MikeMikeJuliet

Aircraft modules and asset packs are two completely different things, and I'm with MBot on this. A mission or a campaign in SP is made FOR a specific aircraft. Now that we have asset packs any particular mission or campaign might be made WITH an asset pack (or plural in the future). So in order to play a mission made FOR the aircraft you rightfully purchased, you need to buy additional content that does not have direct correlation with the aircraft you have. And this is just when the mission is free of charge. If the mission has to be purchased as well, then you need to make additional purchases (perhaps multiple) to enjoy the product you just bought. And if people go and say "well just don't be stupid and leave the assets in the packs out"... are you thinking this through? So now you advise against the use of the asset packs in missions, which means those valuable assets get less usage, meaning that those who bought the asset pack without the Normandy map now have no missions to play (created by our most talented mission creators)... So why would they then buy the assets if not for Normandy then? "Create your own missions"... not everyone has the time and talent to make good use of the assets. This is NOT a problem NOW. But if asset packs keep coming up we soon have a situation where either everyone has to buy every asset pack to make sure they can access the missions they bought, or mission makers do not use the assets to make sure as many people can enjoy the missions as possible. This in turn leaves the asset packs in a situation where people are less willinh to buy them, leading to lesser income in the long run. I don't see a choice here, gentlemen. Either you buy the assets or be left out of all content that use said assets. Not much now, but how about when we have 5...10 or more asset packs? With aircraft you can choose which aircraft you want. And if a mission or campaign is made FOR that aircraft, you may buy it. You don't expect to be able to fly a mission made for the A-10C with an air superiority fighter... but you do expect to be able to fly all campaigns for any particular aircraft after buying said aircraft (and the mission you want for it). And in multiplayer, you may choose your preferred aircraft, because the mission was made FOR those aircraft. If the missions are made WITH multiple asset packs you are forced to pay, or stay out. I unfortunately don't get how most of you don't see any problem here. It is about the principle, not the pricing. And yes, ED should be paid for their work, but I feel there are smarter ways to do this. We will wait and see. No disrespect intended. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

A sim player on a PC failing to do a cobra hardly correlates with real life and real fighter pilots, not to mention the ability to feel the forces on the aircraft (and the feel of the control column when displaced)... Russian military does not choose aircraft based on simulators made for the general public.

I really don't think adding every missile and bomb to every plane would improve the sim at all. Quite the opposite! After that we would just fly the highest performing aircraft and nothing else because you could just load anything on it. If it were possible we would like to have every weapon that was really used ona a particular aircraft if that was what you meant... but as Sith said, not every weapon's info can be aquired. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Yes, there was a lively thread on the cockpit control method and several kinds of methods were proposed (and I'd like to see all of them implemented as options for the player to choose). As for the AB-indicator, I think it's a great idea. I don't think you'd need to adjust it since you can already do it by adjusting the curve itself, but it would certainly make it more usable to have the position marked. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I find this a very good idea. It would remove the need for separate SP / MP versions of missions, and help keep a constant aircraft amount in the air for every mission. Not something for every mission perhaps (if you don't want any AI on a given flight under any circumstances) but this would indeed bring more flexibility to mission making. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Good point. MiG-21 has cockpit shake slider in the special options. I'd hope to have such controls for all aircraft.

Yep. That unfortunately has been the case for a long time. It's an awesome effect, no doubt. All these sort of effects do add to the atmosphere and immersion of being in an aircraft. Not necessary for the action itself, but I personally feel they would add up.

At some point why not. At present, no - we need the development effort spent on other aircraft and features. At least in my opinion.

Well. Overwing vapor effect is on EDs to-do list for 2.5, so here's hoping...

Indeed. That said, the effect would be very nice to have for sure.

Which is sad, that the functionality is there... but no-one bothered to use it on their products...

Overwing vapor is in the works, though I do not know if that will work in this specific case. The question at least in your title is a tad misleading... That vapor effect only appears if the humidity of the air is high enough. Not seeing that doesn't mean the aircraft didn't go supersonic. The only sure mark for a supersonic flight that always happens is the sonic boom. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

So in other words the system with new maps should work as it does now with any aircraft module... if you don't own it you can still put it in the map. you just can't fly it yourself. I have a feeling this will be the case for maps as well. At the moment the issue is that 2.0. version is behind the NTTR paywall, but that is an alpha build. Once all maps are under one .exe I bet you can change the map in the editor and edit missions on it...

Yes! These are superb. I've been following Ahoy for a while already.

Good thinking. Also if you fly night missions the bright map screen is really suboptimal for use. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Wrong thread?

Yep. If we had dedicated servers the server could host any game without having modules installed. Now we just have to wait for them to be implemented.

I don't know. I was mostly referring to having a constantly updated location marker on a kneeboard map. That would be considered a cheat in my opinion... what is the point of navigation if you can just look at your magical kneeboard, right?

Don't get me wrong, it is great we have these external tools. All the same in my opinion such features should be built in the core game. At the same time you could control ai-units more flexibly. I find it somewhat odd that to enjoy the sim to the fullest you need to expand so many features with 3rd party tools and mods. Anyway. For starters just a simplified UI and a radar screen with controls to give orders in game (thinking ai here) + perhaps a simple control to tell the awacs aircraft itself where to fly would be good. Given the current premise and scale of the sim I don't think we would actually need to have the awacs aircraft directly maneuvered by the player. Just to control waypoints, orbits, altitude, speed and where to land... sort of like a real time mission editor. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

That should be a server side forceable option, since you can't see your location on a real kneeboard/map unless you specifically mark it down yourself. That said, the current maps on the kneeboard hardly supportany sort of in-flight orienteering. Something that we really need in my opinion. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Being able to write on your kneeboard is one of its key functions. Usually done with a plastic window that you write on with a grease-pen that you can wipe off with your glove or sleeve. I was thinking of having a small drawing board attached to the knee with a stylus, and the game could read the surface area as being the kneeboard. Then we would need the kneeboard to be a 3D object that you'd look at in the cockpit instead of having it as a 2D rendition. Would be so good in VR. But that's just my wishful thinking... would need the proper peripheral to begin with. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

If this is not coming already in the new ATC system chrisofsweden mentioned I surely hope ED considers this. That said all we really can do is wait and see, as there has not been any mentions of what the new system is going to include or how it works. All we know is that it is i the works. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Yep. The catch is, you need to learn the whole thing first. After that it is easy. Same thing with target to a bit more greater extent. Man, we need a target-nerd corner here :D

Which is why I never said that necessarily happens. A hypothetical example for sure... And I don't mean to point fingers here. I fly the Hawk in DCS myself and await it's completion eagerly.

My two cents on the subject is this: Let's imagine the Typhoon from VEAO just came out, and it was in decent condition. Would that ever happen if they never made the Hawk and all the mistakes with it? Some teams just feel way more comfortable starting off from aircraft that are easier to reproduce in the sim so they may accumulate experience. Thonk about ED. They never started with trainers, but they did start with very simple systems modelling way back. Should they just have started on the DCS-level from the getgo? I don't think so. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet