Vedexent

Not yet, I just want my own plane some day - possibly a Vans RV-6, so lots of research :) Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

That sucks. That would mean that as a private General Aviation pilot you'd have to move from getting your license straight into plane ownership (or fractional ownership). I've done some "back of the envelope" calculations and the break-even point for rental vs. ownership was around 100 hours of flight time a year - which is a lot. Of course ownership cooperative would spread those annual fixed costs out over as many partners as were in the co-op - so a large co-op might push that threshold down.

Good to know if that ME-163B Komet gets released :)

And the people who haven't downloaded yet, do what? Download the original, then they have to download the update and integrate the two? There might be case for both a download link and an update link.

I think there's a video by Ralfidude where they land the A-10C on a carrier - using a 100Kph headwind - so you can theoretically land any plane on a carrier :) Given some RL headwind footage of SLA planes I've seen, you could even land backwards.

I don't know about you, but I'd be just as impatient either way :) I chose to be impatient and buy it immediately.

I'd say it's permissible, but I can drive 30 minutes rent one of those now - as can many (most?) people.

I believe that ED couldn't incorporate it as an official mod due to issues with the DRM system they use - not sure what those were exactly. So Starway released it to the public after sufficient donations to cover his time and costs.

There's always performance/quality trade offs (or we'd all be running with 1cm resolution land meshes and high-resolution satellite photography for textures ) - and there's always "bugs" that need to be ironed out on roll-out (one person can't test every square centimeter). So we can probably expect some update versions, and maybe situations where we want to downshift out of this Mod when we want performance over visuals (hence it's a good idea to use JSGME). Still - this is an excellent Mod, and I'm loving flying over the Caucuses, just for the scenery :) Best $ to enjoyment ratio I've spent on DCS in a long time.

The practicality of a helo aside, I'd probably go for a de-militarized F-5F. I'd either need a center-line MXU-648 cargo pod, or convert the nose cannon enclosure to cargo space, like you see in the civilian market L-39Cs. With a seat for the wife, a place for luggage, and a 2000 nm ferry range, I think some travel might be in order ;)

Good choice - Fast, can land pretty much anywhere, and has "troop carrying" capability, so you can haul passengers and/or cargo - so practical as well.

Absolutely. Starway's mod is fantastic - it's the best $10 I spent in awhile - but I really like the idea of being able to mix & match the various mods. One texture mod may be superior for general flight, the other really good for being able to pick out armor units, etc. Being able to pick the best texture mod - or none - depending on the kind of flying I'm going to be doing, seems to be a really useful idea.

I've read a lot of reviews comparing the HTC Vive, and the Occulus Rift. The general consensus seems to be: "Roomscale = Vive, Sitdown vehicle (and DCS) = Rift". So, it appears that for vehicle sims the Rift has slightly superior performance. My question, however, is "is the Vive good enough?" By good enough I mean: Can I read instrument gauges? Can my brain do "suspension of disbelief" with the visual artifacts (which seem to be present on both peripherals, although slightly less so in the Rift). I'm not going to argue Rift vs. Vive: the consensus seems to be that the Rift is slightly technically superior for DCS. However, there are enough nasty aspects of Occulus as a company (i.e. their DRM title lock down, delayed shipping to long term early backers, etc.) , that it tempts me to go in the direction of the Vive, if it's good enough for an immersive VR flight sim experience - regardless of whether or not the Rift would give slightly superior performance. In short, being willing to take a slight hit on consumer performance - so long as that performance is acceptable - in order to cultivate the "better behaved" company. Comments on the Vive being fully usable?

Awesome! You'd have my vote :)

Can someone create a torrent magnet link?

The more people who are downloading the file = the more people who are acting as a server for the file. I download the first 10% from Starway (or whoever), and as I'm downloading the next "chunk" from Starway, I'm uploading the first 10% to you. Add more people, add more sources to get the file from - all you need for them to be a source for you is to have some part of the file that you don't. File sharing bandwidth scales up with the demand.

I forced myself to become more left-hand mouse proficient. However ... for the most part, I don't need to click in the cockpit, in flight - I map most of what I need to HOTAS switches, which I can find without looking, by memory. It's usually only on the ground for start-up and shutdown that I'm clicking switches, and obviously you need not worry about the joystick position in those situations.

The reaction of PayPal differs, depending on your country of origin, apparently. I know from Canada, I do not get the option of not creating a PayPal account. I ended up creating one in this case.

Depending on your Internet connection, you can also host multi-player. You could find a group of like minded WWII enthusiasts, and one or more of you (not at same time, naturally) could host for the group. Or you could build/download/edit a WWII MP aircraft mission throw it up on the server network with you hosting, and wait for people to drop in. If you do it on a weekend, you'd probably have a good chance of at least a few people showing up.

I'm pleased that we've now got enough images of the cockpit now to start cross-referencing to the F-5E-3 manuals to lock down exactly which versions of sub-systems we'll see (provided that they won't change - which doesn't seem likely) - and start "extracting" procedures and checklists. Except for systems that won't be modeled (in which case we'd error on the side of inclusiveness), we should be able to derive first drafts of normal and emergency procedures. Oh - and according to my tea leaves, we should be seeing DCS: Spruce Goose any day now!

The commentary from 1:00 to 1:10 ... :lol:

Two things: a) Do you have any evidence that working on multi-seat is slowing down "more desirable projects - or are you just "blue sky" speculating as if your opinions are established facts? b) You realize that your wants aren't universally everyone's wants right? So what might be "more desirable" to you isn't more desirable for everyone. Maybe I like the L-39 more than I'll ever use the Hornet. Maybe I really want multi-seat roles in the Huey, and have no interest in fast-movers. If so, it doesn't make me wrong, and doesn't make my "desires" any less valid than yours. Or more, for that matter - but I'm not the one complaining that things that other people want are interfering with what I want, either. As for multiple code branches, I would be willing to bet a large sum that the ED developers want to merge the branches as soon as they can; maintaining two (public) branches of a coding project is more work.

Yep - I keep both installed, both branches updated, and run one or the other depending on the aircraft and/or environment I want to fly.

You realize that multi-seaters like the L-39 and (eventfully?) the C-101 are test beds for the multi-seat technology, right? Working out the kinks on something that doesn't have a broad public appeal (sitting in the back of a trainer), is what will eventually give you multi-player in the Huey (door gunner anyone?), Gazelle, F-14, etc.