MikeMikeJuliet

Sorry for the slight deviation for the topic, but those of you who do not use the steam version... please stop trying to convert people to use the standalone. I know, I know "easier, hassle free, updates earlier, bakes bread and makes your coffee". Given how simple Steam is to use (my OPINION) this is mostly a matter of personal preference than it is anything else. If it is DRM we are worried about here (that is, DRM in excess of Steam): Do not worry. TheDRM, i.e. "the occational serial number check" is not going to break anything, and the key itself is stored on steam if you ever need it. This not UBISOFT we are talking about here these days. I know their DRM could have easily developed a sentience and start WW3... Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Exporting data is possible, yes. The problem is that when you play as an AWACS, Ground ATC or what have you, you would need that module to be playable within singleplayer as well. Taken the current AI and especially the simplistic nature of the whole radio commjnication system in the sim, I feel that might be a show stopper for a 3rd party. For ED however... The new ATC system is in the works. We have to see if that gives us more and better tools to communicage between players and AI. I feel it would limit a module quite a lot if you'd have to play MP only in order to use your plane for anything other than convert fuel to noise. Or to give oversimplified commands to the AI who really does no good for you. I'm hesitant to say one or the other of the interest such a module would peak in the "civil simmers". We would have to go to their forums and actually ask about it. Don't get me wrong, there must be people who are interested. I just feel it might not be enough, especially given the limiting factors mentioned. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

At this point in time we lack any in-game player-controlled ATC system withing the simulation, and such a thing would have to be created by ED before such an aircraft would be realistically viable. I'm very interested in the idea of expanding DCS to many directions, but at the moment I feel the market for a non-combat aircraft is small among the already small sim-community. And as we know, many people might buy a module, and after the initial charm it sits in the hangar gathering dust. It would really require a dedicated group to operate with multicrew for the joy of others and you would honestly see those aircraft used only in something like the blue-flag. And as said, the actual flying (orbiting around on your station for half an hour) is not good fun for most people. It requires a certan kind of person to get excited about being there, instead of doing there. Now many of you now say "but I want it and I buy it. Means it is viable!". Ask yourself in all honesty: "How many other DCS-simmers would actually play this?". I want DCS to expand, but I'm not going to fly more than a couple of aircraft, and as the aircraft library expands, soon no-one can actively fly every module. I feel the time is not yet right for non-combat aircraft in DCS. It may be for for bombers though. One step at a time. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Another thing. If you want to shorten the text you have on the route legs and waypoints, try the following: On ETA only write minutes and seconds as long as the time is on the same hour. give the start time only in the full format. Waypoint names can be set aside to a separate text area on the kneeboard. When you need to fly an altitude, write QNH, if you fly on flight leves, write STD (STanDard, not the other kind of std...), and with radar altimiter write AGL (Above Ground Level). Leave out the return direction, it takes unnecessary space, and every pilot should be able to derive the direction in their head if need be. Meters on the altitudes is ok as it is, if you show feet on that you can abbreviate thousands of feet with "kft" (kilo-feet). So 1000ft =1kft. If you want, the same thing works ok with km too if you need to shorten that. Altitude and speed could be written separately from the map in my opinion. That way only direction and time would show on the map, and the rest on a footnote textfiekd below the picture. Would that work?

I guess the answer to text size is to keep as few lines of text as possible on the map itself, and add more info to a separate boxed section with additional info for every turnpoint. Another way might be to make the map NOT to scale, because you usually don't have a need for the long line between waypoints, just the waypoint itself. That would require a lot of positioning of the map elements though, no likely not ideal.

That radio navigation info would also be handy in case you need to go IFR for some reason. And if waypoints are not over a beacon, you need range and bearing to said waypoint from a nearby beacon. If you can, try to keep the text a bit larger to make it legible to VR-users. A page with easy-to-read essential information would improve the kneeboard very much. I came up with another idea considering kneeboard pages and the sheer amount of them. What if we used page swapping in two dimentions, instead of one? EXAMPLE: Left and right -keys would change the airfield/category. Up and down -keys would change the page in each category. You could have all your enroute maps in one category and run through them with the up and down -keys; Mission details on the next category, and the each airfield in its own. The sorting should also remember your selected page on each category/airfield so you could easily swap between your map and your mission details for example, without reverting back to the original "default page" of each category. I hope that made sense. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

On the tomcat videos... Although the aircraft gies pretty much 90 degrees nose up, it looks to me like it starts to climb quite quickly before the highest nose-up attitude is reached, which would give us an AOA that is significantly lower than 90. Though that is just what I saw from the videos and there are not too many reference points to compare the AOA to. So to me, does not yet look like a full cobra. Just my observation though.

Btw. The "F"-keys are called function-keys. Hence the "F". That might spare you the misunderstandings.

All I dream about is a more accurate ground mesh, new textures and higher framerates :D

I thought I remembered that Wags said the map will NOT be expanded. Seems I remembered correctly.

Supersonic flight doesn't always break windows. Depends on a lot of variables though. I'd assume ATC tower glass panels are made to withstand a fair amount of abuse.

About the eternal point of "no more trainer..." You guys realise that it is not required for you to own every model in DCS? If there is a trainer in a list and you don't like it, don't buy it. Or a simpler fighter. Or any aircraft. Nothing is taken away from you if an aircraft is added to DCS even if it was a basic trainer. I don't get it. This is the wishlist thread and people may wish for whatever they want. They wishing it or you trying to debunk it probably won't make a big difference in the grand scheem of things. This whole section seems to be about "make a wish and get yelled at because it wasn't the exact same wish as someone elses".

This thread is a-class entertainment. It is very literally a wishlist. Everyone wants a different version. If someone were to use the info to decide which variant to make they'd never even be able to start. Perhaps that is one of the reasons we don't have an F-16... Too high expectations, and only a fraction of consumers would be happy enough to stop wishing for another variant.

As the saying goes: Fast, cheap, good; choose 2. And software developement in general shows us, that if a product is rusheds it's rarely, if ever working properly and feature-complete. If you release early/ in time and it sucks, in peoples mind it sucks. If you delay and deliver a proper working product, they will forget the whole delay after they get their hands on it.

I doubt we'll be seeing all three released in quite a while... but such a bundle might be likely when everything is out.

Intersting. I've never seen those pictures. I don't see us getting much else info on the subject until ED is confident of the carrier modules... Has ED announced anything specific in the Hornet-news about the US carrier?

Helicopters do fly formation too... it's just a little different from fixed wing aircraft. Which aircraft did you have in mind, btw? And what timezone?

Go check this: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2896279&postcount=32 Fouth line from the bottom of the "DCS World" section

Guys, I found something. No idea if this has been posted here already, but here's some sweet low level flying and Viggen HUD video... But... the music... wtf is wrong with the music... It's like someone put 2 or 3 songs playing at the same time...

Nothing! They are a mirage caused by the heat of the discussion :D

Its not the forum, but the whole internet. And on the internet, way too many people make explicitly sure that they find every nook and cranny of the information posted, and then react to the superficial instead of the primary point of the information provided. People misunderstand on purpose and the start arguments based on that, instead of discussing the actual subject. And I apologize for some of those "how is this and that progressing". Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Well, now we know. I don't really mind wishlists, but I do mind 1) wishlist type posts/comments that clearly show no understanding of the subject matter (i.e. have no idea what they are really asking for). The same with criticism: if you want to change something, you need solid arguments. 2) speaking of criticism, I don't like it one bit when feature requests are stomped to the ground by "get good or get lost" attitude. 3) every single wishlist seems to snowball out of control with zero regards to the original title or post. This is especially the case with aircraft wishlists, not as much with features. There should probably be something done on those fronts, if that's even possible...

Welcome to Finland, dear neighbour. But come now, there still is the commercial airport of Ivalo, which actually had a Concorde land there years back! And that Is a Tiny place... still some four hours of driving north of Rovaniemi... And besides, Rovaniemi is the home base of Lapland Air Command, hosting Fighter Squadron 11. At times they operate from the northern bases as well.

This doesn't work in case the airfield has a strange layout. Caucasus has one or two where you have no idea where to go if you start from the hangars. When it comes to starting locations, if you play a map where the parking location is not the default one, then you can't rely on memory to guide you. We really need those airfield signs in addition to the new ATC...

On details like bushes, grass and ground elevation noise perhaps, but not on things that are always expected to be there... so practically buildings and everything larger.