weasel75

Mhmm... I still like the Buttkicker for it's simple approach, could work under Mac, Linux and with any game (no special support needed), but surely with less impressive results. Anyone having experience with both systems? Running both at the same time? PoleCat maybe? TIA!

Lol, if such a complex bailout-sequence would make it into the game, many (most?) would map that to a scripted sequence in their controller-setup ;) But still, sweet idea :)

I hope this next DCS project comes with a new input-device, the Thrustmaster HOTAS makes it feel sooooo unrealistic :D

Yep, so as said before, a subscription-based sim (maybe also granting exclusive access to "certified" servers (with close monitoring to prevent cheating)) might be the way to go. This might be a big win for the company (a steady income), while also allowing the player/customer to support the company as long as he has something in return (server+constant updates). Now imagine that every player/customer has access to a limited number (one? two?) of aircraft-types for a certain time-span (month?) while also allowing a free choice for those who are willing to pay an extra-fee. Yep, much business-talk, but as a user, I like to have some benefit (reliable server) and I don't mind to pay extra, as long as I see what I am paying for (extra aircraft). Just some ideas around a sustainable business-model, but yeah, I'd pay the 500 bucks :)

I was expecting some gore in those vids, until I realized it was "U.S." and not "us" the trains are rolling through ....

@GrizzleBock: the Ju-87G was already there ;) I think the P-51 is a wise choice, because it's speed is close enough to the A-10. And even if it might not kill most tanks with the A-10's ease, it sure can hunt all sort of vehicles, some infantry and helicopters :D

IIRC Falcon used "bubbles" (a sphere around the player) to handle the sheer amount of data of a full-blown dynamic campaign. Basically all divisions/flights/etc. were internally moved around the map with their movement being calculated via average speed over terrain and not based on the actual 3D-landscape down to the last polygon of the road. Outcomes of fights/engagements were calculated statistically (+/- random). Just when the player approached those divisions/flights they became actually spawned into the 3D-world. The idea might be reusable for DCS (or any other dynamic campaign generator), but I doubt that any parts of the code might be ported with reasonable effort. But another idea: allowing an external campaign-engine (maybe even running on a remote computer) to connect to DCS (socket, shared memory, dynamic lib, etc) in order to spawn and remove units, add/remove waypoints and set the destruction-levels on buildings. DCS reports back the current status of human-controlled units (can already be done via LUA) and any destruction of other units/buildings to the engine. The engine itself could be as sophisticated or flexible as desired, while using DCS as the actual simulator for single missions. Lol, that would allow some crazy playground for anyone interested in developing dynamic campaigns.

You are looking for this: ButtKicker :D

@Mr.Burns: for me the best campaign-experience was ww2online - not even close to the details of the DCS-aircrafts - but the campaigns are dynamic, constantly flowing, there are simple rules for ressources and AttackOrders, and (high-ranked) human players decide what to attack next, what to research, etc. But this is MMO and also completely different from what the multiplayer-experience in DCS is. @213: well, it is not like DCS is about total ultra and uncompromisingly simulation - this would be neither profitable nor possible - just consider vehicles and infantry, let alone AI and AI-planes. So maybe for a "dynamic" campaign some easier solution would allow to achieve this goal to some degree - e.g. keep the state of buildings from one mission to the next (damaged, burning, etc), have some very basic rules for resources (and maybe their management) and supply (routes)? Anyway, I guess that most people enjoy a vivid and "living" sim-world, and even it is faked and very limited. This kind of immersive detail seems to be acknowledged - just check out how much the people pay attention to the car-traffic in X-Plane 10 ;) ... but I understand that DCS comes from a mission-based simulation/military-background and this approach might be very different from how other (consumer-market) sims/games would design their underlying engine.

Sure I'd pay - if you play subscribed-based games/sim like ww2online, this kind of money comes together easily... (if not at once, but over years). My perfect sim would include controllable armor/vehicles and infantery (kind of ARMA), but all detailed and "realistic" (unlike ARMA) :D

Thanks for the video - it is amazing how fast the software recognizes and triggers the keys. While I need to get used to the snapview via-voice idea, I always hated to have to enter the radio-commands via keyboard .. maybe another thing one can do with the VAC? Would feel also adequate ;) Here is some older piece of software I used years ago: http://clans.gameclubcentral.com/shoot/ - it is free, but needs some XML-writing.

Hello, I searched this forum and the 3D-modeling - but was not able to find it: a library for cockpit-related 3D-models. So is there some sort of collection or library of models for cockpit-builders? Maybe in .3ds or .blender - format? Thing is: I need to fit the cockpit into a compact space. So the planning/thinking starts: 3 monitors? projection? exchangeable panels for different planes/sims? where to store keyboard and mouse? MFDs? Space for speakers, beamer, etc.... If there are some cockpit-related 3D-models out there, I would be happy with a link :) And if you have a model you would like to share with the rest, please publish it :thumbup: TIA! PS: If nothing shows up I'll start with the Cougar MFD ...

Naah, I like the looks of it. The same holds true for the Ju-87 (especially the G-version) and even the IL-2. Those planes are efficient, and the design reminds me of the "lean" concept. All overhead, all things you don't really need: waste. Eliminate waste. First thing: we need a biiiiig gun? Build it in! Second: we need reliable protection and safety. Okay, build it in then! Third: there is no need for high speeds cause we chase slow-moving ground-target. Great, so care less about the streamlined airframe, more space to utilize for the important things ... Another way to put it: the A-10 is the of the airplanes. "The A-10 does not care, the A-10 does not give a sh** .. the A-10 takes what it wants ... the A-10 is pretty bad-ass ... The A-10 has been referred to as the most fearless airplane in the world ..." But "Warthog" is close enough ;)

One might interpret the "dislike" in a different way: CAS-missions are dangerous and no matter how much more advanced your planes are over the enemy's - the CAS-plane has to linger over a fixed area for a longer time, it might even have to get low - and there are numerous dangers (AAA, Manpad, rifles, higher probability of collision, etc). So those missions might be more expensive in terms of losses. Therefore, seen from a "higher" level, those missions might be less liked as they have higher risks - but in the end they are crucial, and one can't deny their necessity.

Oh, if you are into "choppers" (some snobs might call them helicopters or rotary wing aircraft ;) ) - check out the DCS:BlackShark. It covers a russian helicopter (Ka-50) and is from the same line of painfully detailed simulations as the DCS:A-10. The BlackShark is (online-)compatible with the A-10-module.

Sorry, mind me asking, but what kind of PC-hardware are you running? 120 fps???

Man, that is awesome, thank you for sharing :thumbup: One question though - what size is that TFT? Edit: PS: Mhmm.. maybe I'll "take" some ideas from those pictures, as I also prefer wood over metal... it is such a great material to work with.

Have you checked out the ? PS: Doh, too slow ;)

Actually it is more like: the eyes of an eagle, the brain of a 3-year-old ;)

Great idea and thanks for the link! +1 ;)

Thank you for sharing :) Just a short question about your controller: it seems that I am unable to find the wiz-420 controller anywhere in the search-engines. Do you have a link? ... that would be awesome :thumbup:

That sounds great! :thumbup: I really love the idea and hope that someone will render a video from this event. ... since not all of us can join at that time :cry: But nevertheless - have fun and plenty of enthusiastic pilots/students :)

Yep, "crummy" was a bad choice there, but I would agree: why another sim featuring the F-16? With Falcon 4.0 and it's heritage there is plenty for the (serious) virtual pilot. I can't imagine, what DCS would (or even could) offer above Falcon's level/"niveau" that would justify another sim of the F-16.

That sounds awefully short - for CQB this is fine, but for (defensive) grenades thrown at a larger distance this would become an airburst, wouldn't it?!

Worst sniper ever.