zerO_crash

Удивительно, что подлинность не была учтена в таком реликте. Это веха в мировой авиации. Спасибо за подтверждение

https://primamedia.ru/news/530242/ Почему “Атака” представлена на этом вертолете? Монументы обычно имеют требования к точности, особенно перед заводом. Есть ли у ED информация, использовался ли Ка-50 как испытательная платформа для этого оружия перед его принятием на Ка-52?

It seems that you don't know how the basics of the editor work. We already have the functionality request in DCS, albeit through triggers and one that doesn't properly allow for a strategic-level scenario with multiple factions involved. For what you ask for, there is the flag system, commonly known as points. Flags are added or detracted based on the conditions specified in the script/trigger. Additionally, this isn't overthinking, it's how the business works. As a simulator, the choices that the devs make are rather limited. The functionality needs to be advanced enough to go hand-in-hand with the advancement of DCS, as well as remaining a lucrative incentive. Quick additions and fixes might work in games, but hardly in a near-professional simulation. This bites particularly down the road, should a function get added, and then followed up by requests of expansion of said function. If the baseline is chosen for reasons of "quick" delivery, then the time, R&D, manpower and money invested is wasted, as any further expansions of the system will require a redesign. DCS is too complex of a product to be going back and forth between any new innovations. Taking into consideration as well the fact that it is a niche market, means that ED needs to solidify its business choices with good knowledge and predictability towards our community. That's not to say that such functionality will not make it to DCS, it most definitely will. However, it will take time. As a mission designer myself, I can tell you that the best implementations are those that have most usecases to them. A simplification, and added functionality to what we current have, is what in essence is asked for here. If that is to be obtained, and properly so, it has to be considered how the system might/will expand in the future, so as to make the proper integration today. There are still leftovers from initial iterations of DCS (Flanker) which still need overhaul in order to adjust them to an environment with TrackIR/VR/Multi-screen setups. Understnad that the reason DCS exists today, is because right executive decisions were made going back two decades ago.

This question of expanded ambient life isn`t really presented properly. Mechanics-wise, there are two distinct sides of what has been asked for by many of us - ambient life: One side, is the general population side, which would be a magnificent undertaking. There is little immersion to be talked about, if on the whole map, only two cities have "some" civilian vibrance (starting base and target destination). In general, the population of a map, should be strictly speaking, tied to the "civilian traffic" option that we have for civilian vehicles. It could, by all means, be split as a separate setting, but it would still have to work like vehicle traffic. That is so as to maintain any decent performance, and not have the mission designer spend 95% of his time creating pathing for civilians. ED could potentially research here whether these assets (along with current "civilian traffic" - vehicles) could have damage model to them. It has also been requested some years ago (and multiple times since then) to have a system for creating zones where civilian traffic no longer exists (contigency zones, etc...). On the other side, for fine-tuning a specific area or creating AO outside of cities, individual models of civilians. This will obviously take a greater performance hit (we have to be pragmatic about this one), however the considered AO is then typically smaller than a whole city. In such an instance, there is a significant benefit to added assets. There is also much more work with pathing, ROE, and the likes. A very important point that comes forth through this discussion (also requested in general DCS wishlist subforum), is the notion of a third coalition. Currently, we only have two coalitions in DCS. For a civilian faction to have any meaningful position, there needs to be introduced a third coalition with the possibility for it to be neutral. Until we have that, no matter how many civilian models get added, you'll have to make the civilians either red or blue. In that instance, they will either be hostile towards you (and grant points for kills, regardless of preset ROE), or they'll be killed by the surrounding "enemy" forces simply for belonging to your coalition. There are ways to mitigate this limitation, but it is neither practical nor efficient. As such, this request is bigger in planning and execution, than one might think.

Apparently, a F-35 jet crashed today in Alaska. Looks like the pilot managed to eject safely - unsure about his condition though... -2724198387094618896.mp4

@Dragon1-1 Precisely! We cannot forget that F-35 is what really paves the way in the west with using simulators to train and practice tactical engagements and operations. F-35 is so expensive to fly per flight hour, that even JSF-office promotes the use of simulators (to substitute a percentage of the total flight time) as a means to mitigate the evergrowing costs. While a pilot will prefer actual flight (no doubt), we are entering the era with "digital warrior" being denominator. Even though ED hasn`t given any details here, TBH., any module will, as always, be a welcome addition. There are limited ways to simulate older aircraft within the same airframe. That aside, all the middle eastern maps open up for a theatre where less than peer-to-peer opponents can meet. With some alterations, Gulf War can be simulated with a more capable and coordinated red force than was was historically encountered.

I've been asking for naval Kamovs over on the RU-side. In general, a more competent Soviet/Russian navy would be very welcome. Without there being any obstactles, the simple explanation is "roadmap". There are other modules that are even more popular, which will have to be released first.

This would be counterproductive. Until recently, DCS didn´t focus too much on FFB simply due to lack of FFB units. When ED didn´t have a FFB unit themselves, the coding of the effects was more or less a walk in the dark, with much depending on the input from us with FFB devices (expensive ones, beyond what you see being available recently, and what a average customer can afford). ED has, however, recieved a new FFB set (joystick base & pedals) a couple of months ago from a a Russian FFB maker. It´s high quality gear, with more power than your common VPforce. It´s only a matter of time before these effects get improved, and support for multiple FFB devices implemented (e.g. FFB pedals). Thus, I don´t see who would want to pay for such a services among 3rd parties/ED. This is entirely up to verify by HB, but with recent creation of affordable FFB devices (Moza, to name one), I doubt any dev. would want to distribute pay for something they can already do themselves.

I would verify my sources more strictly. The article from Business Insider, 2020, does hint that "this is better than nothing". However, one can argue how important it is for a loader to drive his own tank. Second thought is that there are far more advanced and appropriate simulators for armor - Steel Beasts, even CO in DCS. There is very little "simulator" in WT when you look golden shells and what not. Cheap marketing. Still, better than nothing, I guess... Well, I never said that the majority in DCS likes to simulate everything from A-Z. When was the last time you properly spoke with an ATC (online/clan)? Enjoy the product as you like, but not-intented use will rearrange the geometry of warfare (e.g. making a MiG-29A feel useless).

That´s a very poor comparison, hence why I refer to super powers and a major conflict, albeit with competent parties. First and foremost, tier 2 exports (outside 3rd world countries) from U.S.S.R., were very dumbed down machines. They had less, often lacking, capability, worse sensors, worse equipment, and most importantly, worse training. A Soviet SA-2 =/= export (tier 1/2) hardware. Even US, provides less dumbed down hardware outside, hence why they have been getting more popular over in Asia, vs. what Soviets/Russians are willing to export. As such, already there, the Syrians were at a disadvantage. Also, regardless of how many Soviet advisors you´d send, you cannot possibly compare a pilot from 1st and 3rd world on average (there will always be a chance for one Zaytsev). Not to take away from anyone, but if you have truly studied war, then you ought to have serious reservations with regards to military capability and middle east. Whether you want to or not; there is a reason why "the white man was able to colonise the world". It has to do with focus on schooling, learning from past mistakes (history) and generally having a methodical approach to warfare. There are a few groups in history from Middle East that have shown such ambitions, but they were still very much limited to their own potential. Understand that a Syrian soldier and US soldier might look similar, if both are in a uniform holding a M4, but their qualities are very different. When US went to Afghanistan, in order to attempt raising a national afghani army, they had to write manuals which were at the level of a 2nd class elementary school, with stickmen. Soviet memorandums from Afghanistan, describe the willingness of Afghans to fight as such that they´d be three kilometers behind the frontline, as soon as a shot was heard. Again, this is hardly comparable. Want to read about training vs. actual performance? Have a look at Afghan (I mention them often, but it goes for pretty much the entire culture in the middle east) Air Force and their amount of incidents on airfields and such. Do research this, it´s more funny than you´d think. Trained military pilots disobeying ATC instruction becasue "No one is going to tell me what I can or cannot. I´m a pilot!" type of attitudes is what these guys are breaking up on. They make it too personal. The cultural inhibitors over there, are the single biggest enemy and counter to understanding how to wage a war with decent level of professionalism. On the other side, you chose one of the most proficient armies in the world, and actually, among the most experienced in modern times (constant conflict). Much can be written here, but the comparison is ludicrus. This really isn´t a peer-peer level comparison. Again, we have not had any such conflicts yet, and thankfully. It would be a conflict of attrition at minnimum.

Well, look. It is a individual thing for what purposes someone buys into a product for. You can equally be unserious about actual military simulators and treat them like toys. That´s not an argument. I personally have an experience in the field of professional simulators, which often, visually are far worse, but then they retain the proper systems simulation. The difference between whether it teach you something or not, is the attitude with which you approach it. In professional spheres, you don´t get to approach it as a toy, hence why there is a valuable exchange in knowledge. Red Flag might not be as realistic as real war, but if treated with respect and utmost seriousness, it does prove good enough, to warrant its continued reappearance. ED uses the game/simulation inconsistently. Actually, it is a smart move, as labelling a product as a "game", draws less unwanted attention. The truth is, if you´ve ever seen (even modern) professional simulators, you´d realize the value of DCS. For the money they cost, they really are far worse in many respects. Point is, in the latest Q&A, Wags being asked the question about which way they lean with their software, has very clearly stated that ED´s position is towards that of a simulation. For the other products (mainstream) that you mentioned above, there is very little "simulate" in an environment without correct metrics or even reference ones. Ultimately, I´m not saying that you are less of a customer (money is money), but rather that you missuse the product, leading to a headache with regards to current/future aircraft lineup. Poor approach/mission design, will yield such results.

*"You" I run a simulation, hence the in-depth. At the end of the day, suit yourself.

Actually, few seem to understand, or even properly use Russian aircraft, as opposed to western. Most often, red aircraft are flown like blue, that in the aspect of a tactical single entity. In reality, the whole situation is much more complicated. Looking aside of less equipped Iraq/Iran/etc..., the Russian (I know you are Russian and aware of it) aircraft were designed from the ground up for being used as an extension of a GCI/AWACS. For instance, a MiG-29A doesn´t need a good radar, or actually even a radar at all. Assuming that the aircraft is used as per USSR air doctrine, it is directed by a competent GCI/AWACS controller to the point where weapons are released, and can further be guided by either the plane or the controller. Should a dogfight occur, the pilot will obviously know how to handle themselves based on the visual situation and their level of training and experience. The Soviet approach did, and does make much sense in a perfect/near perfect world. With good GCI/AWACS coverage, aircraft don´t have to be upgraded as often, instead, only the radar stations. This mitigates a magnificent part of the cost associated with running a competent air force. Furthermore, it allows to keep pilot training to a minimum level, as it introduces a very basic and methodical approach to air combat. A good example here would be the French Rafale detachment participating in Red Flag at Nevada 2018/2019. American F-22/-35 pilots were somewhat frustrated, as the French planes would get close enough to fire off their Fox1´s/3´s, followed by an RTB. Granted, there was suspicion that French weren´t overly interested in the exercise itself, rather to get the chance to test their aircraft and onboard radars against "stealth" aircraft. The point still stands, and in the case of USSR/Russia, any deficiency would generally be solved by introducing a improved radar station, as opposed to refurbishing a whole air force. Datalink is simply a means to an end here. The same goes for Su-27, although as an offensive platform meant to operate over enemy territory, it was equipped with a more capable radar as a backup in case of being out of coverage from a CGI/AWACS. Of course, in DCS, in order to replicate this, we would need a dedicated GCI/AWACS controller, and the full functionality associated with a particular datalink, including the ability to guide the missiles from a fighter. We have one, not the other. That´s why it also gives off a skewed idea of what aircraft can combat what. Another, very important, point here, would be the sheer amount of aircraft that USSR had, vs. the west. At the height of the Cold War, USSR outnumbered western aircraft some 9-1. A post Cold War analysis by certain western pilots has indicated that there worries whether the west would even have enough A-A missiles, provided they´d fare well. In modern times, there are even fewer aircraft than what Cold War presented. As such, it only makes sense to have a considerable amount of MiG-29As to each and every western aircraft. (In DCS, we know that isn´t the case on quake servers, yet again skewing the overall picture.) The fact is that the Soviet air force has never been tested (past WWII) particularly in a equal adversary A-A scenario, and neither have US. It´s difficult to make a statement one way or another as to what´s more efficient (more autonomy to the pilot or not). Still, consider that US never operates its air force in a blind zone. There is always at least one AWACS on station. That does tell you something about how important it is backup a single entity (plane/flight), and that what is being played on quake servers, is very far from anything IRL.

Ultimately, any module will require work beyond common maintenance, to adjust it according to new technologies and not make it stand out as low polygon or texture. A update would certainly be welcome at any time, with the understanding that there are more aircraft that need it. I expect that only one team on the red side can perform refreshes, and it would be logical that someone from old Belsimtek would do it. That goes for Mi-8MTV-2, UH-1H and F-86F. I wouldn´t be surprised if a next module is being refreshed already. This goes to other devs/ED as well. Money is waiting.

Because as Wags adequately put in the Q&A for 2025 and beyond trailer; the company leans more towards being a simulator, than an impressionary product. ED has established itself in a niche, and that has been the reason it thrives all those years, since the first of us were here. Deviating from reality too much, will lose the sim its main selling point - authenticity. At that point, it´s a crumbling Berlin wall anno 1989. That´s why some of us have been flying one module for years, vs. what other "simulators" have in terms of flyable aircraft. As Nick Grey said it himself - he wanted to make a simulator which actually felt like an aircraft simulator. People should also take it easy with big statements like "opening doors" and whatnot. Just because F-35 has been heavily criticised, forcing LM and JSF-office to try and win the common public over by introducing public simulators, doesn´t mean that we will get a Su-57 or anything. Read my former post, and you´ll understand why that is impossible. People who don´t really know what is going on, should rather treat this as a one in a hundread. A unicorn, if you wish. Much the like of Ka-50. If it wasn´t made before relations between east and west turned sour, we would absolutely not have it today. Time will show, but again, forget any train of current modern aircraft to come.

Not decades. https://app2top.com/industry/the-developer-of-the-russian-eagle-dynamics-received-a-year-in-prison-in-the-usa-because-of-the-flight-simulator-143631.html#:~:text=The creator of the flight,facto deported back to Russia. https://meduza.io/en/feature/2019/06/26/i-was-a-celebrity-in-jail Well, let me put it this way; if what this simulator touches on wasn´t as important, you´d hardly have FBI and CIA monitor what comes up of documents here. Yes, you read it right. Rule 1.16 is strictly abided by here, otherwise ED (as a company) would land in trouble if they themselves weren´t actively working in this department. That´s how it works.

@rob10 That is correct. Primarily though, the pressure lies on undefined RF laws which you cannot circumvent, nor do you ever know how much you push them. It´s a feeling thing. It does not get mentioned at all here either, but I would imagine that much of the reason why blues (I´m red) have fancy new toys to play with, is due to Wags having good knowledge with those laws (former employment). I seriously doubt we´d have much of what we got today, if not for people schooled and competent in document handling at higher echelons. Again, ED deserves praise for this! Until we know more, it seems like you can treat ED´s attempt at F-35 to bring essentially a publicly available F-35 simulator into private homes. Conceptually, it isn´t very different from the modules we have today - you would only get access to simulators cleared for public use, not actual military ones (be it F-14 or F-18).

Well, that´s precisely my point. I mentioned only one modder who´s work got accepted into vanilla DCS. That, while not having been contracted by ED. All the other models, who eventually wanted to add something to DCS (through the official way), had to seek a contract with ED. In other words, it seems like ED knows itself how much work it takes to create any of the plethora of objects within DCS, thus requiring the individual/team to be on contract to even evaluate their work. For reference here; notice how long the A-4E is in works, with what started out as a mod and a whole team. It still is not a default module in DCS alas that of Su-25T. You misunderstood. I stated that balance as a concept, really bears no meaning in a simulator. Even the most primitive wars ever fought, were done with the idea of having a decisive edge over your enemy. The acts of chivalry only really happend on individual-level, not so much in the scope of tactics or strategy. Therefore, whichever modules ED might add, will never be out of scope. It simply puts more demand on mission designers to potentially simulate the conflict well. A simple hypothetical situation: ED releases F-35 today. Well, if you go on a server that distributes modules with regards to their native producers, then it might seem like a unfair situation. However, if you consider how many F-35s are used operationally in a theatre, or the aspect of war price, and that the contender would need a bigger force to justify US sending a bigger number of F-35, then all of a sudden you have a plausible situation. This situation reminds very much of when F-14A released, and people were afraid of the AIM-54A outranging everything. Well, once HB simulated the AIM-54s potential to failiure, you all of a sudden don´t have that problem anymore. Until, however, HB simulated the error probability, one had to limit the available AIM-54s, as they were slightly too unreal in their performance. The F-35 discussion is very much the F-14/AIM-54 all over again. The other relevant question is of course, the one concerning the authenticity of F-35. If there are systems today on the F-16CM Blk. 52 that are ITAR, then it does become hard to believe that F-35 is achievable. This, concerning the fact that F-35 has, supposedly, a much higher reliance on onboard/off-board systems. E.g., while we know that EW (elecontronic warfare) is being worked on, it´s still somewhat hard to comprehend that we can have a F-35 which most definitely is competent in that department, albeit no info to be found on it around. Now, taking the EW away from F-35, or simplifying it, we don´t know how much that alters the capabilities of the F-35. Again, we´ll have to wait and see what ED presents.

You apparently need to have a look in the Oxford dictionary: https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=after+all Apparently all a/an would be used correctly. In the event I happen to quickly write on a phone, it does get corrected ASAP afterwards. Just happens to be nature of the fast-paced world we live in. Same goes for accents and apostrophes. If you wonder about anything there, shoot me a PM, that in respect to the thread and avoiding derail. (Not sure where the "noone" came from, nothing I can find. Maybe you can point to it?) As to condescending, nothing like so. Thus far, I see in this thread an accusation against the threadstarter that he/she confuses people, which obviously is not the case. But then internet being internet (anonymous), everything is left as is, with no feel for needing to correct oneself.

I am aware of how toxics operate. Luckily, I guess that whoever is smart, will simply not bother with Hoggit or "ThetruthaboutDCS". It might not have come across clearly, but what´s being asked for in this thread, is really just an indication of what the current prediction is. Ultimately, DCS lives on people who are loyal and avid customers, not those who burn out after 2-3 modules and more drama than practical discussion. At the end of the day, as a public entity, you will always be damned if you do, and damned if you don´t. Just happens to be the prerogative of our times. Still, we all know that in the agreement we have (customers) with ED (and effectively any 3rd party), is that "Everything is subject to change". An indication, or rather a clarification in this case, harms no one (other than a few individuals locked away in a bunker, running a troll farm). Let´s wait and see if any official statement is made on this. If not, then we'll simply have to wait until it´s closer to the release of either module. We´ve managed before, we´ll manage again.

It´s very obvious that we are NOT interpreting anything. What´s done, is the FAQ taken at face value, and then questioned with regards to the information provided through it. I suggest you read up on communication, and FAQs are one of the ways that a company can communicate with its customers by. We all know that everything is subject to change, however the question is about how that plan even comes up. Also, this isn´t a HB specific case, rather an ED/Heatblur one, as the statement is made by a mod "belonging" to ED. To truth is also that "we" don´t know, however devs certainly have a time plan. Afterall, we're asking for a very general explanation, not a specific release date. As to toxicity of the community, while that tends to be the case with Reddit, it is not replicated here on the forums (not by a long shot!). Tobias, I think that if you don´t have much to add, attempting to suppress a very valid question is out of order. There is the door (points finger)! EDIT: I will also add, that whilst much of the fresh community might cause noise, there are those of us who have been here from the start who accepted the long development times. The concept of one general community is elusive at best, and there will neither be lynching party, nor one claiming obligatory blame. The devs are made aware through the thread that there is a potential miscommunicated message, and they will chime in as they see fit. Enough on that.

It looks to me like the news of the F-35 have truly confused many here... It's very obvious that no mods which are aircraft/vehicles/weapons will implemented into DCS. Due to the intricacies and detail required for proper integration (without ruining the authenticity of the simulator) of such objects, it has only been ED or proper 3rd parties who do it. Even then, it takes research and work to find proper documentation and to simulate it well. About the only example of a modder actually providing ED/DCS with anything, was a architect who made basic objects to scale (simple buildings, sandbags, etc...). It's good that some are extatic, but let's be serious. Thanks to the fact that ED is so strict with such additions, we see an authentic simulator with a very organized and equal level of detail (old models are still being updated). As to realism, it's obvious that all new modules make sense! The question is, in what setting. As a simulator, the idea is first and foremost on single scenarios (typical missions) in a singleplayer environment. While that happens to work well with MP, is one thing, but the primary application is SP. Depending on a single scenario, it makes all the sense to simulate different historical conflicts where there is an unequal distribution of technology and power. Concepts such as balance or equal opponents do not exist in this realm. It's about time people take a brake from online servers, and maybe start noticing the actual depth in DCS for what it is. It's far more than spawning in the air for a dogfight, creating opposing coalitions with the same aircraft or accepting "players" taking off from taxi ways. Red-side will always be at a disadvantage due to restrictive laws on that side of the earth. There is nothing like it in the west, not even close. That's why, bitching about Su-57s or whatnot is simply pointless. With that said, we already have what Americans consider to be closest to their 5th generation fighters, specifically the F-22. While it's not as stealthy, it is faster, flies higher, has a more powerful radar (and longer ranged), has longer ranged missiles and a datalink which is above all. Make a mission with MiG-31s, and those F-22s or -35s aren't as difficult as you thought. It's also very naive to discuss a module, which simply hasn't been shown beyond a 15-second trailer snippet. While F-35 is modern, we cannot forget that it's also one of the few aircraft which you can jump into the simulators of (when shown to the public), and have a go at it. Afterall, as I stated elsewhere, while new to the public, the aircraft has taken off more than 25 years ago, and has been in a low-rate production since then. Certain basic things are known about it, certain more in-depth things as well. We actually know very little about what systems are classified. One can only presume many of those systems being off-board systems. That, meaning maintenance terminals, technical appliances and practices, knowledge of the software programming, +++. Much of that part, is something that in principle, is not simulated in DCS. Bearing this in mind, take it easy, breathe, and I'm sure with a bit of transparency, ED will shows us what they got on it. So far, beyond a toxic Reddit community making stuff up, there are few places where ED hasn't delivered. Where they haven't, it's typically a factor of time and still in production.

Good, that´s how I recieve the user above. It does actually state very clearly that; a) It´s an extract from F-35 Q/A, b) In the extract, a release windows for F-35 is mentioned, and c) That contextually, the Eurofighter is a release post Eurofighter. The ".... later release..."-part, refers to the F-35, which is mentioned in the very beginning of that sentence. The whole idea is, that no release windows have been given until now, and the mention is of F-35 in 2026. There is, however, additional information postulating a "later" release of the Eurofighter specifically. There is nothing to wonder about there, it´s all clear. Hence, the surprise that F-35, while just announced, would release earlier than Eurofighter, which has been known as a release much earlier. Reading the thread then, I see nothing that "mislead the people".

Open your eyes, go back to first post of this thread, and READ properly what is written there, including the picture attached. When your hamster starts running, and you finally get it, then you have my permission to go back and edit your post! @OldFlyer Yeah, it certainly seems so, which is surprising. It might be a idiomatic error in translation. I would still presume the Eurofighter to release ahead of F-35, but we won´t know until we are closer to release of either.

Well, no. The Hip-E you are mentioning, is actually the Mi-8TV, which is a whole different machine than what we have. They look very similar, and that's where it ends: - TV, was built in 1968 and onwards, vs. our MTV-2 which was 1978 and onwards. - TV series, use the old Izotov TV2-117A engines, a very different engine to what we have. This, not only in performance, but also very much in limitations, maintenance and lifetime. - TV series, had a simpler cockpit than what we have in our MTV-2, as some of the equipment was simply not there (certain older radio variants, and fewer of those, as an example). - TV series, were deployed to a different time, when there was no Mi-24 to speak of yet. When the MTV-2 came around, the Mi-24 was a well established aircraft, and the roles became much more specific for each and every airframe. With that said, MTV-5 was built as a version of the Mi-8 that could carry guided missiles (AT/HE Ataka), albeit designated for special forces. You can look further back, and you'll find that Mi-4 carried Malyutkas, however that does not justify putting them on our Mi-8MTV-2. In fact, S-5 rockets (asked about before), could be done, if only ED "created" an export version of our Mi-8MTV-2 (our variant is the Soviet domestic one). It would be literally the same Mi-8MTV-2, but simulating other countries which had the Mi-8, and mostly still S-5 rockets in storage. Mi-8MTV-2 won't get such weaponry, simply because it never was carrier. That's that.