MiG21bisFishbedL

Just because information can be found in a google search doesn't mean it isn't restricted. Laws like these tend to be both proactive and reactive. And, since ED does have ties to Russia and possibly employees still located there, guess who is going to get blamed for it should they publish software with that information? This isn't something that can be argued, this is the reality of defense. ED wants cooperation from partners in defense to make high fidelity offerings. In very few situations can they afford to go it alone. The fact they found sources for the MiG-29A is the exception and not the rule. When RB made the M2000, they did so without input from Dassault and the Armee de L'Air. It was a mixed bag, but once they got some? It turned into a pretty good module to get. That support is really necessary. So, best case scenario? They go forward without the information operators and manufacturers can provide. Worst case? Prison. I get that a lot of gamers don't seem to care about the latter, but I'm betting the programmers do. The conflict is real simple: ED requires a level of fidelity to something published. That fidelity is not possible with outproper documentation. Obtaining that documentation through means that don't upset manufacturer or defense ministries and departments is how that is done. Doing so without their approval can ruin one's professional reputation or even result in legal ramifications. You probably don't know this, which is no big deal as people do tend to forget or really ever look into developers past "Do they make good stuff" and that's fair, but ED holds government contracts. The A-10 we have is derived from software they developed for the US Air National Guard, for example. They cannot just scrape google for references on modern airframes or even recently retired ones in the case of RedFor. Gamers can insist away to just use google results, but when you have a reputation to maintain in defense circles, you do it or you're out of work. Even the MiG-23 proved tricky to get. So, if you want to blame anyone for the dearth of RedFor, blame the Russian MoD. Before 2008, they weren't so strict and they allowed ED ample access to documentation to make the Ka-50. Since then, they've been a lot more rigid. Also, charging for skins? Why would I even consider that when I know people who will make them for me for free? Most DCS collectives have a skin maker or two. Also, those skins don't appear unless all clients connected have them. $3 to $5? That's highway robbery for something that I'd probably only see. There is very much such a thing as overmonetization in a game, and it comes REAL fast. In fact, I recall War Thunder frequently having to change, albeit reluctantly, for that reason. Why would ED even establish the infrastructure for something that would absolutely ostracize their existing player base? So far, your ideas, while maybe new, would only serve to divide the player base between FC players and the FF players. It's a moot point since, despite these ideas being new, they're inapplicable to DCS' own business model. VR is new, but what does its integration offer me when I'm playing one of the recent Dooms or any other boomshoot? Some things just aren't compatible. But, since we're talking free to play, you should know of the concept of whales. All of the free players are basically playing off the tab of the players willing to part with money for bonuses, premium things, etc. The dude who 'grinds' (grinding isn't fun, it's busy work, but I digress) the MiG-29M who then his friends get interested in it and buy in? Cool, $75 there. They aren't the whales. It's the guys who are going to pay $60 to $80 for the full fidelity experience. They've always been the focus of DCS World. That is the draw of DCS and to deny that is just wrong. ED even says it themselves; FC is a means to provide a less intimidating experience for potential new players. But, why should the development of other features, bug fixing, and even corrections of their weapons, flight dynamics, etc. have to be impacted by this attempt to 'bring in new players?' And what are they offering? An unnecessary grind? I put a lot less time into getting to where I am as a pilot than some F2P grinds and I even get paid. Also, what do you gain? Why should FC players have to earn weapons? The fact of the matter is that building the software to just divide the FC and FF player bases is a bridge to no where. We aren't playing on ED servers, we're playing on private servers. That kind of divide is to be determined by the mission editors and server hosts. So, by saddling FC players with a grind to unlock weapons while being unable to enforce a game wide divide and ranking system to ensure some semblance of fairplay, a concept that a lot of these newcomers are looking for? They're going to have a bad time. A dude who just came over from War Thunder or other game like that is going to scramble in a MiG-29M could still need to unlock weapons. And, since he doesn't know the community, doesn't know the servers, doesn't know what the icons mean at the browser window and is used to matchmaking because it's all he knows? He's boned. What if he joins a server where I am? Flying an F-14. With a human RIO. I got AIM-54s. What does he have? R-60s? R-27Rs? He's boned. He's just dead. He'll catch a Phoenix. I'm not even close to being top tier in the F-14, either. I know fellows who are way better. The fundamental issue of trying to bring that kind of experience to DCS is based upon the idea that DCS World, itself, possesses any concept of balance. It doesn't. Because, actual conflict lacks balance. That's what DCS is trying to do; present an accurate portrayal of warfare. FC is for new players, it's that simple. It is meant to provide a more streamlined experience for newcomers to experience DCS World. It's why the Su-25T is free. By adding exp, grinding, paid cosmetics, you would essentially be lying to the player base. You'd be providing a product that is not an accurate representation of DCS. The reality is that ED wants you to get FC, like it, and then jump into an FF. You can look at FC as almost a loss leader to get people in the door. This would all be done at the cost of dev time, money, and resources, thus leaving the existing players unhappy, too. It is a situation that leaves no one pleased with DCS World. It becomes a question of who ED wants to alienate? Their existing customers by dumping resources into a tremendous folly since this'd require a lot of resources that'd slow down DCS' development in other aspects or potential newcomers who will feel like they were just straight up victims of bait and switch. Sometimes, the best thing is to be content with your current fanbase and the type of player who wants this experience offered. So many mainstream franchises are dormant or just get batted about between publishers because of unrealistic sales and engagement expectations. DCS will not be mainstream, it will not have hundreds of thousands of players, and that is perfectly fine.

Literally not at all what they were getting at. An XP and unlock system would not only divert resources from other developmental needs, but it would not be terribly welcomed by most of the playerbase. Not everyone wants to play in simple, competitive match ups. Almost everyone comes to DCS to play with complex systems and fly these things on missions approaching a realistic setting. This is more akin to classic sims, like Falcon 4.0 and IL-2 '46. It gives you all the tools, you learn them, you play the missions it comes with, then you have a mission editor to make your own. Also, a flight sim has done the whole unlock thing. When IL-2 BoS put weapons liveries, and modifications behind XP walls, everyone hated it. So, they stopped it. If you need unlocks to justify sticking with a game and not the actual experience of the game? You need to ask yourself if you're really enjoying it and finding something that is actually going to keep your attention and deserve your money. Sure, developers need to "move with the times" but what if the standards include predatory and unfair practices towards the consumer? As for imagining having a skin sharing website? Imagine no more: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/filter/type-is-skin/apply/

I'm not the one connecting red yarn on a corkboard. But, okay: A man goes to his doctor. He gets up on the examination able and the doctor asks him what seems to be the issue for him. Man says he's unbelievably depressed. He says he can never shake the feeling of loneliness in an increasingly hostile society. Everything is so very vague and uncertain. His happiness is so far beyond in the past, as if he were watching it disappear in the rear window of a speeding bus, never to return. The present makes him feel ostracized and isolated with the world so obsessed with profit motives and almost never with the well being of neighbors, choosing to ignore that in the pursuit of money. The future is a nebulous and unknowable certainty, leaving him with an overwhelming sense of dread about what it may hold for him. It has reached a point where he feels unable to move forward, unable to cope with it, and unable to attain a sense of happiness. The doctor chuckles a little and says "Oh, the treatment is very simple: the great clown Pagliacci is in town and at the theatre, you should go see him. That'll pick you right up." The man bursts into tears and collapses to his knees before he chokes out "But Doctor, I am Pagliacci."

Welcome to DCS World, where adult men spin elaborate tales of development impropriety and supposed money laundering within a criminal conspiracy case so boring, it'd make an argument at a flower show seem riveting.

If we're going to be pedants, why don't we come up with claims that are at least funny. Cobra wasted all the preorder money on a weekend in Vegas, sorry guys, Phantom canceled. Iron Mike bought a monster truck and there's nothing you can do about. Grover used the money to help fund his underwater supervillain lair. There, three to start from.

I'd be hopeful were it no almost a decade later.

Replace Skyhawk with SuperCub and I would relate so much. I just had one cut me off in the pattern 2 weeks ago.

I was about to ask where alignment came in, the F-5E is basically a Cessna with little turbojets.

I always look at it as a means to both simulate certain levels of visual acuity as well as compensate for the limitations of using a monitor. Not everyone has my mutant distance vision acuity of 20/10 in my left and 20/8 in my right.

100%. Having a MiG-29 I can dig into is a blessing. Until we see a change of attitude in the RuMoD, we can't expect much. I say this wistfully as I look at my copy of Flanker 2.5. For me with the Fishbed? I'd want to go back to the F-13 and all the way forward to the 21-93. Because, it'd be hilarious. Actually, scratch that, give me the SMT for the actual comedy option. As well as redfor in general? I'm 100% serious when I say this: Yak-38M.

Impossible to say and more of an if. As for taking a step toward the Cold War era? As much as I'd love it, DCS accepts any team who can produce, really. And, a lot of the aircraft of that era do hold some nice advantages in that they lack the complexities of later 4th gen fighters, in both technical aspects and in the sense of information availability that can be utilized. But, no matter what, we'll be forced to remove BVR weapons and JHMCS from the Viper we have to make it a stand-in for the foreseeable future. It'll need a new cockpit and flight model, given the differences between CM Block 50 we have and an A model of basically any block. With their existing obligations to support the current crop of their modules as well as finishing up the CH-47F, MiG-29A, and F6F Hellcat? They may not have the resources to begin on an F-16A just yet. Still, that's just the ED side of things. Who's to say a third party doesn't have it in mind? I'd suspect that as the best chance. Also, this thread is tagged "noted" so that's real good news!

Especially if you can find the homes of those you have a strong dislike for!

Mountains out of molehills.

They'll make what they can when they can source enough important documents.

Considering how fast Chinooks can haul, yeah, it'll be fun.

Oh, the humanity.

Oh yeah? Well, I'm going to use 4!!!!. I win.

I still have a cart of it! You should check out Thunder Helix, it's LHX but made as a passion project.

The I-16 is fun because it's kind of a beater. It's in the same vein as the MiG-19 for jets. It's so limited, it's so restricted, and that makes it a ball. It's the same difference between owning a really nice car vs. a beater. The former always has horror stories about how it got dinged or scratched. The latter you can flip into a ditch, watch it catch fire, and laugh about because it was awesome. With the I-16, when you pull off something cool in it, it's awesome because of the limitations it presents. I'd like to fly one for real, some day.

There's a dark moment you have the moment you realize you've actually figured out the ancient ground loop prevention dance in that thing. You don't know whether to be proud or horrified that you've put that effort into the I-16.

Having that mission set in DCS would be a blast.

If we only wanted to use the most sophisticated, we'd not be wanting the Phantom when the Hornet, Jeff, and Viper are available.

By that logic, why even bother with the F-106? We have the F-16 as it is. It's because, these old century series interceptors are interesting. The compromises and attempts to make the most sophisticated aircraft of the era make them unique.

That's a sweet piece of footage. I'd love to sling R-73s, even though it looks like we won't get 'em.