firmek

I'm sure Super Sabre will come to DCS eventually. It's a question when rather than if :) With MiG-21 and F-5 in place as also MiG-19 and F-4 in development DCS really needs F-100, F-105 and A-4 :)

I've got the C-101 on sales. From that perspective, ~20 bucks seemed like a steal. I knew that the flight model and attack version are in progress so in reality I used the oportunity to get it cheaper and wait till it's more complete. What I liked: - attention to details, like the plane spawning with wheel chocks, GPU unit showing up when requesting to connect the ground power. Big plus for that, a small details that looked refreshing in DCS :thumbup: - cockpit instrument lights - external model What could be improved - cockpit textures quality, especially in some places the textures look like a really low resolution. Overall, my personal impression was that the cockpit looks a bit dated. Comparable to times of A-10C and Ka-50 in DCS. L-39 is great but it's an east block trainer. I really hope that C-101 will mature and fill the gap for a NATO trainer - good luck to AvioDev with that :thumbup: For the moment however I think asking ~60 USD is too much, especially considering that L-39 is at the same price.

I had seen similar warping problem already a few times. Everything is fine as long as other planes are relatively far. As soon they get close warping begins. In example, while starting up plane on apron I have been observing others landing. Everything was smooth and nice until they came close. Even when taxiing and parking next to me the other planes had been warping all over the place.

I would like to propose to make the targets visible on F-10 map. Not necessarily all units but just a "flag" (command vehicle) indicating location and ownership of the target - a system similar to the dynamic Caucasus server. The rationale is that the targets and status are well known through the online map. Pilots flying planes like A-10C, Mirage or any other with navigation system don't really care. Others have to find the target on the map in order to plan the route - for instance just to see the heading and range to use the TACAN. Having to find the location on F-10 map by moving mouse cursor to a specific lat/long is just a frustrating formality and a waste of time. User labels help to some extend but in many occasions there are the self righteousness simmers that feel a huge urge to delete them. It's not cheating - today I had marked a target to use the ruler to get the range and a bearing to setup TACAN in F-5. Before I got the ruler someone has deleted the comment marking target position. However, to make it more realistic the own position should be disabled from F-10 map.

:) We can assume it'll take really long to migrate to Vulcan, without any guarantee of a performance boost. It's a lot of work, requires to rewrite the whole rendering engine at least. In reality probably much more especially in an quite old application as DCS there is no pure rendering engine - "business objects"/logic separation. On top of that it's a totally different API which requires a different "mind-set" when programming. Obviously I don't know the details but to set the expectations I would expect even more work than the whole 2.5 merge migration. Not being negative but just stating the facts as it seems according to some posts we could get an impression that introducing Vulcan is guaranteed to triple the performance and will happen in DCS in 3-6 months :). Not even mentioning that just by going to Vulcan will magically make DCS to be multi-platform. Take EA/DICE and BF1 as an example. With the budget of AAA title their DX12 renderer is still experimental and yields a worse performance than the old, DX11 one with no noticeable visual difference.

Purely from the fun aspect of it - Mi-8 all the way. It's one of the modules that just flying it gives a lot of fun. With every other aircraft after a while I wan't to switch to some other tasks. L-39, Spitfire and MiG-21 (love that fast landings) from the fixed wing units. MiG-15 and Sabre are also quite fun to fly. A-10C for me is the least of the pilots plane - the only one that can take a bird strike to the back of the engine :D

I used the winter sale to get C-101 and 3 campaigns, for... ~40 bucks. Almost makes me feel bad. It's like a steal.

With more modules coming to DCS like F-4, F-14 and F/A-18 the situation is not going to improve. We can accept what DCS gives the mission creators to play with or try to fight it. IMO fighting it will just increase the IFF hell which already is a problem on many servers. Some may not care but some find it as an immersion killer. The other way would be drop the concept of "balancing" the airframes (which IMHO is a dead end) and try to work out another system - like player numbers, number of lifes, supplementing the sides with AI flights, air defences, etc...

Sometimes the langague can play tricks :). There is actually magnetic declination as well the deviation. Both are important and well known by sailors. The declination comes from the earth magnetic field variance while the deviation is caused by the nearby metalic objects. In other words the deviation can vary from a compass to a compass and between vehicles in which it is installed. Deviation however is generally canceled by callibrating the compas so in DCS we should be concerned only with the decliatination.

- In Mi-8 I can switch between the pilot, navigator, engineer, door and rear gunner. Even if assuming only two clients could connect at the same time it's more than enough to have a great module supported with a simplistic AI crew members ("autopilot pilots", engineer AP trim, gunners). Multi multi-crew should not be the critical nor even the highest priority feature. - 2 engines at maximum - source? B-17 would be great - not only by itself. Just imagine the fun having a friend flying one while you're the escort (or vice versa) :thumbup:

Sorry if you took it too strong - that's why i wrote "a bit". It's hard to get a complete shape of the message just from the text but replying only with "Read the Pocket Guide" statement, could be taken as a kind of RTFM answer. Again, sorry for that :thumbup: That was not the point at all. The real intention was actually quite opposite: 1. If you had followed the history of this topic on the forum, the request for list of missing features had been asked many times. Eventually it had been created by the community. I think it was fair however to ask for such list from the devs, as in exmaple it's already maintained for F-18 even prior the release and had been created by other devs on the release date. Nothing more and less than just a clear, single point communication of what's in and what's out. 2. Funny that you mentioned this but personally I consider the pocket guide as a kind of "document" that is outlined towards jump in and "do stuff" without learning how approach. I wish the quality had been improved there. Just considering two latest releasees - Spit and Viggen, they came out on early access with an uncomplete manuals but they had been an actual manuals. Maybe with some "to be added" picture placeholders. Except those from RAZBAM, all of the other modules that I have follow generally the same high level template of the DCS manuals. Maybe I'm paying too much attention to that but I like the fact that manuals from ED, BelSimTek, HB generally look the same, giving a consistent feeling of DCS standard. Anyway, there is the NATOPS guide for anyone interested in how the things are actually working. Again however, public availability of a real, complete flight manual didn't hold on BelSimTek from creating a DCS level manual for F-5.

With the emphasis put on long time investment into certain aspects like WSO AI we can assume with probability close to being certain that the next plane will be a two-seater. For the same reason - the long term focus of developing certain features they're probably going to stick with fixed-wing, jet engine aircrafts. RAZBAM is planning A LOT, including some iconing two-seaters. Aside of F-15E, they are claiming to work also on A-6 and Tornado .Although confirmations can be found among the different threads, none of those had been on the other hand included in their latest official roadmap list. The reason why I'm mentioning that is, exluding F-4 (already being done by BelSimTek) this would generally leave the F-111 or maybe Su-24 with the second one being rather unlikely to happen. We shouldn't rule out Tornado as it would make more sense to have it done by an European based company. We should also remember what happened with MiG-23 which also had been included in RAZBAM plans. Besides of that on not-so-serious note I have a feeling that RAZBAM has so many modules in their plans that if anyone asks about any, at least slightly anticipated by community plane they'll say that yes, they are working on or at least planning to make one :)

Extraordinary update :thumbup: It's a good decision not to rush the release risking all that great effort getting unnoticed due to bugs.

Not much details had been uncovered but RAZBAM communicates that they are working on F-15E - https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3299595&postcount=54

That was rather not expected and came out a bit rude. This is what I would call crystal clear, especially it's an officially communicated by a module devs: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3285514&postcount=13 There is also community maintained list: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=196533 But asking to go through circla 100 pages notes document just to find a clear list of what is missing is not exactly fair request.

Just as a suggestion with this price range consider getting a monitor with active sync. It really improves the overall experience and image quality. The drawback may be the size as I'm not sure you'll find a 38'' one - last time I had been checking the biggest one available was 34''. If you would decide on a monitor with an active sync technology you'll have to match a GPU manufacturer - G-Sync monitor requires Nvidia graphics card. How this reply contributed to the OP question? I can't believe that there are people that don't believe that not everyone has to get totally crazy about VR.

Agree though I could still imagine some people being not too happy about the fact that they just run a new install and have to run additionall download to make it complete ;)

I wasn't correct as it seems not to be PFM. AvioDev stated it's an AFM (so like the Su-25T): https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3297292&postcount=487 Edit: Multitasking ;)

+1. Technically as we can see in 2.2 DCS can run without a caucasus and we can be almost sure it could be setup as a free to download module. Think however from the perspective of new people coming to DCS and starting it up for the first time.

No one is pushing anyone. You're absolutely free to stay on Steam. At the same time the release cycle of DCS including both standalone versions and Steam should be more than obvious to everyone. Modules come much later to Steam than to standalone and unless there is something new communicated from ED there is no reason to ask the same question over and over again, discussing and coming to the forum to complain about it for a million times. People may be reacting this way as there is more than enough information about the drawbacks of using DCS with Steam.

Fully agree. C-101 cockpit looks rely great. I'm sure getting it as a go-to trainer for western aircrafts though have to admit that I'm holding to my wallet until PFM comes out.

Assuming that most had been running 1.5 beta in order to get the updates as soon as possible it'll not take more than just update the 1.5 beta to 2.5 beta and continue using it. No need to create additional installs and pretty much the same process as we do every time when an update/patch comes out. Those which prefered the 1.5 stable will have to download and run a new install and if decide so can remove the 1.5 afterwards. Regardless of the scenario 2.2 can be deleted but it's better to do it after the update to save some time for downlad. Can't get any easier :thumbup:

Guys, I think you're carrying a confusion over the posts. There is nothing mentioned in the post from Wags about copying a complete saved games folder. Just the pilot statistics which is nothing more than a single file. Regardless of that, copying settings like the view configuration, controllers bindings, kneeboards, liveries or cockpits stored in user saved games folder takes less time than writing this post.

A bit odd question due to different nature of both aircrafts. Mirage is a fighter with just a few ground attack capabilities. Harrier, especially the variant that we have is a close support, ground attack plane. Totally two different beasts ;)

The best shoot would be then looking for a TN panel based monitor. I have an 34'' IPS Asus and loving it, backlight bleed is something that becomes noticable only when the screen displays an unitform black picture but on the other hand this can be a personal thing and it seems you're rather sensitive for it. Check the http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/ for some in-depth monitors reviews.