firmek

I'm with you but for many it may not be so obvious and require actually breaking a kind of a mental barrier of using a trainer in a sim to find out by yourself that trainers do have a valid place in DCS, are fun to fly and can be used to practice and improve your skills. On the other hand, would another trainer be critical for DCS, especially to some extend a niche one like the Galeb? What DCS is a in a desperate need of is an Eastern bloc, gen 3 to 4+ jets.

Foxbat

Yeap, try to place a static plane inside a hangar ;)

Another hint as to which plane I'm thinking it might be ;)

If my guess is correct, it's going to be a hudge supprise ;) PS: Can I get a free copy if I'm right ;)

Some credit from it should probably go to McDonnell Douglas :)

Seems to be correct. From the NATOPS manual. If I get it correctly the GTS can provide the air to start the engine or be connected with a shaft which drives the APU but not both at the same time.

It's not enough and changing the renderer would be a small part of it. Building or actually migrating to a version that works for both systems would require a tremendous effort and even if taken the maintenance would just sky rocket. Not even mentioning the issues with support to all input devices and peripherials. Absolutely not worth it!

Just wow. Those pictures look purely amezing. Would love to see some screens from a higher perspective though ;) I'm starting to think that the new old Caucasus will be the best map in DCS :)

The modules for which view settings are handled by the last atached server.lua file are: A-10A A-10C F-15C Hawk Ka-50 MiG-29A MiG-29G MiG-29S P-51D TF-51D Su-25 Su-25T Su-27 Su-33 Mi-8MT UH-1H C-101EB M-2000C MiG-21Bis MiG-15bis F-86F Sabre SpitfireLFMkIX Bf-109K-4 FW-190D9 AJS37 L-39C L-39ZA F-5E AV-8B Regarding the view folder and viewsettings.lua, the easiest way to get them is to save a custom view. It has to be done only once, just for any of view and in result DCS will create this file for all owned modules.

My knowledge in 3D programming area got rusty but a change such as migrating to a new 3D API basically requires to rewrite the whole rendering engine. On top of that there is a substantial difference in approach between DX11 and APIs with more direct access to GPU like DX12 and Vulcan. The point is that it's a great news but it's going to be a huge effort thus probably we'll have to wait quite a long for it. Probably not sooner than a new iteration of EDGE engine. A similar example can be the Battlefield 1 which implemented the DX12. Even for DICE/EA with their enormous budget it was such a big and risky move that they maintained DX11 as the main API for the time being, providing DX12 support as experimental. It occurred to be a smart decision as the results had not been perfect. With DX12 the performance was generally slower than on DX11 whilve the quality of visuals generally stayed the same. Good luck to ED. It must be an interesting time and a challange for the 3D programmers working in ED :thumbup:

If anyone is interested, I've added Harrier view settings to the server.lua https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3305863&postcount=687 The pilot with view configuration shipped with the module does not have a neck :)

Harrier added. Enjoy :) Server.lua SnapViews.lua

1. Nope, they haven't. They said that it will work with both. That means you'll get it for both sooner or later. They never had clearly said, until now on which specific version it'll be initially released on. So to say a bit of a guild is on both sides - devs not clearly communicating and people over interpreting what was written "it'll work" as "it'll be first released" 2. If you had been following the Harrier thread and you see the same discussion. At some point it arrived to rather a clear statement that the first release will be on 1.5.8

Well, the release is most likelly to be on 1.5 first. Just a few pages back in this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3301836&postcount=2919

It's rather going to be 1.5 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3301836&postcount=2919

Here is a really good document: http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/2016/05/av-8btav-8b-flight-manual.html This bird diserves much more than going through the quick startup guide ;)

Couldn't agree more. First great thanks to ED and all 3’rd parties involved for bringing us the best simulator. Thanks to you many of us can realize their dreams and cultivate a great hobby which goes much beyond just flying in the sim. For me every module that comes to DCS is a great opportunity to study the plane development and operational usage history. What differentiates and what I like in DCS comparing to other titles obviously aside of being a sim is that it's a journey that we all if we want can take a part in by providing a constructive feedback. I also hope that the community will take the latter from Wags a lesson learned and ease up on ranting, especially on issues that require an inside company knowledge. Keep up a great work. Obviously only those that don't do anything don’t make mistakes but you can count on my support and gratitude :thumbup:

If you wish you can also check out this thread for view configuration files. With a bit of tinkering you can set FOV exactly to required value for all modules. Though as already noted you shouldn't have as both 1080p and 1440p have the same aspect ratio - and it's the aspect ratio not the resolution that influences the FOV.

Don't consider units I've marked as obtained after '92-'93. Otherwise generally everything remaining should match the early 90's. From advanced AA include only a single Sa-11 battery unit located somewhere close to Gori. If you're interested specificly in the first, S Ossetia war try to search for battle of Tskhinvali (another link). There is quite a lot of information, including an overal description of OOB - though take it with a grain of salt as it seems one of the characteristics of the conflict was a (miss)information war in electronic media.

I was collecting similar information for the mission bilding purpose. Quite a long time ago by searching through the internet - so don't ask me if those are correct or what is the reference. Assume the information is not exact but unless you're aiming to build a mission that would be an exact historical reproduction (which I assume not ;) ) this information should be more than good enough to setup quite an realistic "environment" in the mission. I.) Georgia 1. Air Force Su-25KM and Su-25UB. Total 11-12 aircrafts (6xKM). Senaki, Vaziani L-39, 4 aircrafts, Senaki L-29, 4 aircrafts, Senaki An-12, 5 aircarfts An-24, 2 aircrafts, An-28, 2 aircrafts An-32, 1 aircraft An-72, 3 aircrafts Tu-134, 5 aircrafts Mi-18, 16 helicopters Mi-14, 18 helicopters UH-1H 40 helicopters Super Puma, 4 helicopters Mi-24V, 12 helicopters 2.) Air Defence 9K33 Osa, x 18 9K35 Strela-10, x 18 SA-3, Poti and Tbilisi (2 batalions) SA-11 Buk-M1. 2007 – Three batteries, each 2x launcher + 1x loader-launcher, Initially Gori (1'st Ossetian conflict), later Senaki and Kutaisi. 1 more in 2008 ZSU-23-4 Shilka, x15 ZU-23-2 , x30 Early warning radars in Tbilisi, near Poti, 1 East of Gori - South to Shavshvebi, (?) near Senaki, Rumours about a Kolchuga passiwe RWR 3.) Navy Main base in Poti, naval base in Batumi 2 x fast attack craft (missile) - Tbilisi and Dioskuria- 8 x patrol boats, 2 x small landing ships, 2 x landing boats up to 6 small crafts. 4.) Army 191 T-72 main battle tanks in several versions (of which probably up to 120 were upgraded to the T-72-SIM-1 version); 56 T-55AM main battle tanks; 80 BMP-1 armoured infantry fighting vehicles (of which 15 were upgraded to the BMP-1U version); 74 BMP-2 armoured infantry fighting vehicles; 11 BRM-1K armoured combat reconnaissance vehicles; 5 BRDM-2 armoured scout vehicles; 17 BTR-70 armoured personnel carriers (of which two were upgraded to the BTR-70DI version); 35 BTR-80 armoured personnel carriers; 86 MT-LB armoured multipurpose tracked vehicles; Six 203 mm 2S7 Pion self-propelled guns; One 152 mm 2S19 Msta-S self-propelled howitzer; 13 152 mm 2S3 Akatsiya self-propelled howitzers; 24 152 mm Dana self-propelled gun-howitzers; 11 152 mm 2A65 Msta-B towed howitzers; Three 152 mm 2A36 Giatsint-B towed guns; 109 122 mm D-30 towed howitzer; 15 100 mm MT-12 anti-tank guns; 40 85 mm D-44 and D-48 anti-tank guns; Five 262 mm M-87 Orkan MLRS (uncorfirmed); Four or eight 122 mm/160 mm GradLAR/LAR-160 MLRS; Six 122 mm RM-70 MLRS; 16 122 mm BM-21 Grad MLRS; About 80 120 mm towed mortars and up to 300 mortars with calibers of 60, 81, and 82 mm; 15 57 mm S-60 towed anti-aircraft guns; II.) Abkhazia 1.) Air Force Main airbase - Gudauta Su-25, x2 MiG-21, x1 (2001-2007) L-39, x5 (since 1992) Mi-8, x3 Mi-24, x3 since 1992, x7 since 2007 An-12, x2 That was exactly the same motivation I had. I mean we have the Georgian so it seems natural to try to understand the history of the region.

You're really over interpreting it. It's not like we’re witnessing strategical change of EDs profile. They just got a chance to increase their EBIT, maybe use some of it to gain more stability, found the core development or even use it to onboard some new people. Just consider it as a side project.

The situation is quite straight forward. Someone needs it and made a deal with ED. Just conider Yak-52 as as a bonus module. We can be rather sure that under different circumstances it wouldn't made it into DCS. Though it's not exactly the hotest and most sexiest plane in the world, it's a win-win situation for everyone. Those that don't like it wont buy it but there is no reason to complain, especially that it's not pulling away any of the 3'rd parties from their planned projects. Personally I love the Albatros, will get C-101 when it matures more. But if Im fancy for a prop I'll rather hop in to any of the warbirds or TF-51.

Same here. Since it is a private contract then there is nothing to discuss in that matter, aside of just wishing good luck to both parties :thumbup:. Considering the public, "game" version I'm puzzled to finding arguments convincing myself to buy it. And it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it's a trainer. I love the L-39 and would be crazy about another one like Yak-130 (don't take it as I'm starting to deviate this thread to another wish-list discussion ;P )