firmek

It seems ED wants to make sure that the new map is working with old content, including the DLC campaigns. It’s rather a quite obvious move not to release it earlier.

I think we're talking about the same. The L-39 and any other trainer can do a COIN/CAS missions. That was my point that you can use them to learn both GA and military procedures. They can also be used in a missions. So as you said more bang for the buck while what matters more IMO is that they match the profile of DCS as both combat and simulator ;)

First I have to apologize for my previous post. I did read your post rather quickly and it looks like I didn't get the real intention, perceiving it too much from the perspective of recent, another discussions :doh: I think that your point is generally reflecting my experience with DCS. I started with A-10C. As it was the first, fully clickable module I had a blast learning the systems. After that I pretty much jumped into navigation and weapons employment. It wasn't necessarily my choice. As quite new to DCS I had followed the structure of the training missions attached with the module. Just after that I flew the campaign. In other words I knew how to operate A-10 systems, fly it, use weapons but didn't had any clue about the tactics, VFR or IFR rules. Heck I didn't know that there is something like an active runway or that there are other types of approaches than just a long straight in (I was landing the A-10 like an 747) Next I got few other modules, including MiG-21 which actually showed me that I don't know how to fly. Just by taking away the HUD I was totally lost. I had to learn how to make an coordinated turn, how to properly navigate using nav aids, etc.. etc... Some time afterwards I finally decided to try out the L-39. I can't tell how much I regretted I didn’t get it before the MiG. It's a perfect plane for practicing flight maneuvers and GA, just with a basic systems. It's still my go-to plane if I want to fly a few touch and goes. It's also grate to improve ground attack skills. The point is however that the pure GA trainer aircraft is I think a bit too far from the profile of DCS. The military trainers suite their role perfectly but at the same time they match the military profile of the sim and what's most important can be used in the missions for benefit of everyone. To picture what I have in my mind look at the Blue Flag - it uses the trainers and even the people that are mostly combat oriented still benefit from them. I can't see that happening with a pure GA planes and that's why I think for DCS as a combat simulator the civilian modules are just a waisted potential to grow the whole platform and overall a dead end. For people that don’t want to invest in a trainer there is also free TF-51 or even the warbirds. What I think however could be done in a much better way and possibly attract more people to study and learn deeper the aviation aspects would be a proper training progression campaigns for trainers. The funny thing is what seems quite obvious is not there (at least for L-39) and what I think is a huge unused potential. Such campaign would be a great incentive for buying a trainer. For someone interested in going deeper into aviation procedures the thre is not much content in DCS. For the most part aside of some information from manuals I had to spend la lot of time looking out the information in the forum or in internet. Another idea is that campaigns could be oriented according to the eastern and western training program depending on which trainer they are dedicated to. Another point that could be improved are the training missions included with every single module that could show the military aviation from a wider perspective than just for the most part how to do the startup and operate the system. As for a western trainer - Talon could be an option but with F-5 already in place it would be a tough choice for someone to invest in. Probably the only reasonable option would be Belsimtek making one. There is also CASA C-101 which seems to be maturing and at least I’ll be getting it once the PFM is included. Overall I think that the DCS could offer much more content and for sure there is an unexplored potential for those that would like to go deeper in to the general and military aviation aspects. However, the GA planes as such are probably not the solution.

I'm not even sure if this thread is legit or a kind of provocation. Anyway, thinking about it I've exeprienced an "eureka" moment ;) Why not to have a simulation of an simulator inside of DCS which could be used before jumping into the GA plane. This way digitcal combat simulator could simulate a kadet pilot goint into the simulator to learn the basics in an extra safe environment. Briliant, isn't it :D

By the way, thanks to Kiowa I had reminded myself about the good old times :)

There is a way to configure the view to set the default FOV and max FOV (aka zoom) to the same values. In result there is no zoom out efect when entering the cockpit. The obvious draw back is that with this settings it's possible only to zoom-in. Generally I assume it's not an issue on bigger monitors. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=96116&page=24

Thanks for clarifying :thumbup:

This had been said million times it's not this case and not this kind of the problem. The whole reason for a reaction comes from the fact that they decided to make something outside of the core of the title for which people came for. It's also done with a price for the main core (halted support for MiG-21) and it doesn't bring anything to the core of the platform as such. The clean way would be to introduce a new 3’rd party or at least one with a closed backlog with intend to make a civ modules in possibly a separated stream. I'm really failing to understand why there is so hostility about the fact that people react about something they don't see any sense in. It's really the same situation like a steak house that you had supported by coming every day, leaving high tips and making it popular among friends in order to help to grow their business had decided to reduce some of their meat menu in favor of the vegan instead. It’s like EA deciding to have the last DLC for Battlefield 1 a parkour game. Obviously people that would complain are the one that have to grow up. Anyway, I'm really tired with this discussion and unsubscribing from this thread. As said we can take this discussion to the wallet decision. Sorry to say but now a lot of opinions voiced in this thread made me to feel like a sucker buying non priority modules just with the intention to help the 3'rd parties to develop. As also suggested many times I’ll take the customer stand point and not buy the CEII and request to complete the MiG-21 as this is what I had paid for. Anyone is free to decide to do what they want. They can even develop a goat simulator as far as I’m concerned. Business case for it can be for sure justified in some way and there are people that buy this kind of the title. Others should stay quiet as everyone is free to do what they wish and accept the fact that now instead of waiting a year for a module there is risk they’ll have to wait even more.

Get the A-10C as aside of the module itself there is a lot of content for it. SP stock campaign is ok for an introduction. Aside of that there are many single player DLC campaigns while multiplayer servers with slots for A-10C are easy to find. Can't go wrong with that if you're up for a modern ground attack aircraft. Harrier is great but still in early alpha with not so much content for it. You could also try out the free Su-25T if you're ok with a non full fidelity module.

I haven't been flying Mirage for some time so take it with a grain of salt but aside of other queues doesn't the orange triangle mean that the radar is locked on an positively IFF interrogated target� (friendly)?

That's how the mipmaps work. Imagine that you have a surface with a texture in 3D, let's say a 1024x1024 one. If you look at it from very close you'll start to see individual pixels. In opposite case, when you look at it from a very far it'll take only a small portion on the screen - only a few pixels. In other words the GPU has to scale a large texture to a smal image. That's why you see it jagged. The mipmaps are a set of down scaled images of the same texture that improve performance and solve above problem: Those are just absent in Harrier. No quick hotfix. Just wait till the fix comes up.

:surprise: Well done! Can't wait to take a tour with Mi-8 on new Caucasus.

I had setup a training mission on Nevada for Harrier with a few F-5 flights taking off just to add some life to the airbase while I'm starting up. The new sound is so amazing that I ended up just watching the planes making run on the runway and taking off. The blue tint may be a personal preference but I like it as it makes the air more atmospheric. Explosion effects are really refreshing. There is also a noticeable performance boost. Many great things in one update and overall an extremely positive surprise :thumbup: Thanks ED !!! EDIT: I'm more than happy with 2.2. It already makes the 1.5 feel dated. If 2.5 is going to be even better than it'll be a huge step forward. More of a new version of DCS rather than "just" an extensive update.

Absolutely not. They can create whatever they wish. At the same time the customers should have a right to voice their concern about watering the concept due to which they are in a given title. They can also take a decision which content creators and to what extend support - buying only modules that they are interested in or investing in a growth of platform, 3'rd parties and buying also other non-priority content. Finally being demanding or supportive. At the same time don't expect that people that came to DCS for combat sim and had been supporting devs not only by buying modules but also by showing an indulgence to long alpha stages and bugs, will be happy and immediately grow a willingness to keep up their engagement facing a situation that the effort is starting to be split for building a content for which if they would be interested in they would be in a different place to begin with. There have to be some limits of comprehension.

+1. Got a bit rusty with M-2000c but this campaign will be a great reason to spend more time with it :thumbup:

Correct, the world didn't end. But it's a totally different world. A world with a doubt that any of the devs can decide anytime to make a civ module instead of a military one. With a question mark that already substantial time between military module releases will not extent further due to some of military modules being pushed back in schedule in preference of a civilian ones. With a doubt behind continuing to buy a non-priority modules with an intention to support future 3'rd party development as the next module can be a civilian one which is not the reason why many people came to DCS and is not a type of the content they want to invest in. Finally, it's a different world that seems to have polarized the community and left many frustrated as the support for a military plane they had bought got a lower priority over a civilian module, which not only they don't have any interest in but also doesn't bring any content to the DCS as a Combat simulator.

What??? They are also thinking about Kiowa. You really had confused everything, especially if you don't see a difference. Please don't spread the mess from other part of the forum.

+1. First of all, good luck guys :thumbup: Second, please bring the Kiowa to DCS. I'll buy it the first day of release :). There are many people in DCS that like to play a support role. For instance transports on BF. With Kiowa DCS would get a fast, player controlled, fire control platform. This would be a game changer for DCS. Not only this module would be great for those that are flying it but also for others. Just imagine playing hide and seek, lasing targets for A-10s, Harriers and Mirages :D. Not only community but ED should support you in bringing this baby to DCS :thumbup:

It's not a problem that anyone has to buy it. It's a problem of watering the concept. As the title states, DCS is a Combat sim. Any other, military module, even like a transport helicopter brings much more to the whole platform as such than just only a possibility to fly it. From a complete platform perspective CEII doesn't bring anything. When in a mood for a free flight or aerobatics, L-39, Spit, Mustang and many other from DCS are more than suited for that job but at the same time they can be added to any combat mission - not only for benefit of those that do fly them but also for others flying different planes in the same mission. And this happens when clearly the demand for combat modules is much higher than the capacity. The argument of test-bed is absolutely not convincing. Any (and I can't stress is enough - any!) complete project and further maintenance are just of a totally different magnitude than a prototype. Finally, other warbirds in DCS had been created without similar ideas. People come to a specific place because it offers what matches their specific expectations. For DCS it’s obviously because it's a combat sim and may feel frustrated as instead of the content they strive for they'll just get something for which they would be in totally different place to begin with. I'm not wishing M3 bad. Anyway, lets wait and see but anyone should be able to easily foresee that after the dust falls down this sub forum will once again become mostly quiet. And while on that topic, bye :noexpression: !

Quo Vadis DCS? Think from a wider perspective. The Digital Combat Simulator. Let’s think for the moment that the just recently announced plane was not the CEII but An-26. Nothing more but just an unarmed military transport aircraft. Not exactly a module that everyone would strive for. Let’s assume that only a small part of community buys it. Still, the mission designers can use it, build a missions where squad mates could fly transport and fighter as an escort. It could be used in Blue Flag to fly the supplies between bases or a combat decant. The opportunities are as many as the content creator’s imagination. Not only those who are interested in such module would benefit from havin it but the whole DCS platform as such. Isn’t that a great reason to support development even though the module is not directly on a personal main interest list? Until yesterday there really had been a reason for buying decision reaching much deeper and beyond of just “you don’t like it, don’t buy it”. Every module shouldn’t be seen just from a narrow perspective of a single airplane and people that are interested in flying it. The sum of all modules together in DCS is way much beyond every single module separately! How the CEII will contribute to growing the DCS platform as such? Will the mission designers send it for an AEAD (Amuse Enemy Air Defenses) sortie? For DCS as the combat simulator platform the CEII is just a dead end. The Sandbox The content can't be dropped just totally randomly. Everyone is aware about a burning issue of disproportion between the East and West bloc planes. How many years it took for DCS to have a solid foundation for a consistent WW2 era simulation – modules, AI units, WW2 map. Using the sandbox approach it'll take ages until DCS will become more than a great flight model and systems simulator. It’ll remain an in-depth simulator of a Formula 1 car, without possibility to race it against matching cars on a Formula 1 race track. Until now I really hopped that ED has a long term strategy for delivering a consistent air warfare experience. In example a Super Sabre in 1-2 years, F-105 in 2-4 building a foundations for a Vietnam era. CEII can rise a valid doubt about it. Digital Civilian Simulator Does anyone really believe that people flying 737 in other simulators are going to storm DCS due to a great flight model? DCS can attract enthusiasts of a small, GA planes and VFR. This is a niche in an already small niche. Unfortunately there is also another, deeper problem. It’s obvious to everyone how long it takes to create a module for DCS. The demand is clearly much beyond the capacity. In such situation, opening for a totally new market rather than focusing and increasing a consistent effort on the core business profile IMO is like opening an Pandora box. There are not so many 3’rd parties. CEII case had created a doubt if after completing a combat module 3’rd party won’t shift to a civ plane. In result the already long overall time between new modules are coming to DCS will further extend.

+1. Just to give some more insight. Prototyping is nothing unnatural in development. One of the obvious goals is to gain the experience. Completing development costs much more. On top of that what people forget that creating a software is only a portion, quite often a small one of total cost of ownership. You buy a puppy, you have to feed it. The software has to be maintained and that's costly.

I'm tired with the promises. You can try to justify about everything. It's time to deliver, starting with completing the MiG-21. I had been supporting DCS with buying most of the modules, on a first day of release. Some I flew just few times but still bought them to support the 3'rd parties ED and DCS as such. Including modules from 3'rd parties that re-focused and released a new module when the first one was still incomplete. I did really understood the niche business of the flight sim and difficulties that ED and 3'rd parties are facing. Enough is enough however and this doesn' thave anything to do with the hype train, or the fact that I could just pass and not by the civilian module. This situation showed me there is no vision, why should I invest in something which lacks a long term consistency. Unless there is a clear indication it's otherwise, from now on I'll approach it as any other title and buy only those modules that I'm actually going to spend time on.

The years with DCS got me used to, accept and grow understanding for a lot of things. Normally I would say something "political" like "to be honest...". This time they had really overdone it, I feel like I just got a big slap to my face :mad::mad::mad: An aerobatic plane, in a Combat simulator? For sure it could be expecteed it's going to be "controversial". Yeap, instead of keeping a low profile lets make a hudge hype train, steamroll the expectations and and finally troll everyone. You should really fire your marketting manager. This thread will serve as an outstanding exmaple of marketting fail. Great job heating the expectations and leaving pople pissed off. On top of that we learn that this plane is the reason for why the MiG-21 updates had been put on hold. Seriosly. As a MiG-21 owner I just got a clear message -we don't give a !#@ about our customers. Where the heck DCS is going. Someone from ED had to give an ok for that. Is there a pilot on board? Or the "sand box" approach had been taken to the extreme. Just throw in everything randomly having the long term DCS strategy to like this: And the rationalle of it being a test bed... In which way it's flight model will be different from the Corsair. RLY, so far the trainers had been used as an intorduction and while already being questionable to many they still matched the military aviation portfolio. Now we have an civilian bi-plane. What's next? RC planes, hot air ballon, zeppelin, kites, combined goat simulator? EDIT: All the similarities between aerobatic flight path and the pattern on the sign are absolutelly coincidental.

:lol:, from the bin folder in the DCS install directory

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3316545&postcount=294 ;) Though a good hint with the film. There was also a post that 1977 was the year in which MiG-25 establised the flight altitude record.