Pitot

Dont suppose, it's correct. When you place an ex-Yugoslavia map over current Caucasus map it is veeeery similar. But do check out this thread if you haven't: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=166947

Is this the functionality that you desire, basically? http://aviationandaccessories.tpub.com/TM-1-1510-225-10/css/TM-1-1510-225-10_403.htm If yes, I would like that too - Implementing data cartridge loading flight data. Basically, flight paths are recorded somwhere in the mission file. Now, all we need is a way to extract them as loadable data. You know how, when you make custom payload in ME, it appears in rearm screen - specific for any playable aircraft? Same functionality applied, basically. You DO load flight data on your mission start in A10C from a mission file. Now, all we need is a little addition to mission editor where you could save flight paths that could be loaded later on from any mission, just like custom payloads. Functionality is there, I believe, we just need that part programmed where user can manipulate the data (save it from ME, load it from CDU or at least add load function as a window in-game, like refuel/rearm window is). There are some issues to apply this whole thing even I can see, but I believe it is a piece of cake for ED programmers.

- -

This redirects to this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/ That is the link from 1st post in thread.

I totally agree with you on the SFM part, but why complain about number of stations? It has no more than in real life... I mean, I see you're saying that SFM+missile_number gives it much OP, so much it tilts the balance of the match, but the only problem is SFM, no need to mention missiles. (just my humble opinion) Now, just to mention the part of my mindflow where I am on your page: 1. SFM Su33 + SFM Mig29 VS. PFM F/15C + PFM A/10C + AFM (PFM?) Mirage 2. Red Carrier Ops - check VS. Blue Carrier Ops - none 3. Kuznetsov would be a base, and you need a lot of power to destroy a base, so matches would rarely end in victory instead of depleting the campaign time frame 4. Kuznetsov + Su33 = Red side domination, if they get it right, because they could, with some patience, flank blues forever. etc. So, my vote is against introducing Su33 in the campaign, until (if ever) it gets PFM.

Nope, I am the one who missed out the EWR part (so did the guys I was talking to, it seems). Thanks for the reply. :) Question: Would it be possible to have one round where number of airframes would be limited per airfield?

Since I believe my reply to someones post went unnoticed on BS site (with all the work around BF campaign being done, I am not surprised), I will make a suggestion here, again. I know that there are: "limitations in game engine and number of triggers to be used", let's not make this THAT kind of discussion, please. I am posting this so we can discuss the concept itself, not the game engine or current affairs in DCS. Thank you :) Proposition: People noticed that repetitive spawning of AI interceptors is somewhat creating troubles when your team takes a large chunk of theatre. For instance, we fought for Krasnodar one night and were engulfed in AI too much, given that there are enemy players too... So, actual suggestion: Put one "Mobile command center" unit on airport (1 red, 1 blue). If airport is red, trigger activates that unit. When it becomes blue, trigger deactivates red MCC, activates the blue MCC unit. If that unit dies, trigger forbids AI Interceptors from spawning. Triggers are to be made so they execute every time an airbase changes ownership. We discussed it at TeamSpeak and some of us, the pilots, find it a possibly good and useful addition to the campaign. EDIT: Additionally, I think it would be wise to find a solution for dumbination of AI interceptors when someone takes the runway while they taxi, resulting in AI interceptors staying on hold points at the airport.

Is it possible to get e-mail notifications when someone comments on a file I've uploaded to "User Files" at http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com?

- - -

Will try when at private PC, thank you :)

What aircraft? :)

I remember diamonds on hud in FC2... So, it is doable in theory.

Any Otaku in the house? XD

Do you use Google Chrome or something else?

Let's not get that ball rolling. All of us have a lot criticism to say about current affairs in DCS, but this is not a thread to say it in. :)

LOL'd hard on the last part :D But yeah, I would even agree on 5 year ETA on full package of what the guy said. F16+F18+Balkans+Joy. :pilotfly:

The Forums keep logging me out - which I know it is a FEATURE, but what worries (and annoys me a bit) is that the timeout is never the same. Sometimes I am browsing a thread for 2-3 minutes and find my self logged out. Now, I sincerely believe admins didn't set it that way and the problem is on my side - but any idea what is causing it? Anyone? I practically live in front of PC (at work and home too) but this - this never happened to me on any of the forums.

"Some degree" - Modelling variety of recognizable landmarks (in "buildings section"), but rest can be low poly buildings. Caucasus is hardly near that as it is, and it is still good. You all honestly believe they didn't cut out a lot from this theater? Point I am trying to say - let's not make this conversation into "too bad it can't work" type of. Developers know in what amount they can reproduce the geographical theater into the game one, not us. So, if we nag too much about "too bad it can't be done" it may give us a counter effect. We should make a big deal out of it to draw their attention, to prove to them that they will earn money from making it. Money they can invest in creating even more content. I mean, yeah, they surely love what they do, but without money it's a no - go - business. So, let's prove that majority of players are interested in this theater - and they might turn their attention to evaluating can it, how it can be and when it could be made. :)

I like this. Fictional YUAF Approves.

I must admit that I agree on all said.

Water and some gondolas would be just fine, trust me. This is not a game where you need to have awesome structures, as much as I personally feel the same as people who would like to GBU12 a pretty building :D There is only a need for a reference to the real landscapes and cities - just for the sake of creating the atmosphere. The gameplay is what matters the most. That is one of the reasons DCS expands (slowly, but still - expands) even after all the legal and developing troubles - because it has an audience that FEELS the atmosphere, the gameplay. We never had problems with, for example, flying over Tuapse that looks like 300 ppl village, while in RL it is a bit different. The level of modeling the cities/villages needs to be just as much detailed to produce the feeling you're flying over Balkans. No need for modeling authentic Serbian village with 4 guys rotating a pig on the skewer in the backyard, while 2 of them are passed out from rakija :D :D :D As for including regions of Italy - only developers know how hard they can squeeze the engine at this point in time. I would love to see the same as you, do notice :)

Do notice that you don't really have to simulate every village... :D Few low poly houses and fences would be fine for those populated hilltops. Also, there is no big need for making all the big cities - and even less to make them photo/sattelite realistic. Do you honestly believe Caucasus was done like that? But yet, we have had our fair share of fun in that theatre for many years. Yes, local people, such as myself, would find it a bit awkward to know that Banjaluka is bigger than *that*, or Sarajevo, but again - this isn't ArmA. No need for extreme realism. As for the population, have you seen the teaser screens of the WWII map? It is populated in the IL2 style and I don't have a feeling that DCS has problems with it ;) I agree on that, but given that ED wants to enhance experience instead of trying to achieve the level of detail in vanilla FSX (ROFL!), I don't think that they would publish a theater that looks like that. But a middle solution usually works the best... ;)

Haha, you're equally fun here as you are at 373vfs teamspeak when we fly. Have an icecream on me :D

Okay people, thank you for the replies. To address couple of things pointed out: A: "Caucasus area is less populated in the north" - You are talking about terrain mesh. What makes impact on performance/engine (or other way around) is the number of objects and their polygons. Since ex-Yu countries are mostly hills/mountains, the villages and the cities there are built in a scattered fashion. Look at Nevada Map, Balkans Theater would be lot less populated in most areas than the Nevada. B: Aviano Airbase: Aviano Airbase is dozen miles out of the square I drew on the map above, and the square is just for theater size comparison. I have had, and mentioned it, the Aviano Airbase in mind when making the OP. Not to mention that when making a theater, you can "resize" the overall theater to 95% of the real proportion. That gives you less loss in between actual areas/cities, but can help in taking a bit more of terrain into account on the far NWES sides. C: later, I am at work. Please keep talking :)

Balkans theater would make a great addition to the DCS for multiple reasons, and I will name only few: 1. Theater size is almost the same as the Caucasus (no performance issues for the engine) 2. Balkans/Yugoslavia cover at least 2 real life engagements that most of the DCS players heard of. The theatre is quite fitting both for missions/campaigns in the early '90s and late '90s and for great story telling aspect in campaigns. The amount of possible fictional scenarios looking back on the '90s is quite appealing. 3. Developers could, from the start, work on double-deal: Making the geographical theater and then making 2 versions of objects populating it - '90s scenery, and WWII scenery. If you're not informed - Yugoslavia was one of the first countries to have airforce and was pretty closely allied to the west. 4. I'd give money for it. :D I'd even buy one for a friend if I have the money XD As you can see on the attached picture, the size of the possible Balkans Theatre is right fitting to the size of Caucasus theatre - so I suppose that DCS engine can gobble it without problems. Also, regarding the '90s, pay attention that there is the Nato Aviano Airbase located just left of the western rectangle. Now, this is just an idea I am (again) throwing out. If you'd like to wink at Eagle Dynamics to possibly revise the suggestion - I advise making a lot of "yes" votes in the poll attached.