Vedexent

Agreed - I have been generally very happy with Belsimtek.

Well ... we are getting the MiG-28 "Fantasy"

My wife would absolutely love that. (edit: I showed her; she does). For myself ... I think my eyes are bleeding ... :P:D

I think the conglomerate wishlist includes every aircraft ever made, or designed, or speculated about, by now :P

I think they're being very wise in not speculating, or setting release time expectations in any way. How many dev teams have gotten burned by that one? But I do get the impression it's not that far off, as well.

+1 :D It's been a good year for me with the L-39 and F-5E both coming out.

Can't you introduce new aircraft models as Mods? Isn't this done with mods which use the flight model and cockpit of existing DCS modules to simulate aircraft not normally available in DCS - like the HoggitDev A-4? If so, couldn't you "map" new civilian aircraft models over existing aircraft - like the Yak - to "fake" different kinds of civilian aircraft? I honestly don't know - but it seems like this might work.

There are some games which run in both environments, because they're based on an engine which has been ported to both environments. The games themselves just run on the engine. In that design paradigm, there doesn't need to a "Linux supported" or "Windows supported" ports of the game ( or even "Console X supported" ports) - just the engine or environment port. A much more complex migration, but far fewer migrations needed, and each migration brings hundreds of titles to the target platform. In fact until recently, the Linux version of Kerbal Space Program was superior in Linux, as the Linux 64-bit version of Unity was far more stable than the Windows version. This has changed recently, and the 64-bit Windows version has been vastly improved. Gaming - including DCS - is the only reason I have any Windows based PCs in my home network any more. With improvements in virtualization technology over the past few years - including the introduction of stable PCI bridging (essentially detaching physical PCI hardware - like your graphics card - from your main operating system, and having it used directly by a virtual machine), I'm very close to relegating Windows to a "gaming virtual machine" which I fire up when I want to play. Since DCS doesn't use the full suite of processor cores, it's a prime candidate for this kind of use case, since I can use the core management in KVM to dedicate physical cores to the virtual "gaming" machine. So ... with dedicated physical processor cores and with dedicated graphics hardware, I'm guessing that DCS should have near-native performance, on a Linux desktop, running a Windows gaming VM which only gets spooled-up for "playtime". The rest of the time the cores and graphics cards go back to Linux (yes, this would require a motherboard with an integral graphics chipset that Linux could use when the cards were detached, and either a separate "Linux only" monitor, or a monitor with multiple select-able inputs). I haven't tried this - yet - but if when I do, I'll definitely let the community know if DCS works under that setup.

The problem with realistic scenarios on multi-player servers is that they don't lend themselves to "drop in, drop out" traffic - any more than real military missions do. The only scenarios which really lend themselves to realistically dropping in and leaving randomly are "Air Quake" and "Free Flight". Guess which servers see the most amount of public MP traffic? If you want to find realistic missions, you pretty much have to find a squadron which flies scheduled, well constructed missions - ideally with some other "guest squadron" running OPFOR. Not easy to find, but there are a couple of squads out there like that.

You are right; I stand corrected. It would be more accurate to say it never saw wide spread non-trainers use in the U.S. 12 F-5A (later re-classed F-5C) were fielded in the Vietnam conflict as "battle testing" of the aircraft. They flew over 2.5K+ sorties, losing 7 of the 12 to enemy fire. This is why you see them dropping Napalm in "Apocalypse Now". In '66 the field active fleet expanded to 17 - but eventually the active F-5 fleet was supplied to South Vietnam, and so-far-as-I-know that was the end of U.S. use of the F-5 outside of training, OPFOR aircraft at Nellis, and movie appearances as the MiG-28 "Fantasy".

It's a cool little plane :) From my perspective, it was not only a main fighter in the Royal Canadian Air Force (until retired), but a variant of it was manufactured in Canada and exported. It's an example of a design philosophy that isn't popular in US designed planes - small, cheap, nimble, lots of them - but you see a lot in Russian designed aircraft (look at the Su-25). The US tends towards "fewer, bigger, faster, more expensive, cutting edge technology in all things" (although given US military budgets "fewer" might not mean numerically inferior). The F-5 was originally a design proposal for a project that eventually went to the F-16 - but Northrop realized that it made an inexpensive export plane, so it saw a lot of use in US allied air forces, even though it never saw non-trainer use in the U.S. --- If only you're interested in the "biggest, fastest, most deadly kid on the block", then maybe the F-5 won't "click" with you, but if you're an aviation buff, are interested in historical match ups, or a fan of the Russian aircraft in DCS, then you might really enjoy it.

I think filtering by max ping, or open/locked would be useful as well; e.g. I want to see all publicly accessible servers with a ping time <200ms. By aircraft type would be interesting as well - hadn't thought of that before.

Interesting - I'm working on something like this in Voice Attack profiles: a set of voice navigable checklists (with paramtrically driven levels of detail, and hints) and a general library to streamline the creation of new checklists. Great minds think alike? Fools seldom differ? ;)

Mission editor also works - it would be a way to experiment with various settings to see exactly when this occurs. I've flown the TF-51D out of Mccarran, from the mission editor, and I did not notice then phenomenon you're describing. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I didn't notice it, in that one case.

My dumb question: what's the wind setting in the mission? Could your plane just be drifting to the left?

Googling a bit, it looks like NVG modification involves: " ... a combination of ANVIS compatible filters, bezels, internal modifications, post-lighting, bulb replacements and floodlighting to modify all instrumentation in both the cockpit and cabin." So, no, it's not a major overhaul - but it's a retrofit, and it's an upgrade project. If your airforce has a couple of hundred combat aircraft, it can add up. Again, not a horrible expense - but it might not be a needed one; only multi-role, close air support aircraft, and helos are likely to have any use for NVGs. I believe the M2000 was originally conceived primarily as an interceptor, with some strike capabilities - but even with strike aircraft, only your targeting systems need to see the target; the pilot being able to see them with the Mk1 eyeball isn't as important. So a combination of "would we use it?", and "is it worth the expense?" probably keeps NVG compatibility from being the default configuration.

Yes there is a solution. You capture your logs, zip them up, you describe your system build, you file a bug report by prefacing your forum topic with [bug Report] (after first checking that no one else has filed that same bug) with those documents, and you wait for it to be fixed in one of the patch updates. So far as I can see you haven't done any of that. Devs might notice an issue randomly in the forums, but they might not. Your bug is likely to be prioritized, and other more serious bugs are likely to get fixed ahead of it.

So, I could create mission specific tactical maps, for a squadron mission, and not only use it in briefing, but show it on the Tacview playback? Sweet! :D

I don't think that an NVG comparable cockpit came along until the Mirage 2000D variant - so, so far as I know, no. This is not a bug.

There's a couple of operations in the US which seem to be pretty proficient at rebuilding and maintaining warbirds - even Russian ones. So far as I know, however, none of them seem to have tried a SU-25 - mostly 1950's MiGs, or L-39s

In the "Hey, I just won the Billion dollar US Powerball" category. http://www.generalequipment.info/SUKHOI%20SU-25.htm Choose between the UB (for those of us who are married and need to take the wife along), or the single seater K model for you bachelors/bachelorettes. No price listed, but I'm guessing that restoring/rebuilding/certifying would be in the $12M to $15M range? And what for operating costs? $3-6K per hour?

This. IRL, I know right where a switch is in a C-172, I can reach for it with muscle memory, no looking required. In a DCS-level aircraft I try and move a mouse cursor over the control, while trying to keep my head super still as my TrackIR is moving my field of view around (with motion scaling) so the "target" my mouse is try to hit keeps moving around. While I really really really love DCS level modules for their Advanced Systems Modelling and Professional/External flight models, all of the functions that I'm likely to need during take-off, landing, or combat, are mapped to HOTAS switches. Startup, Shutdown, configuring for combat, and setting up nav systems - these I'm comfortable with hunting down virtual switches (and even then, I'm likely to have a locked "snap view" for the control panels to keep the switch still while I'm reaching for it). But ... since I have most of the "common" functions mapped to HOTAS switches, which - like the C-172 - I can find by muscle memory, the different between a "clickable" and "non-clickable" cockpit becomes a lot less noticeable. The big difference for me in FC3 aircraft vs. DCS level aircraft lies in the details of aircraft modelling and simulation.

IRL, the active heading of the runway is determined by the wind direction - e.g. Runway 09 vs. Runway 27. Try setting the wind direction so that your plane, sitting on the runway you want it facing, is facing into the wind. Also - be aware that some airstrips don't have a reversible runway, due to mountains or other geographical features.

Anytime you want to roll out a DCS level module for the Su-25, I'll happily put away FC3. Which leads me to wonder if there are any SEAD aircraft outside of the 25T?

I'm especially interested in the F-5, given that Canada used, manufactured, and exported (a variant of) it - and Canada was is the Korean war. So - yeah - I can see nationality being a factor in interest