firmek

If you would like to search for some good monitor reviews go to http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/

May be tough for 970. I'm running a 1070 in 3440 x 1440 and it's about right.

Generally it's a good idea to download the udate, even if it seems there is not much interesting in it. I just don't think that everything is listed in the patch notes.

I could argue about a large screen like 55'' as there would be hard to find a monitor in this size. Otherwise, if it's a 32'' go for a monitor: IPS panels, usually higher resolution, refresh rate, less smudging/ghosting, adaptive sync, much smaller input lag.

That would be great but a major update as the new Caucasus is and release of the module are probably too risky to come together. The map can come any time but broken module, even at alpha release would be a disaster.

Fully agree. It's not only the plane that matters, it's the whole environment that creates a full simulation experience. We have a great race cars. Now the focus should be shifted more towards creating a proper race track with suitable infrastructure ;) Regarding F-15E, it's not a question if it's going to come to DCS. For sure it'll. The only one question is when and who will do it (won't necessary have to be RAZBAM). I would put it into same category as other most probably not accessible at the moment planes like Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale.

I would say you're watching Matrix too much ;)

Exactly, and even it it wouldn't be, a 5 year old clip is hardly a good reference. Anyway, the official list of RAZBAM modules had been clearly communicated. Everything else at the moment, is just a pure speculation.

Forgot to add ;) - I'm far from expecting Hornet and Hormuz this year ;) Interesting though is that recently there is more updates on the Hornet/Hormuz than new Caucasus. Anyway, great video. Bit short but still the progress DCS is making at least on the visual side is amazing :thumbup:

The recent frequency of videos of the F/A-18 and Strait of Hormuz start to make me hope for some big surprise for Christmas.

But this really doesn't prove anything, especially as you said it had been many years ago. We don't even know if the McDonnell Douglas was contacted to give their ok. What I was referring to is that I can't imagine that the main criteria if or not to start the project is if it's possible to google the documentation for the real plane. Maybe just in the recognition phase in order to understand potential complexity but later on you have to contact the manufacturer in order to get an ok. Once you get it the materials are no longer a problem since you get them from the first hand. In opposite case, lets assume it's a plane like F-5 for which you can easily get a complete pilot manual. Do you believe it's enough to make it? I'm quite sure that if Northrop Grumman would not agree you could forget about doing one. Even if you make one and name it "EF-Five". Just because I think it's a good analogy - I like to watch the National Geographic Air Crash Investigation Series, where a number of episodes show cases of plane crashes due to a "confirmation bias". Quite often there seems to be generally the same pattern across the "wish" or "are they making it" threads on the forum where there is no clear confirmation that the module is started or even just planned while all hard facts are more or less ignored or even strongly fought with. I guess people just want to believe and don’t like those that are trying to be realistic. The only one way to solve the question is a 3'rd party representative making an official statement that they are planning/making a module and actually had secured their way moving forward.

I don't think that the availability of the materials is the main problem. With such a modern airframe as F-15E with many classified systems the fist issue is being allowed to make one. Some another examples: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3275729&postcount=1

It must be not an easy time for M3 after the split. Frankly speaking, it would be great to just hear that they're doing fine.

Well, you're not exactly correct on this one. I would say all other planes are like that. When you're in cockpit, in reality you're not in the same 3D model as you see when watching the plane in outside view. For performance reasons, it’s just a truncated model, containing only the parts that can be seen when you're sitting strapped-in. There is no need to send undercarriage or the bottom of plane fuselage to the GPU for rendering as you're never going to see them. Aside of that, the real problem is not this part not being visible but the fact that you can actually stick your head soo much out of the cockpit during the flight.

You've almost got it wright. You need to apply the Banach fixed-point theorem to arrive to a fixed release date. Once you do it, the result is: 2 weeks from now + sqrt( (it's released when it's released)^2) - sqrt(x^2) just to avoid a miscalculation when it had been already released ;)

Well, without going into many details... don't get your hopes too high;)

To be more specific, manual says to use the -3º only with non-empty fuel tank. Otherwise neutral pitch trim. Trim is one of those things that probably can be left to the pilot discretion. However, following the manual recomendation works well for me.

??? The bottom one is current 1.5 I have a feeling it's closer than we think. Maybe a supprise togethwer with the Harrier release ;)

The question is if you're a fan of this aircraft - and since you're asking if to get it, I assume that probably not so much. Options that you have: 1. Get it now, "save" 20$. In result you get it discounted and you get it now. On the negative side be prepared that it's not completed, there are bugs including some obvious and extreamly frustrating as well the manual is not even close to be completed or even can be misleading in some places. 2. Get it later, possibly waiting for a sale. You can save more than 20$ and the module will be a bit more mature. At least the first day, most frustrating bugs should be gone. On negative side you'll have to wait and dont know exactly when the module will come on sales (though its not a question if but when) 3. Get it when it's released. In theory bugs should be gone. It's only a theory though as there always are going to be some bugs. Comparing to the early access release the module should be generally complete, including the manual and even possibly additional content like training missions, single player misssions and campaign. You'll save yourself some frustration from running into the problems or even the back and forth functionality changes in how the things work. On the negative side you'll need to wait probably 2 years (or even more - check Mirage) during which you could have enjoyed the plane. If I can suggest something, in DCS the option no. 3 is just unrealistic. Pick 1 or 2 depending on the developer history of how much feature complete and how the development progress looked like.

I wouldn't overestimate the helicopter aspect of Harrier. It's a fixed wing aircraft after all. Most of the time, I would say 95% of flight it'll be flown like a normal jet. I see it more as a faster and less armed version of A-10C as it's a CAS platform. That doesn't change the fact that the remaining 5% of time spent on hovering or doing a short TO/landing will be a blast and the experience from helicopters will come handy for it. I expect controling the Harrier when flying in/out of ground effect or in/out of "translational lift" similar to some extend to a helicopter.

I'm worried that in MP but not only this map will be like a knife fight in a phone booth. Another point is that the map is aimed for carier operations but with the size it'll be obvious where the carier is, which won't make perspectives for its life expectency to bright. Don't get me wrong, the screenshots show the map looking just amazing and it'll be a day one buy for me but the relative small size is an unused potential.

I've been checking the DCS, A-10C and Viggen manual but I couldn't find how does this command actually work. 1. Does the mission has to be setup in a way that target's are specificly designaged - for instance by "bombing" or "attack map object" task? 2. When the order is submited, will the AI just go imediatelly after the target ignoring the flight plan or will follow it? For instance, the flight is flying towards WP 2 while WP 4 contains the bombing task. If the order is issued the AI will fly WP2->WP-3->WP4 and attack the target or just direclty towads the target? 3. Assuming that the task is "bombing" will the AI follow direction, altitude and the "group bombing" setting? Is there any way to make the AI wingmen to bomb the target together with the pilot (for instance flying in close formation or trail)

The most probable date is 24th as its the last Friday of the month. Will it be exactly 24th we'll have to see but I would not expect the release sooner. This gives still some time to go through 700 pages NATOPS manual :D

Frankly speaking it would be rather fair to expect that such list is communicated by the developer or even better included in the module description in the ED shop. Just to set clearly the expectations on what's included and what is still to come. Asking to dig through 120 pages document to find out what is missing is probably not the best way ;) Anyway, I've extracted from document the list of currently missing and to be added in the future features: Ground Power Control Voice warnings (Betty?) HUD Symbology Brightness, FLIR Video Controls, MPCD display swap UFC modes: IFF, WPN (Weapons), WOF (Waypoint overfly), BCN (Radar beacon), ALT (Altimeter), EM CON (Emission Control), TMR (Timer), TOO (Target-Of-Opportunity) - available 5 out of 13 Ability to create and modify flight plan Radios - using only simple coms! Emission control (all radio devices silence) mode NAVFLIR cool down time HUD FLIR video image settings (brightness, contrast) NAVFLIR Hotspot Detector Sidewinder Expanded Acquisition Mode (SEAM) LOFT Delivery Mode Expendables (countermeassures?) dispensing programming + MANUAL maybe some day on the same level with other DCS modules ;) That's one hefty list. Before you beat me with the "it's an Alpha" stick look on my list of modules (which most of them I've got in early access if not on a day one) but I have to admit that I have a doubt that there are different Alpha's in DCS - Alphas and Alpha Alphas, if you know what I mean ;) Not that I'm not getting the Harrier, sure I do, it's rather the question I need to think about is if when and if now is a good moment.

It's not such a bad idea. It would be an interesting experience to have for instance a few MP servers where if your virtual pilot dies, you have to pay some set ammount - for instance 20 EUR. The money could go for some noble purpose instead of increasing EDs margin. On the discussion how difficult landing Harrier will be. We all have to wait (probably 3 weeks ) to find out. The gut feeling tells me that probably not as much difficult as landing Spit, Huey or Hip ;)