nervousenergy

This is all off-topic, but making a (very good) living doing PC forensics and legal eDiscovery work for coming up on 10 years now I just can't resist. It's physically impossible (as in 2+2=5 impossible) for any data from a previous partition that's been deleted in a reformat to have any effect whatsoever on any new partition you create. Period. To allude otherwise is nonsense on the level of flat earth talk. The raw data is still there until it's overwritten, and as noted I've made quite a good living finding that data for interested parties, but absent VERY specialized software designed to look at the disk as a physical object instead of a logical object, it's completely impossible for that data to affect the existing logical partition. Back on-topic, is there any plan to make the activation/de-activation of modules easier and less time consuming in 2.0? One click using Module Manager would be ideal, just like you can currently uninstall/re-install with it.

:huh:... B-17s flew many missions into Normandy. The fighters would be out of place, though, if that's what you meant. The Normandy map doesn't need anything to sell, as WWII players hungry for ANYTHING will buy it in droves. A map of Germany, however... The 8th AF trying to get in and the Luftwaffe trying to keep them out were the defining air battles of the late war. Dogfighting ponies and FWs over Dresden without any bombers in the air would involve some cognitive dissonance. As far as development goes, I don't see how a single-player version of a Fortress or Liberator would equal the complexity of the Mig 21 or upcoming Mirage. The cockpit would need a lot of textures and a copilot model, similar to the Huey. You'd also have to model looking through the bomb sight. I'd love to be able to jump into either the ball turrets or the tail gunner position, but I'm not sure the ROI would ever justify the cost of development. Of course, those would take a lot less resources to create, so I don't know. Flying a full 8th Air Force simulated mission over Germany for 8 hours is something that sounds great in theory, and I'm sure a lot of us would try it *once*. The number who would do it a second time is probably a small to very small fraction of that. :smilewink:

Yes, the full startup procedure is annoying when you're playing online, and the focus is on the PvP action. I think a fair number of people would buy a PFM class B-17 or B-25, but it would have even greater success selling maps if they were just initially developed as AI aircraft. So much of the late war western front that's the focus of our current planeset was centered around the bomber streams... P-51s flying cover, and 109s and FWs (and soon 262s) trying to get through the cover to shoot them down. We need them as targets to attack or defend more than anything right now.

I've already claimed my serial number (Beta A-10 purchaser), but I recall ED saying that Red Flag missions based on NTTR wouldn't be free to those who qualified for the free map. This is fair, but I'm wondering if there's been any more information on when those missions might be available for purchase. I'm guessing they won't be included with the initial map release.

I'd be surprised if the Normandy map took that long. It's massively simpler in many ways than NTTR or the Persian Gulf map currently in production: - We don't have ultra detailed photographic evidence of what most of it looked like, unlike modern Las Vegas or the Gulf. A good chunk of the map can be ad-hoc. - No sophisticated ground control - Much sparser urban/suburban landscapes It might still take that long, but my money would be on late Spring. And didn't they farm most/all of the development of Normandy out to one of the third party devs? And yes, it's hard to do a vision plan when you've got third party devs making whatever they feel like making. We just have to hope we can eventually string available models together into a coherent, historic WWII experience.

Yeah, the artwork quality in that pit is jaw dropping. It's a minute-one purchase when it goes up for pre-order.

You also have to distinguish between the AI damage model and the player damage model. They have to optimize quite a bit for framerate and playability, but I'd like to see at least a bit more damage effect on AI performance. As sith said, they're well aware of damage model deficiencies. I'm not a coder, but I'd bet it's a tricky, time consuming thing to get right. Modeling the effects of poking holes in aircraft sounds like a nightmare.

I'll buy it, of course, but for the love of god somebody has GOT to create a B-17, B-24, or B-25. Even if they just slap a skin on one of the existing AI modern transports and it doesn't shoot back. *Something.*

Wish I'd seen this thread before updating... down to 7, so not in any imminent danger, but this is ridiculous.

This will likely be an unpopular opinion here, but I already own 3 trainers that I'll likely never fly. We need more combat aircraft, not trainers. I'll still buy it if it's made, of course, but I'll bitterly lament the deployment of scarce development resources that went into creating it that could have gone into planes that we'd actually fly on historical missions. Fill the virtual skies with more of the popular late-war aircraft that fought against each other before making another trainer. We *need* an A8, and bombers (ANY bombers at this point, I'm not picky). We need a G10, and a Tempest. We need Zeros and Wildcats, Hellcats and Franks. Hmm... I need to write some alternate lyrics for "These are a few of my favorite things"...

I would buy some DCS swag. Somewhat surprised they don't offer it. A DCS themed HOTAS cover would go over especially well, I'd think.

Just used my store of bonus dollars on the L-39. Nearly half off! The only module I haven't bought at this point is the Mirage pre-order. They definitely should re-think the bonus for purchasing modules at full price. I only buy the WWII birds at full as I rarely fly modern aircraft (don't have the time to learn them, plus much more invested in the WWII scene), so I'm usually getting most everything else on sale.

Very, very interested in the Gunfighter. My extended 'hog is nice, but I'd like tougher gimbals.

I think most folks install experience with 1.5 went pretty well... as evidence of that, I submit that the forums didn't crash. ;-) I changed my main install from 1.2 release to 1.2 beta before it dropped, as I knew I wasn't going back.

Quick question for POLARIS1: First off, thanks again for providing these excellent profiles. I've used a few bits of them, but since I'm also pairing a CH Quadrant with the 'hog (love all those sliders for the WWII birds) I can't use them verbatim. Given that, is there a relatively simple way just to implement the 3-way Flaps switch? The FW 190 really benefits from this. I wind up using the low thumb hat for the variable flaps on the K4 or the 5 different slots for the P-51, but the actual flaps switch is a natural fit if I can figure out how to do it. You'd posted some sample code to drop into the one of the INI files a year ago or so when the 190 came out just to do the flaps and the idle/off indent on the throttle, but it stopped working after a couple of updates unfortunately. I'm starting to look into Lua coding a bit more since it seems a fairly useful skill, but my coding experience is all very old school (Basic, Pascal, even some COBOL) and long ago. Seems ED could short circuit this whole requirement if they'd simply let us assign a function to a button in the OFF state using the UI.

Looking at the model and watching it fly, I'd have to say your definition of 'waaaaaay early' is somewhat broken. :smilewink: It may not have a complete FM yet, but it's a long way from last year with wireframes and no textures.

I don't fly RC planes, but I've said this EXACT same phrase mentally more than a few times with my helis. :cry: It's not the expense of the repair... my X3 is build like a tank, and the collection of smaller HH Blade copters use very cheap components that I've usually got several spares of at any one time. It's the bench time. I love building scale plastic models, and building RC models prior to maiden or for upgrades, but for some reason I just dread repairing them even though it's the same process.

Also having this issue with the non-Steam version. No problem with the workaround of launching DCS.exe from the \bin folder, but the Run.exe associated with the Icon gives that same process error.

Can't hurry the smoke test. Ask Volkswagen... :music_whistling:

This. There's no going back. I'll live with some instability if I have to. :joystick: Edit: for those curious about the process, it's a simple command line that took about 2 minutes to run (this is on a very fast internet connection and SSD... YMMV.) Open Beta and Release are currently the same version number, so there's very few changes required. Just flew a few quick missions, and all is good. Run this from your \bin directory wherever you've got the game installed: dcs_updater.exe update openbeta:1.2.16.43180

Ahh... you learn something new every day. Looks like using the module manager was completely unnecessary.

I'm assuming GC = Game Client. If it's anything other than installing it directly over the old client, then you should deactivate all modules to prevent losing an activation when you install the new client. It seems very straightforward... I've only done it once a month ago when I upgraded to Windows 10. Deactivated all modules, did the upgrade, then re-activated. Everything worked correctly, and I didn't lose an activation when looking at the license properties in module manager.

Errors and CTDs, if numerous, would definitely be a no-go. Not too sure about 'nobody would like to play' with ATC problems, though. As a dedicated WWII bird player I never pay any attention to ATC. :smilewink:

Own everything but the L-39, but only proficient at the WWII birds. I'm in it for the WWII experience mainly.

It still doesn't have the hitreg / netcode that BF3 did, but it's a LOT closer. I'm wondering if there will be much value in keeping an 'official' 1.2 installation once 1.5 hits open beta. Unless 1.5's an unstable mess I can't see my self ever booting 1.2 again, and judging from the videos it's running pretty decent right now. Can you upgrade an open beta installation to the released version when 2.0 is out, or should the 1.2 be kept just for that purpose? The only thing I care about is the controls mapping file.