firmek

Yeap, why not. I could already imagine... PILOT: request taxi to runway ATC: taxi runway 6.. hold on, come back now! You forgot to take out the trashes. or PILOT: request bogey dope AWACS: not today honey, I have a headache. But serioiusly. I remember two campaigns with female voices - the museum relic and M-2000C stock campaign. Was a great addition. Something to consider however would be that it might be more nautural to hear female voice in western airforces rathern than in eastern. It should be be done in a way that adds to the environment rather than impacting the immersion by fealing not in place.

Well, let's keep the fingers crossed and wait for some info then. I did a quick check, it seems that there aren't many airports to the south of current map and including them would require expending the map quite substantially.

The NTTR and Normandy look just amazing, can't wait for the new Caucasus map. However, aside of the eye-candies is there any information on the map topology itself? What I mean is: 1. Size of the map, is it going to remain the same or is there a plan to expand it? 2. Cities reproduction. To some extend being quite generic today - for example compare real Poti area with the one currently in-game. 3. Timeline. For example the Novorossiysk airport doesn't exist anymore. Marneuli AB is missing on the map.

Yes, correct :thumbup:

Interesting read QuinGon :thumbup: One slight comment is that, I didn't test it recently but the INS alignment wasn't working correctly in M2000 but the Viggen could be used as a good illustration.

It's probably a subjective thing but I find it toally opposite. Due to being a jet planes I find the F-86F and MiG-15 much easier to fly than WW2 fighters. Mostly due to lack of engine torgue effects and much easier engine management. Take-off, landigs and even the ground handling itself is much easier than in tail draggers. On the other hand I agree that the popularity might be an issue. 1'st gen jets are kind of in a grey area. Most peple will rather go for WW2 as its the most iconic for dog-fighting or at least the 3'rd of 4'nd gen jets for modern air tactics.

With MiG-15 already in place and MiG-19 in active development, MiG-17 would be a great addition. Hell, though it's a big speculaiton some gut fealing tells me we'll see a MiG-23 at some point of time. The problem though is that due to lack of the proper environemnt from the era - AI air units, ground units, map there is currently not much to do with MiG-15. I'm affraid about the same will be the case with MiG-19 and even more would be with MiG-17. It would end up as orphant module without an proper environment and competitors to fly against. IMHO would be great to see some strategy for consistent module - theater development. Approach taken with Normandy, plane modules and WWII asset pack seem to show some light in the tunnel.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the DCS maps are flat which means that we have to apply a medieval physics which drives to the conclusion that the strip of land is there to keep the water flowing away from the ocean and ships falling out from the edge of the world into the void. A schematic illustration of the problem that had to be dealt with:

Thanks for the info. Aside of WWII bombers there is nothing new. Specifically, setting up any mission with bombers for Korea or Vietnam era is a big issue at the moment.

First it would be great to get a consistent set of bombers AI units implemented in DCS. At the moment the situation with heavies for a mission designers is a small disaster. DCS desparetelly needs more AI bombers like B-26, B-29, B-36, B-47, ealier versions of B-52 (F), B-57, Tu-4, working Tu-95 which could actually drop the bombs, and probably many more. They don't have to be a quality of the WWII assets pack.

Probably my English ;). The question was related to the period of time that the map will model. I assume early 2000's but it's just a guess.

Was it annouced what is the date at which the map is set?

+1 aside of the fact that with a number of modules, assets pack and a dedicated map, ironically WWII probably has the most coherent representation at the moment in DCS. As for Korea, there is literally close to 0 content. Just go to mission editor and try to setup anything that would be close to 50's scenario. Aside of 2, or even counting P-51 in, 3 modules there is nothing as for AI units. No bombers, other fighters, strikers, almost no ground units. I remember playing on a server with a scramble mission to intercept the AI bombers. The first impression was - WOW, can't belive they've made it. I was really impressed seeing a stike group of "bombers" approaching far away. Eventually, once getting close enough to visually id the enemy, it occured that the "bombers" are actually a C-130's. I mean, I really appreciate someone taking an effort to setup a server, mission and do all of the scripting to make it work but seeing those C-130 used to simulate B-29's quickly put all the immersoin down the drain and remembered me about the sober fact that DCS is a "sandbox". F-86 and MiG-15 are not the only one examples of great - fully fidelity modules without a simulation of environment in which they flew. PS: For single player don't forget the "Museum relic" which is a great campaign.

My suggestion would be: Processor: Go with i5. Based on a really quick price lookup it seems that i7-6700K is 50% more expensive than i5-7600K. Unless you have an unlimited budget it's a waste of money IMO. If you have that cash, invest it into any other component like GPU for much more price/performance gain. GPU: Try to save up at least for GTX 1070. That would be IMHO the first priority. From a longer time perspective a GPU will be the first thing to age and start bottlenecking the system. You’ll get around with not so fresh processor but GPU you should get as best as you can as it’s the fastest aging component. RAM 16 ok for the moment. HDD Should be fine. However till January the things will for change, for sure prices for hardware currently available will drop as also new equipment will show up.

+1. Historically and for the reason how DCS evolved FC had a place. At the moment one of the best think that could happen to DCS is removing or splitting FC modules to a separate simulation. Anyway, NO for more FC like - simplified systems, avionics, flight models modules.

Now, that's a hudge overassumption but... There are a few airframes in DCS that have exceptionally good quality models as for AI only units. One of them is the Kiowa. Tornado also if I recall correctly. Just a big guess but this makes me thinking if those are not already a "thing" in TBS: http://www.thebattlesim.com/images/Vehicles_and_Weapon_Systems-13.jpg

If I recall correctly the full story was that the FC aircrafts can't use nav systems unless the flight plan has been created in mission editor. For all others it shouldn't be an issue.

I suggest follwing priority: 1. Upgrade GPU, 1070 at least. IMHO 1060 is not worth the money compared to 1070. 2. Get SSD, don't worry about their durability. You'll change your PC before it dies. Install OS on it and if you want also DCS. 3. As already noted changing CPU would be quite expensive in your case as you'll need a new motherboard and RAM. If you still want to upgrade CPU get i5 instead of i7 and invest saved money in 1 or 2. 4. 16 GB RAM is ok for the moment for DCS

Might be that I'm not reading it correctly but based on what you've wrote I would judge it's more of an issue with the head tracking device. If it would be the movement limit, the in-cockpit head would hit it and shake around it but wouldn't jump to a new position.

Might be an effect of watching it on the video. For example occasionally I'm getting uncomfortable when watching youtube clips recorded from VR. Frankly speaking such option might be controversial as it can give slight advantage over the real plane.

It has been already stated many times that Normandy is not a 1.5 and 2.0 merge. We will have to wait for it some time at least untill the new Caucasus map is ready.

Probably but lets wait for the announcement on the forums. Normandy next week is confirmed. Let's wait to see if there is an update for 2.0 today.

That would be also my bet.

I'm taking specific statements from your comment but think how long the Nevada is alpha stage...;) Anyway, my comment was mainly about the fact that people still confuse Normandy and 2.5 release which as underlined many times by ED are separate releases that will come in sequence most probably with some substantial time in between.

I don't think so. Unless there has been some big news the plan since quite long is that 2.5 is not the Normandy release. First the Normandy release on 2.x brunch (now named as 2.1). Second, upgrading the Caucasus map. Third the merge of 1.5.x and 2.x.x into 2.5.