Buzzles

No, you don't deserve more, you don't deserve anything. You simply want. None of us have parted with our money yet, and as such aren't in a place to do anything more than request things. HB have been pretty good at putting out information updates and answering questions.

I'm sort of against this, as I remember the days of Day Of Defeat (non Source), Unreal Tourney, Half Life etc... where you'd connect and then spend ~10 minutes downloading skins, soundpacks, textures etc... as the server owners had a kitchen sink approach.

I think tracking bios changes is a step too far, but on the whole the mode is an acceptable compromise between ED needing to protect their IP and user experience. Personally, I still think 3 days phone home is too short and 5/7 would be better, but it is what it is.

The only feature request I have for FC4 is for it not to exist. I get why people like FC3 and want FC4, but imo DCS's entire selling point is the high fidelity and interaction. The more aircraft that are sold as an FC level version, the less aircraft we're likely to get as full-fat versions.

Glad you appreciate it! Here's another for you: Did you know bears defecate in woods?

It's a bit like bangers and mash vs toad in the hole: they both contain sausages. Sausages in this case being core systems like navigation, tgp useage etc...

You still taking new questions in here, or will there be a new thread for round #2?

There is/was a model for a B/C in the game files. It's old though, iirc it was from before ED decided to do the 'D.

When HB decide to kick it off.

Also fxo folder. You might as well delete them both on every update at the moment while ED are playing with shaders a lot.

Locking it on means that all cockpits now have a stable target to be designed/textured for. We'll see fixes come with this change, rather than people staying in the half way house it's been for ages.

There's a custom cockpit option in the special settings of most planes. Most modules have an English version available as part of the install, no user files required.

I can understand why, but tbh, I think it's currently a poor choice of map considering the plane set we have in DCS*. I'd rather have seen somewhere else in the South Americas like Columbia etc.. to support COIN ops with Razbam's own Super Tucano. *of course we're getting Razbam's Mirage III at some point, but without a Sea Harrier, it's still not a great plane set for the map. Raz previously made noises about the Pucará, but we're still a bit short of planes.

That's a shame, especially as said rumble was your (Polychop's) own doing.

Write a unit test!

KA-50 came about due to a contract with Kamov though, iirc. They were certainly involved (question 5 and 6).

Bit pointless voting for the F-16, considering we're already getting one from ED.

AFAIK, Razbam have a licence or an agreement of sorts with Dassault. They certainly had communications as they had to change the name from the original DCS:Mirage 2000 to DCS:M2000, with a public request to the DCS community to only call it by the latter. Can't find the post now so it might have been deleted.

There's no irony. OP was asked if it was needed. It is not. I don't see anyone saying having more would be a bad thing, aside from the dealing with the hugely inflated cost at the moment.

I'm confused, 5 days ago you posted this: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=206429 You never responded. Why did you delete and reinstall?

The FAQ pretty much answers everything you need on what we're getting: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=197186 But yes, EA is going to resemble the features from a much earlier version, but I suspect a lot of the more standard weapons will come very quickly.

Don't worry about boost/rpm too much. Instead try doing a military overhead break (google it) approach. It involves putting the throttle to idle, hence why I say don't worry about boost/rpm.

Regarding time vs geography, If you build some 1944 themed dirt near Normandy, even though the textures and details aren't portable, the actual terrain mesh and elevation data is. So, if you stitched stuff together on a bigger map, we'd at least have some areas where the actual terrain is high detail that mission makers can take advantage of. That said, DCS needs bigger and generally just more maps first, and maybe stitching together of the geographically close maps, but I don't think it needs the whole world just yet.

** Based on the current codebase though. Their new memory management code might resolve that.

Yeap, that's from ED's side though. I doubt they'd stop a 3rd Party doing a Redfor jet. After all, there's clearly some market viability, as we've got the Mig-19 in the pipe + BST are working on the Mi-24. I personally would very much like a fully modelled Mig-29 or Su-27, or a Mig-23/27.