weasel75

Für die richtige Einstimmung sorgt z.B. auch: "Fire Strike 7/9" - da bekommt mensch ein mulmiges Gefühl für die Situation der JTACs am Boden. Aus der Luft: "A Nightmare's Prayer" ... zwar Harrier, aber dennoch intensiv - die Piloten versuchen (z.T. verzweifelt) den Bodentruppen zu helfen, ohne unbedingt den Feind selbst zu sehen ... und dieser ist mitunter "Danger Close". Für "große" und gepanzerte Ziele mag sich das einfacher gestalten.... aber denkste ;) : "A-10s over Kosovo" (kann es sein, dass es da eine legale kostenfreie Online-Version gibt?!).

@Boberro: nice picture though - it looks like a cartoon of itself ;)

Thanks! .... so there is hope for an active radio-chat with ATC at URSS/Со́чи :thumbup: ... and I even dare to dream of some chat with an JTAC in contact :pilotfly:

But weren't they using a different set of frequencies back then? And freely switching frequencies was also a "luxury" not available for those pilots back then .... but I'll wait and see ;)

Or doing maneuvers without any input that most other airplanes can not perform even with a pilot on the stick :music_whistling:

My hope would be to keep it old-school - if there gonna by a line of old warbirds, keep them authentic ... then again, how you gonna talk with the tower and the FAC/JTAC? :fear:

?? Actually for the FS-series there is plenty of free 3rd-party content, and this is also true for X-Plane (also providing an open sim-environment). Some of the payware-AddOns are amazing, but this is also true for some of the Freeware-Addons. Both were just made possible by providing an "open" environment (SDK), encouraging people to contribute. If you (understandably) don't want to buy any Payware-Addon, just don't. That is the beauty of it: ED can concentrate on the "core"-values, while others can take care of the "smaller" things/details. And I am sure, there will be plenty of freeware-contributions - just as nowadays people are uploading their minutely designed missions for free. :)

Superb news! :)

@USMCTrev: Oops, sorry, misunderstanding on my side :doh: For the different content and mods: the first-person-shooters solved that by allowing servers to direct the client to a Download-URL (still from within the game) for missing maps or whatever. It works if Mods/AddOns come in a nice packed file with a "unique" (okay, there is no true "unique" in the finite world of bits n bytes) checksum. All required files are provided to any client connecting. Then it is up to the players to allow such a download (or disconnect). As soon as some new version is used, the checksum will change, so a new download can be triggered, and everybody is happy and can enjoy the "game" with an updated version of the Mod/AddOn:pilotfly:

Still no SDK ;)

I would not think so. 1. It looked like there were lights with a certain spectrum all around (IR?). 2. The background was always very "simple" (white sheets). The "obstacle" was very different from the background. Imagine an obstacle with a white surface ;) To me it looked more like a demo of agents collaborating than a demo for an autonomous and independent unit out in the real world. However, in some years all those ideas might merge...

Yes, we all know those moments, when one motherboard is not enough.... erm, meant motherships. Okay, this was a "nice" read .. but whoever made that layout should be punished with 8 of those video-gaming kids. :bash: And if one thinks, that those costs were high, try to get those kids some decent education ;)

Thanks HogDriver for that citation - the more I thought about it, the more it bugged me .. with that kind of "logic", one can justify almost everything: Okay, so create some far-fetched demand that is unjustified and unrealistic, and then apply those demands to the "other thing" (here the A-10). Mmhmm.. let's think - how about the desperate need for more [colorful appearance]s in the Afghan sky? Lol??? But really, how the F is another (overly expansive) air-dominance-fighter with "some" ground-attack capabilities contributing to actual (current) real-world conflicts in any other way than a colored (red) balloon? (given that the A-10s and Apaches stay there) Dear citizens of the U.S. - I am afraid you just paid way too much, for something as effective as a red balloon ;) Really, this might sound exaggerated and ridiculous, but for me it is way too much "salesman" in those speeches. With that line of argumentation, you can sell almost everything. How about a Space-Battle Station? The A-10 can't fight in space! Oh yes, "Space Battle" might be the future! Is the "Space Battle"-feature actually needed? Nooooo! So let's calm down and be more efficient: provide the things that are needed, when they are needed. Everything else is speculation, and there are no limits to that. (except once people might stop paying for it willingly)

Man, those A-10Cs are doing a perfect job, air-superiority given (and to ensure that there are plenty of other assets available). It is beyond me, how a "budget-focus on the F-35" (323 billion $, most expansive defence program ever) can become lucrative by shutting down those "old" few A-10s. Really, that stinks ... Guess someone needed to make some big money by selling technology that is neither wanted, nor needed, nor adequate in any current and foreseeable conflict. I don't love the smell of bribe in the morning ... (or any other time of the day).

Thing is - recalling the "old" times, a DC was very common, no matter how limited: F-16 Combat Pilot (Digital Integration 1988 ), Their Finest Hour (LucasArts 1989), Tornado (DI again 1993), ... Lol, and those came also with some sort of resource-management. It already showed back then: a DC can serve as a way to generate countless and yet unique missions

Ah, the desert is sooooo boring ;) .. and I heard Nevada has plenty of it too! How about some virtual Balkans? Or Vietnam?! :music_whistling:

None taken :) - actually, thanks a lot, I was not aware of the "subtle" differences in their product-line(s). But since A2A is about to release just another updated version of their P-51D ... creating a Mustang for DCS makes even less sense, or does it? Okay, at least we can destroy stuff in DCSFL :joystick: PS: .... so FSX is still not dead then?! ;)

Well, I'd imagine that a lot of the Apache's technology is still classified, while the Hind has compared to the Apache almost nil technology ;) (being also older). Being therefore less complex to model, the Hind would be the logical choice. :thumbup: However: both helicopters need a pilot and a WSO, and that would also add the need for a really cool A.I. - otherwise you'd have Mr. EagleEye as WSO or Mr. SimpleFlightModel as pilot - both not cool. Teamworking in a cockpit with AI? I can't imagine that working really well. Guess that is one reason ED stays with the single-seated aircrafts ;) About the "Hind" having a more important history ... well, the Apache (and the British modified version) is heavily used by both the American and British forces and was (and still is) flown in Iraq and Afghanistan extensively.

And A2A also has the P-51D in stock: :doh: http://www.a2asimulations.com/store/solo/p51/ Here is an A2A-video that everybody may enjoy - useful stuff for any warbird-pilot :thumbup:

Okay, so it did not work for the bad cop #2 ;) (Why?) But at least for me it worked quiet a while - actually, up to date, Falcon 4.0 was the most immersive (offline) flight-sim experience in my life ... watching all those tanks battle each other and then being able to contribute ... wow! And when you came back, those destroyed buildings, bridges, etv. were still out of order! For me, that added an impressive amount of continuity and consistency to the game .... even if "faked". ... but in the end it is all just fake, isn't it? ;)

So Android is the worst in the world? How about the "closed" Windows? IIRC this is still the most manipulated OS in the world. And even to Apple's iOS bad stuff happen(s)(ed) - and this being also a very closed market (people still tend to trust). And yet, Android gained massively on iOS. Maybe, that "openness" is needed nowadays and for the future? So: if bad things happen anyway (sooner or later a hole will show up), why not prepare for it and adjust your defences? Learn from mistakes other companies did (and do)? Build up trusted and certified partners? Use "circles" of trust around the core? That way, people can still decide what to run and risk. For example: allow servers to run different levels of policies. If one server wants to go "totally safe" (haha! ;) ), then there are no modifications allowed whatsoever. One might introduce different levels of trust in between (certified level 1,2,...) with modified landscape, modified ground-units, modified AI-behaviour, new AI-planes, etc. and finally modified FM/planes (or any other reasonable order and level of modifications). At the far end there are the Do-What-You-Like-Servers (not necessarily allowing everything, but still allowing a lot). That way the players might choose what they are willing to risk in order to get their hands on new modifications and AddOns :) Provide a solid and "sealed" core, let the world build around it. It is just a dream .. but imagine "Valve" (the ones who came out with Half-Life) without allowing mods, without CounterStrike ... :D But yeah, that is a completely different business-model ;)

@USMC Trev: Oh come on, 3rd party does not need to mean "hack". Clean and well-defined interfaces to the core, some certificate before it is allowed worldwide, etc. Actually, Android is doing quiet fine with that approach, and everybody is happy to contribute to it ;)

Translator und Admin ... kommt mensch da noch zum Fliegen? ;) Viel Spaß & Erfolg!

Nice, and also very responsible to have her wear that parachute while flying :D

Thanks for the details :) +1 if I had not to spend some more rep around the forum ;)