;)

I copied the text and used quote tags. I don't think there's any doubt as to which poster was quoted.

You do know DCS WW2 was kickstarted by a 3rd party?