Buzzles

Yeap, but only because a chap tried to bend the rules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.

What point are you trying to make by reposting it again? It is the run off zone, this isn't unexpected. You do realise that the end of a runway falls into the "runway safety area" (link), meaning that it's likely to have had some engineering done at the ends? It doesn't support your assertion that the ground adjacent to taxi ways is also mechanically stabilised on all airfields and fine for any plane to go on. While I too find the differences between airfields annoying (there are a couple in DCS you can go offroad with no effect) and the fact it's a death sentance to go offroad on most, it's such a minor gripe at the moment considering the other issues in DCS and the fact it only happens when the user does something wrong.

Ah, so it does. It changes the title of the post, but not the thread.

You can change it yourself. Edit your first post and click the "Go Advanced" button. You can then edit the title of your OP in second box at the top.

Honestly, am I going to buy this? No, it's not one I want. However, I can see why LN have done it and I appreciate that. DCS has one of the, if not the, best flight simulation platforms out in the market and because of that the acrobatics servers are often full, so there's definitely a niche market. It's also going to allow LN to develop their code models for prop planes, making them the first 3rd Party Dev to bring a prop to DCS. A biplane is also a first. I bet Yo-Yo is interested in the FM/aero interaction at the very least. I agree with the others though, considering how obviously divisive this airplane would be, the hyping was poorly judged and shouldn't have been done. Also, for the people saying "COMBAT!11!": the DCS product description also points out it is a sandbox, and up until recent changes in the wording, it previously said it was a sandbox for all types of aviation, not just military.

Jeepers, some of you lot are very excitable and throwing out wishlist items. Also, most of you have forgotten Rudel's posts with the radial engine in, and the various hints that one plane they were working on was in WWII Pacific theatre. It might not be what they're currently working on, but I doubt they've scrapped all that work. Might be more than one plane in the announcement, but I doubt it considering the size of the team now.

Aha! Thanks.

Sure, after more of Europe gets modelled, and North Africa, and more of the Middle East, and SE Asia... :)

What's the actual difference between them anyway, aside from looks?

Serbian airforce may have changed/upgraded the systems on their planes maybe? Or just simply, first module and limited experience so they got something close and thought it would do for a bit. Either way, M3 are saying they're going to do more work on it, so we can do nothing but wait.

Considering OP is saying it is smoother in v1.5.8 of DCS than 2.x, the first question is what are your framerates like?

Surely it would be easier to promote someone from within the team, and then recruit their replacement?

Do you mean like what's available for the Viggen? https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=185826

From a software dev standpoint, if a feature isn't used you should cut it out. Less complex code paths make for easier development, maintainence and an easier time creating a much better test suite for the remaining code. Added bonus of less code = faster build times too. KISS principle applied really.

Utter tosh! The Spit is fine to t/o + land without pedals. Does it make it easier? Yes, not denying that. Impossible with a twist stick? Not by a longshot.

I mean, of course ED totally didn't build the first DCS heli and write all the supporting code into DCS for others to use... :P

I'd be in favour of removing all the game-mode code completely, but I'm not working at ED so I don't have all the usage statistics to show it's worth/lack of worth to maintain it.

Honestly, you don't really need to in the Spit. It may have an effect if you're doing a fast taxi with the throttle forward, but I can't say I notice too much difference with it back or in neutral at normal taxi speeds.

Clearly, as he's also listed the Bo-105, Me-262, Mirage F1, and Hind, which are all in active development too. The A-6 and A-7 are in Razbam's own roadmap. There's also been a few possible hints for the F-104 and the Tornado too from others. I mean, it's got the F-5 on the list, which is already out.

Clearly they should do a Bell 222A :)

Total renderer rewrite indeed. I dabble on an off with an old games programming book whose core theme is a small + simple RPG game engine with rendering in DirectX 7 (v.old!). I've swapped it out for a modern-ish implementation using OpenGL 4.5, and they're vastly different. That said, I know with 1.5/EDGE ED did deliberately decouple the renderer code from the rest of the application in order to allow swapping it out later, so they've made their lives a bit easier there.

If you install 1.5 stable, you'll be installing the release branch version of DCS. Eventually, 2.5 will go onto the release branch, once it's gone through alpha and beta, so you'll just recieve a large but normal update with no effort on your part. It's also the most stable version, if you don't care to deal with bugs and oddities in beta and alpha.

ED aren't half a dozen people working in someones living room though. With the size of them (50+) and based on all the other stuff they've told us, there's definitely a seperation between production and core development internally. Based on my own experience of being a software dev, it's fairly common for core dev to be focused on adding a new feature/tooling for production to use for a specific client/customer, while the production team will happily be cranking out work for other clients/customers who don't need said feature. Can't see how the Yak-52 is requiring many new features that aren't already in DCS, it's not exactly a technology heavy airplane. The only thing that springs to mind is the model for the radial engine, but they might have already done a lot of that work behind the scenes for the P-47.

Here's Yo-Yo's post with graphs for the top speed and rate of climb: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=163126 ~22,000 is indeed the best for speed. There's a few graphs knocking around for turn rates too if you do a search.

Still a problem, still making DCS very difficult to use, especially as it's now in the release branch. @ED testers: Is this logged? @dresoccer4: We can get around it by using the keyboard shortcut l-alt+c for now.