MikeMikeJuliet

Something I just got to play is Simple Planes. Simple - yes - but really fun. You build your own plane with relatively realistic ground rules (or pick a pre-built one) and then just fly it around, do some aerobatics of some arcade shooting. Basic aircraft controls work all as they should and you are presented with a simple instrument layout with throttle setting, speed, altitude, heading and an ADI for attitude plus fuel. My 2-year old son was so happy when I showed him what happens when you move the throttle forward. Not nearly as realistic in outlook as Kerbal Space Program, but realistic enough to give you a good amount of gameplay tweaking your dream-aircraft. Have a look. It is on Steam http://store.steampowered.com/app/397340/SimplePlanes/ Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Is there a formula for the calculation and is it provided in the manuals?

The "problem" with the Albatros, MiG-15 or any other such aircraft is that they soon require some systems management not present in the FC3 aircraft. Waypoints for example... don't have those on the Albatros, so you would need to start teaching proper instrument navigation quite soon if she enjoys anything above just cruising above random fields. With the FC3 you just select the waypoint you want and - well - fly there. That should sink in soon enough without making things dubious. There is also the fact that you don't need to worry about doing anything with the switches, so mouse can be forgotten about for the time being. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I'm especially intrigued by possibility to jam GPS... brilliant!

Such variety would bring some pleasant variance to the visuals no doubt. Perhaps some day...

Not in order of relevance: remove the current "clouds" and replace them with Stratus clouds, Stratocumulus, Cumulus, Towering cumulus, Cumulonimbus, Altostratus, Altocumulus and Cirrus clouds for starters. Turbulence in Cumulus-type clouds. Icing in Low/medium altitude clouds, freezing fog, freezing rain. Temperature inversion conditions. Jetstreams. Cloud coverage in octals rather than decimals (Cloud coverage in aviation is reported in octals: 0, 1-2 "Few", 3-4 "Scattered", 5-6 "Broken", 7-8 "Overcast"). Low atmosphere turbulence from ground temperature changes - dependent on sun. Clear air turbulence (CAT). A complete revamp of the current weather interface to allow for full control of all the previous aspects. Just to name a few. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Of course. But there are desirable midway points between the current barebones system and a full scale simulation. Just because we can't have every raindrop simulated doesn't mean we should be left with the current model which in my opinion is a joke of a weather system. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I don't remember when it was last discussed, but ED has told us previously that the overwing vapour effect is in the works eventually for 2.5. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Agreed. Although not every cloud introduces turbulence... it depends on the airmass and the type of cloud. On a broader scope the whole weather system in DCS should be recreated. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Yes, options are always welcome of course!

ED stated that there will be a pre-sale period before early acces release. So no, no Harrier release today. Sorry to crush the dream. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

One addition I would like to make is: Redo the kneeboard as a 3D object into the cockpit, and have it be usable like any cockpit button, switch and knob. The kneeboard should be placed on either knee, even if the pilot model is invisible. A 2D object in the cockpit as well as use of the briefing screen and the F-10 map is neither realistic nor immersive. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I wish the L-39 had similar kneeboard pages as the MiG-21 so that I could look up the necessary Radio, RSBN and PRMG frequencies in-cockpit. In addition, eve though the frequencies can be viewed and changed in the mission editor, this is not possible in multiplayer, leaving the player empty handed as to what frequencies are tuned in. The information should be available via the kneeboard (dynamic pages if possible) to make sure the user has access to this very relevant info. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I find the forward limit a bit too limiting for usability... any idea if the mod affects MP integrity check or not? And a sidenote, we are talking about the head movement limits... not the zoom. Those are two completely different things. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

How about building a simpit for those :D

Wasn't the MiG-23 "in plans" a while ago with one of the 3rd party devs, but was then quickly pulled back due to ED having some other plans... or is my memory fooling me? Just a hunch, but I would assume a MiG-25 would be the newest aircraft from the Red side to be modelled fully to DCS at this time... the MiG29/Su-27 could perhaps follow suite afger some years, but those would probably be early variants only. But as said, this is just a hunch. No proper fact to back it up. I'm looking forward to the eventual MiG-23.

SDK = Software Developement Kit. You don't have access to it unless ED gives it to you, and the EFM is not available without it. Considering the clickability vs full fidelity. No, the clickable cockpit is not my definition of a DCS-level modeled aircraft. But if you actually have followed the Community A-4E project, you understand that the team there have done everything possible with the SFM modelling to bring the aircraft to the highest standard possible without the SDK. That with extensively modeled systems and a clickable cockpit is what I'm getting at here. If the mod developers are to be believed, the A-4E flies exactly as intended apart from some edge cases. For the moment, every aircraft in DCS that is clickable is also a "full fidelity aircraft". I'm not commenting on their current state (bugs of WIP features). If an aircraft would be introduced to the sim with something in the middle of the two, I don't mind adding a new definition if needed. As for the A-4E. By all accounts it has been developed to its fullest extent considering the limitations of not being an official 3rd party developer. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I have to check which units were in our server map (I believe it was Patriot). Whenever said mission would load up, connecting to the server became slow (several minutes to log on). After reaching the slot selection screen the game slows down. I could select any slow normally, but my player name would not move to the slot from the spectators list, until several minutes had passed. After getting into a cockpit, all moving units (player controlled or otherwise) can be seen frozen in the air (or on the ground) and warping over great distances at random time intervals. I do believe this was last noted in 1.5.7. before we took out the units causing it. After removing the units server has been playable. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

An official A-4 module does not yet exist. If you are talking about the Community mod A-4E, then I'd say that would be considered DCS-level, given the caveat, that the modder team does not have access to the SDK needed to provide for an EFM (external flight model, 3rd parties equivalent of ED's PFM, Profession Flight Model). If they ever do get official 3rd party status, then I wouldn't doubt they trying to create the EFM for the aircraft. To my knowledge the team behind the A-4E mod have already pushed the boundaries of what can be done with the SFM (Standard Flight Model, accessable without the SDK). But in short, yes the mod has a clickable cockpit, and most systems are well simulated. So yes, a DCS-level mod. Side note: it is important here to be clear if talking about a Mod and a Module. They are not the same thing at all. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Indeed, there are 2 levels of fidelity in DCS. "FC3" (Flaming Cliffs 3 package) level, meaning, mostly the flight model is up to snuff (except the MiG-29 for the time being), but all the systems are simplified. Then there are the DCS-level "full fidelity" modules which have been simulated on systems level to a greater degree (depending on what information is available). The easy way to tell these two levels apart is this: Does it have a clickable cockpit? If yes = a full fidelity DCS-level module; if no = an "FC3" aircraft. The upcoming F/A-18 is the first gen 4 fighter (a swing-role aircraft, but a capable fighter nontheless) to be fully modeled in DCS. This is why it is such a big deal (among other features that it comes with) that it is coming to DCS. Out of curiosity, which modules do you fly? If you have the opportunity, compare the A-10A and the A-10C. Yes, they are different variants so the capabilities are different, but they are still mostly comparable. And you will see the difference between FC3 and DCS. FC3 aircraft are: Su-25T (although it is free), Su-25, MiG-29 (all variants), Su-27, Su-33, A-10A and F-15C. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

While I do agree with your points, allow me to remind you that the current Soviet/Russian fighters in DCS - apart from the MiG-21 - are FC3 aircraft. While they can most assuredly be used tactically in a realistic way they are still simpler to operate than the upcoming F-14 and F/A-18. As the OP request, users wish for more DCS-level simulations of any fighter from the Red side, really. A classic among wishes would be a full fidelity MiG-29, even if only an early variant, though even thag may be too optimistic to wish for. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Unfortunately I have no video on the matter, but I've come across several instances as a defender where to me it seems a missile should definitely hit me as it flies straight to my aircraft, but it doesn't. This has happened from time to time on our private training servers with 2-6 players and 10-30ms pings. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

The issue is not the latency, but the synchronization of clients across the play-session. A 100m off shot is not a "near miss"... it is something that you shouldn't even need to worry. Besides, air combat is more about seeing ahead and reacting accordingly. A delay of 30ms is not relevant to it in practice so long it is relatively constant. What is relevant is that when an opponent fires a missile, it should not appear hitting the ground to the defender, if it actually flew over the hill. Or if an adversary pulls lead to take a gunshot, the game shouldn't show his nose in a 15 degree lag pursuit. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Ralfidude, questionmark?

This alongside A-A missile performance & behaviour are the two most glaring issues in regards to multiplayer air combat. I wholeheartedly support improving both. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet