S3NTRY11

Mid-late September has been sprayed all over the forum, and I think that time-period was given by wags himself. They sound pretty confident, but I can appreciate people being anxious about it.. We've heard pretty solid dates before. Fingers crossed! It's looking good. I'm certainly pumped... Now to taste their VR implementation!

The fact that they even mention mid-September fills me with confidence, but it's a fair bet it will fall later than earlier.

Moddable ATC With the upcoming updates to the ATC system, will it be possible for the community to create add-on sound-mod packs for localisation and variety purposes? By extension, I imagine a script would need to be released? Loving the Q&As, really appreciate the time and effort that goes into them. Thanks again.

Pretty sure this one was answered in a stream. The answer was no, because there would need to be a pause-state for all clients, which would lead to interesting (to say the least) situations. Having said that, it would be good if individuals could 'do it anyway', and if they're in a bad spot while the simulation keeps running in the background, well...

Well it was, yes.

Is it safe to assume that 1.5 will come with all, or most, of the GUI improvements? I'm really looking forward to the new rendering engine more than anything else from 2.0. Means I should finally be able to use my Rift in DCS! (AMD user). Rift + L39 == excitement!

If only it was the same. In my excitement, only LIVE will do... But of course, I'll settle for the youtubes...

If only... If only it were a day earlier... I'll be at work! :(

games.on.net

Sure sounds like a forum interface would eliminate that problem. ;) This ignores the technical benefits of a system like that which BIS uses. A forum interface for bug reporting would be difficult to track at best. It really does need a dedicated tracking system IMO. Surely ED have guys sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for a project like that to come along, right? :D

Robust update, thanks Wags. I'm a little confused about what exactly is happening with EDGE/Nevada though - the screenshots certainly seem like they're using the current engine? I know that it has been said that we won't have Nevada without EDGE, I just think there's a huge similarity between the engine as it stands and those screenshots (accounting for the fact that they are WIP). Owing to the fact that there's no mention of EDGE, my brain is saying "EDGE is delayed, but lets get Nevada out the door". WILD SPECULATION, everybody. Don't lynch me. In any case, the update is greatly appreciated, and it's awesome to know that a new map is just over the horizon.

As if to be a lightning bolt from Zeus himself: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=109847

Whoa there, champ. I'm not advocating putting the pin back in the grenade. I'm saying think a bit harder before you pull the pin in the first place. Besides, I think that the Mig21 fits quite nicely into the era bracket I'm mostly referring to. And I'm looking forward to it, so I'd be pissed too ;) I think you're more referring to mods, which are 1) typically free, and 2) not generally endorsed (with a few exceptions - one major exception being the proxy cash-cow that is DayZ). -edit - whoops, missed FSX - yes there are many third party add-ons... but are any endorsed by MS?

touché. Interesting first post.

But I acknowledge people's good points wherever they are. Has my opinion been swayed? No. Do I sometimes need to iterate my point? Yes, because it seems as if my point was not understood in some cases. It seems as if, to you, unless my opinion is changed it's not a dialogue? I understand what you are saying regarding 3rd Party developers, but I think that is part of the problem I'm speaking of. Also, did you just join this Forum to make this post? That's a little random.

It's a problem anywhere plausibility is an issue. Sure I mean if people feel the need to have completely asymmetrical whatever, fair enough, but many scenarios are just outrageous. I don't think I ever mentioned PvP per se. Though I guess that could be assumed. To clarify, I was mainly referring to COOP. And your point makes mine for me: COOP with P51's? Cool - what's the scenario? To go COOP against ground units from a completely different era? If that's your bag, I guess. Great post, cheers. I guess my argument to this would be that (and I am repeating myself a little, sorry) because there are so few resources to develop with, producing a wide array of airframes over differening timeframes means that the enriching of one area is at the expense of another. ie more older airframes does nothing to enrich the main era of ED products (80's - 2000's), and with so little in the way of any other assets for the older airframes, you're better off getting a rich experience with something entirely developed as an older-era sim. I'm not going to buy airframes simply to keep ED in business. There has to be some appeal. My original post does assume a few things, I'll admit. I mean if EDs numbers say WWII airframes were a brilliant idea, who am I to argue, but unless the supporting components exist, I'll pass, thanks all the same. That's awesome, and it really is great to hear! I hope your experience is repeated often. How do you feel about not really having anything to shoot at? Not really an issue I take it? I understand that this would happen in my ideal world, yes. I'm not so sure you should be offended by it? My opinion is based on what exists now and is coming down the pipeline in terms of much older systems being modeled. I think you're not going to be getting much joy for a while regardless of what I think. That's cool, it's good that you are having fun with it. I would just find going against Zu-23's to be a little jarring, not to mention repetitive. Excellent point! Can I argue though that perhaps it's the most populated because there's no real defined mission end? Wow, somebody thanking me? Money should be in your account soon. ;) Yes, exactly! You get my meaning. Bingo. I was beginning to think I was the only one that thought this. Not to say that what most are saying isn't valid - the fact so many disagree says clearly otherwise, but this is definitely the crux of things for me. Historically inaccurate or "creative" is one thing, implausible is another. Nice! And a fair point, that a few others have had similar experiences with. I think I underestimated the amount of joy people get out of some of the older stuff. Overall this lends itself to what I was saying about the Huey being able to span eras. Have you had a play with the Black Shark since getting into the Huey? I think that would be a pretty awesome progression. Such a gnarly bit of kit. Wholeheartedly agree with pretty-much all of this. The "buying the ones you want and not the ones you don't" that I keep hearing may sound like a good argument, but its actually just a different phrasing of the point I'm trying to make - I will likely NEVER buy a WWII airframe, not because I don't like the era - I actually really do - but because the supporting components just aren't there. I bought FC3 purely because of EDs decision to give away the AFM with these airframes as a show of good faith. I really appreciated that. But there is simply zero incentive for me to buy the P51. Let me guess "just don't buy it". Well yes, exactly.

I'd already own UH-1 and doing the same if we were there, trust me! Lets see what EDGE can bring us in this regard!

Don't want to develop? Fair enough, but to say ED has no sway in what 3rd Party devs develop is a little naive. As capability, I totally disagree, look at ED themselves, they did a great job of both A10 and KA50, which are fairly different platforms in almost every way. Seeing what I have of the UH-1 (I don't own it as yet; loads of youtube), I think the team behind it would be capable of many things.

I think the Mig21 is a good example of something that can feasibly straddle eras. And its avionics would not be as complex as the A10. ...which leads to the fragmentation I speak of.

If you like vintage vehicles, you're not going to buy one that's half-Murciélago, half-Flint.

I disagree. I think the effort spent on the P51 would have been spent on common era assets. What you would lose in P51 customers you would likely pickup in people buying whatever modern era aircraft was developed.

Fair point, but there's no realistic scenario where this is possible with the assets that exist or are on the horizon. But I do see what you're saying. Mig21 vs f35 - fair enough. F18 vs Dora... maybe not. I guess my point is that those gaps you speak of aren't big, they're HUGE, to the point that high-fidelity systems will simply never span them. That lends itself to my point, I think that if 3rd Party devs were working on similar airframes it would add cohesion to the whole package. If you focused on one I would say it's much more achievable in a reasonable timeframe with 3rd Party support.

This argument kinda works against itself in this context.

I think you've almost entirely missed my point. Your implication that it's due to my personal preference is way off. If DCS was all WWII I'd be saying it should stick to WWII or bring in modern-era when it has enough assets to do it justice. My personal preference has little (nothing) to do with it. Please re-read my post. Not sure where you got "air quake" from.

I see what you're saying, but I'm more of the opinion that you're better off doing one thing really well, rather than attempting to overstretch for little return. Was the P51 really all that popular? I did acknowledge that, but also stated that it's a little strange for old birds to be zipping about in the modern era... with no other assets from their era present. I disagree, I think this is the perfect time to be speaking of it.