Bogey Jammer

What can of worm ? The topic in question : https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=185392 for the ones like me who need their memory refreshed.

Never had that weird sensation when I think that a so detailed damage model is being made for such a greatly awaited aircraft… Serious question: will this hard work need to be redone again when ED will release the future damage modeling engine ?

My theories: There is no clear direct link between the subject of this poll and the next module. It's a market study. The current result is 50-50, never seen before. That may tell that there is not so much money to make out of the O-2, but maybe the revenues will be assured with the half that may really want it. They ask O-2, for a reason. People answered OV-10. This reaction can help to adjust the product strategy before starting things. But what if people said yes give us the O-2 ? Maybe the O-2 is the fastest/easiest/cheaper module to make by Razbam currently. Maybe this is actually the OV-10 they want to make, using the O-2 as a decoy…

Me too, much more pertinent than a fancy civilian screen from a trust company.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

A smoke puff comes out when the after burner switches off if I can remember correctly. Old engine tech like this isn't perfect so I'd consider normal to see some smoke due to rapid changing conditions that the analog regulators can't catch.

That is exactly what I wrote in the other thread. © Bogey Jammer Anyway all the optical effects can't be rendered realistically and the cockpit maker apparently had to make compromises.

Mine too, the grid should be much more displaced and partially masked when viewing at an angle. Foxbat, if your model is accurate enough for optics, can you apply a refraction index for the lens ?

:beer::gun_smilie::thumbup:

Awesome goal :thumbup: I guess it's too early to ask if the two variants once flyable will have to be purchased separately or if the latter will be free for the former purchasers.

What a mess Proof that I need more info about the skins included :P

The fictional skins of other countries are for representation of the same aircraft variant, and to fill gameplay gaps especially in multiplayer. I'd also like them for the Mirage 2000. However, I hate, unless it is specified in the skin's name, when a skin of a different version of the aircraft is included. The F-5E is bloated with F-5A skins and I can't tell the difference for all of them. The pictures you posted show modernized or too much altered versions of the Mirage 2000 compared to what we have in DCS.

About the lighting I found this: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2819282&postcount=37 but it shows the red flood light, not the intrument post lighting (except a couple on the right console). Text backlight is emitting red. About the reflector, hard to tell. Nothing prevent the optics to be tilted and to project a magnified image bigger than the main lens diameter. But what buggers me now is the reflector's length in DCS way bigger than the real picture's. The curvature of the glass is different above the mounting brackets, and the proportions are not the same.

I vote for a stop.

I think I hit the spot :lol:

What you call a drama is really not a big deal, that is just how things here turns out to you, because of your own attitude. The topic is not "how to get a clean canopy" but it questions the module status and in extension the current beloved dev's communication strategy. You can repeat constantly to use mods (interpreted in fact as "shut up") but that's not the main point here, you fail to understand that. And I'm not a 2.5 user I'm not directly concerned although I like to follow the development while I wait to get better hardware. Your high message count doesn't give you the confidence to dismiss the other's opinion like that (armchair pilot?). If the source of your problem is the dev bashing, sorry but what happened is what they deserved. Obviously not everybody is ready to excuse that fact by touching the edge of fanboyism (I guess I'm using the same humor than yours here :music_whistling:) It would have been better to say nothing and let it go instead of dramatizing things up like that. That is what I would have done myself if I knew the present consequences… But again, no big deal ;)

What's wrong with my example ? Isn't DCS simulating weapons designed to kill people ? Can it be humor and fully taken as lightly as you're doing ? I don't think so. In the military, having an opaque canopy is not a matter of personal preference. It's the essence of DCS to replicate the correct conditions. That is all I wanted to say in the first place.

Keep your grotesque thinking to yourself. There's a reason canopies are cleaned, and a reason people here want it simulated.

A clean canopy is like a cleaned rifle. It's a necessity. Don't clean your war equipment and you're dead.

Who has watched real afterburner during low light / night conditions ? Because I don't trust pictures, too much dramatic effect and sensitivity to infrared light.

Never believe anything else than the final product. This applies to DCS modules too.

That proves nothing

No need for ED to do that. And there are already awesome studies from the community. I can't just find the most detailed topic about testing multiple hardware parts each year, to find the best fit for DCS based on its engine limitations.

Will the legacy FC3 aircraft get that MAC suffix too ? This is the best clarification. That answers all my questions (and I'm not worried anymore)