p1t1o

Not when compared against most other early access titles and developers there arent. Fact is, it just *isnt possible* to tell you what you really want to know - it seems you want to know the day a particular feature will be completed and you want them to stick to that date. Well they cant give you that date and they cant guarantee to stick to it, thats the reality of games development - or really, ANY large project of any significance. And "you shouldnt have to go hunting in various locations" Why shouldnt we? Who made that a rule? That the information exists should be enough, you want it, go get it. Understand that this is an extremely common complaint made on almost every dev board and that almost nobody has time for these kinds of issues, because most of them come from spoiled, obnoxious young kids who have no idea how anything works, who are blind to the 10,000 threads which already answer their question, who get very angry when they arent immediately placated. If any dev treated al of these complaints as if they were legitimate, reasonable questions, then they would have zero time left for actual development. So communications and speedy development are often counter-indicated, you cant have perfection in both. So whilst I assume you are commenting in good faith, there is very good reason why not many people have much patience for these kinds of queries. it really is a common complaint, and many decent game forums will delete comments or even ban users, for pestering devs about release dates or feature updates because otherwise the whole forum would be consumed with people asking the same thing or making the same - often extremely unreasonable - complaint over and over again, or defending one side or another, getting more and more irate. Fact is - up there you literally have an ED "Community manager" (for one thing, that exists) who is reaching out to you directly and politely, instead of putting a temporary block on your user account. If that doesnt show a decent amount of effort going into communication, I dont know what would.

I cannot belive there will be many self-respecting DCS pilots who will not, eventually at least, own both of these without regret. Letss say you love the F16, so you get the F16 module. How long are you going to let the F18 module sit around before you try it out? How many sales will go by? Im guessing not many :lol: What Im saying is, the question is moot, buy the first one your mouse reaches.

Some people dont know how good they have it. They should buy like any other "early access" title to see how impressive the ED dev cycle really is.

You're looking for the Ace Combat forum, this one is for DCS.

Obviously, changing the configuration of the aircraft to one with less mass and drag will increase the maximum attainable speed. The question is, what configuration is the limit you mention, referring to? That and Vmax and maximum attainable speed, are two different things, as SacredRaziel says.

I have heard anecdotally that the "fox" codes help when one has IR missile launch warning system. These systems would sound a missile warning if a friendly aircraft nearby launched a missile at an enemy, so if you hear a fox call shortly followed by your MLWS going mad, you know you dont need to panic. Further to that, I just assumed they added more codes so that any audio log or recording would contain more information. But I suspect they just added more simply to have something to say. Like maybe someone invented fox codes, but didnt tell enough people why. Then someone sees them and is like "Oh sh&^! I need to think of a code for our weapons too!"

That comment doesnt make any sense. Word Salad. Its irrelevant but even if it is, its irrelevant? What "solid object" are *you* talking about? Its *directly* relevant, its a solid datapoint - this crash was not like that crash, therefore it is less likely to have similar cause (double engine failure - the initial stated cause, since rescinded). Take a breath to read your words before hitting "submit" next time. @@@ @@@@@@ @@ @@@@@@@@ @@@@ @@@@@@@@@@ ?????

I dont know how to break it to you, but the aircraft in that video is CGI? Its *not* a real aircraft and may never be. Its an advert, obviously demonstrating various options. So yeah, maybe a triple-rack will maybe one day be available for an aircraft that is *not* an F16C. But you might also notice that even the CGI not-F16C is only packing 8 AMRAAMs, only one extra pair.

We know what it looks like when an aircraft of a similar type experiences simultaneous, double, total engine failure from the Sullenberger landing on the Hudson. This does not resemble that in any way. The appearance of tiny holes in fuselage pieces is hard to comment on, a lot of fragments flying around in any violent aircrash and aircraft skin is not particularly resistant to puncture. Puncture holes do not signify a missile, but what would, would be a *particular pattern* of puncture holes, which will only be discoverable once the wreckage is re-constructed. This is what happened in the case of the downing of that flight over the Ukraine some time ago, and further to that was the discovery of actual missile fragments that could be conclusively linked even to a particular type of missile. I do not see the withholding of the black boxes, at this time, to be suspicious. Nations are not obligated to obey instructions given by US corporations and this is an internationally sensitive incident which has occurred only hours ago. What this is though, is a MASSIVE coincidence. If this is somehow NOT linked to recent events, it'll be the coincidence of the century. The one thing that does point to a shootdown, is total and instant loss of all contact on the ascent. Coupled with the aircraft burning significantly before impact, this indicates something quite violent happened. There are non-military explanations that could cover these circumstances (severe electrical fire, for example) but as details get added, they are running out (and getting more obscure) by the minute. Very likely that this situation is still developing and we will hear much more about it in the coming days/weeks.

You are right, it is not enough to spam in airborne multiplayer clone of CallofDuty. That is why they made the "Ace Combat" games. The "missile truck" aircraft doctrine was tried once, very briefly, because it it no use at all in practical situations. Missiles are heavy Missiles are expensive Enemy aircraft do not arrive in spam-ready clouds, nor do they cooperate with your targetting efforts You gonna dogfight with half your AMRAMMs left? Not very well you arent. No, packing fighters with tens of AAMs is not currently any use in the modern world. Pictures of Hornets carrying 10+ AMRAAMS are almost exclusively marketing/advertising/demonstration flights that are not combat oriented.

I think it is something like, the sim records all control positions several times pers second, and re-creates the flight in-sim for the replay. Often things could be missed in-between "frames", maybe something tiny that mounts up over many frames, and then you end up with your plane flying into a mountain. No joke, Ive had tracks in the past where the plane did not even make it off the runway. However IIRC someone said that it had recieved some work recently-ish? I made a replay the otherday with the harrier that had some pretty tight manouvres through buildings in the Persian Gulf and it recorded perfectly. Maybe it works better on the newer terrains, I dont know.

Thats not actually a fuel tank, its a cargo pod. Im not 100% sure what they are used for, but I can imagine a few things. Pilot transferring overseas for extended duration cant take his kit bag in the cockpit etc.

Thats not really how development, or any large project, works. You can make it known that you are eagerly awaiting better hotas controls, so that they know it is wanted. But they cannot just "reallocate" effort from one thing to another, they cant just shift Dave from weapons to hotas and have it speed up proportionally, doesnt work like that. There could be situations where, say for example, the shrike is being developed for more than one module and has its place in the timetable of each module and cannot be held back without messing up multiple projects in multiple ways. Or maybe hotas is fine and nobody is complaining about it except for yourself. The control over development timetables and schedules that forum members have is WAY, WAY less than a lot of people think. Which is as it should be. Imagine having to run every project decision past 10,000 random, mixed-experience civilians before doing anything? You'd make the worst sim on the planet. After about 25 years of work. Besides which, it doesnt even go into priorities in the above list. How do you know shrike wont be completed at the absolute last minute?

Wow, that is specific! But fair enough, this is HiDef simming after all :D

Isnt basically the entire Black Sea available in the Caucasus map?

You need to see "Chuck's" F18 guide, he has made one for pretty much every module, they are excellent and boil down a lot of the manual into procedures you can use straight away. Good way to learn the aircraft. You'll find a link to the guide in the fourm page for each aircraft, and i think there is a link to a full collection. They arent hard to find once you know they exist.

Wait, there are people that play DCS with a *gamepad*?

Actually, technically, yes "we" do. Dont be the thing you hate please.

omg yesssss +1 In this specific case, I dont care about realism (if it is even a strict realism issue) the blue pod is ugly as sin.

In my experience, it is nearly impossible to tell when a single feature will be released, you wont get an answer. It depends on too many things and can be very variable, so any answer is subject to change at any time. ED have a very good history of doing things "in a timely manner" though, so I wouldnt worry too much. Some game forums go so far as to ban any questions around when something will be ready, and fair enough.

I felt pretty certain that this was just going to link to a stream of Top Gun :D

Uh guys? The B52 absolutely did transition to a low level penetration mission....its a *huge* part of its history...

True, but is it confirmed that this is simulated?

Today I allowed DCS to perform the normal update routine. I suffered some strange effects in the main loading screen. At first I thought it was not responding at all to the mouse (cursor moved, but no reaction to clicking on menu items) though windows appeared to open at random. I figured out that the location of the cursor no longer corresponded to where the "click" happened. In order, for example, to select "mission editor", if I move the cursor to a position offset to the left and slightly up by about 6inches, the menu item would highlight blue and a click here would activate it as normal, no problem. This is difficult. Especially because of the vertical offset, I cannot access many parts, including settings. Help! I've never seen anything like this before! Can provide whatever detail is necessary. Was working A-OK before update. Just tell me what you need to know. Could it be related at all to the Valve Index VR goggles? I dont have them plugged in at the moment...but I did have the last time I used DCS. Thanks! Pete *********** edit: Update: Further events So I had DCS minimised whilst I typed that. When I maximised it, mouse worked perfectly. "OH great" I thought, now I have to explain that. But no, on attempting to replicate just caused problems - hangs and crashes. I wont elaborate in case I just muddy the waters, but DCS appears very unstable right now, and with the weird mouse-offset thing... DCS currently unworkable for me, a little help? ************ edit: After a little more tinkering, found I could reliably crtrl-alt-del out and back without any hangups, this somehow reset the cursor position so that it tracked properly and I was able to go into settings to reset the resolution back to native (I had it set to a lower resolution for when I had my goggles connected, with the idea that it put less strain on the GPU). That has seemed to fix the problem and now everything is back to normal. Phew! So. Bit embarrassed though. Panicked a little up there heheh

Oh goody, time to buy BlackShark for the 3rd time! But srsly...awesome, most underrated module.