MikeMikeJuliet

Good luck with the project. Considering the performance of DCS with multiple units in the game, I feel an external campaign engine is a very welcome idea. The less DCS needs to pull horsepower to calculate things that don't directly affect the player, the better... meaning logistics, units out of sensor range, campaign AI... I wonder if this could be driving a miltiplayer campaign in addition to SP.

Belsimtek or Leatherneck for building russian aircraft. We will have to see what the future holds ^^

The real question is, do you want full fidelity, or are you in for a little easier time? Full fidelity modules aren't subjectively better if you don't want them. Back to OP. Go for 1.5. The two are going to be merged together at a later date anyways, and every module you buy carries over to that version too, so no sweat.

Well then. No MiG-29, full fidelity. I guess we just have to wait and see what the future holds. I just hope such information was posted on the english forum as well. Good thing we have people translating, though. Thank you for the info Silver_Dragon.

Hello and welcome to DCS. Currently DCS is going through major updates (albeit slowly). The Steam version currently hosts the 1.5 version asyou know. You can play DCS through either Steam or as a standalone installation. The perks of the standalone version is you have two options, 1.5. or 2.0. Both of these will eventually be merged into one version (2.5) but there is no date for the merge yet. The 2.0 version itself is free, but requires the NTTR map, so a purchase is required to play 2.0. As said, bot the Caucasus map on 1.5, and the NTTR will be available to play from a single installation later, though the Caucasus map will remain the only free to play map. As for the FC3. The question is, do you enjoy the Su25T gameplay? If you want a more complex simulation, then you might want to consider the other available aircrafts, such as the A-10C. If you just want more of the complexity level you have with the Su-25T, then the FC3 provides a lot of flyables with a decent price. FC3 includes the Su-25A model, A-10A (arguably the easiest aircraft in the whole sim), F-15C, MiG-29A/G and S, Su-27 and Su-33 (a carrier capable aircraft). People often just come to these threads and almost demand you to go for the A-10C, but it largely depends on how you feel about the whole ordeal in the first place. I hope this helps, and was not too complex of an explanation. EDIT: Almost forgot. The standalone DCS products can be bought from their website. Also, if you ever want to transition to standalone, that can be done by transferring the Steam-bought keys to standalone. You CANNOT do this the other way around. Also the free 1.5 version standalone is available from the same website. Kind regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I do believe it is a matter of ED and the third parties. ED ultimately has the hammer on what 3rd parties are allowed to create on the platform. This is ofcourse if a particular aircraft is even allowed by licence owners in the first place. Then it is up to ED or the 3rd party developer to decide when to publish info on any given project. Taking all considerations into account that I can think of, a working list provided by ED would be handy, but it would not turn out good. People commenting would go all nerd over announcements that are in far too early a stage, and when a particular project gets cancelled the rageing starts. Perhaps it is for the better to keep us in the shadow..? Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Smooth :D

That seems reasonable, and fair points altogether.

I'm propably not most people, but I feel that as this is supposed to be a simulation (albeit COMBAT simulator, not necessarily systems-simulator) me sitting in a cockpit of a virtual fully modelled aircraft, I would be rather frustrated and disappointed if I could not operate the aircraft from within the cockpit. If a particular system is simulated and it's controls available, I see no reason not to have it's cockpit controls modelled. Admittedly a good HOTAS's purpose is to reduce the time required to spend "hands off" especially during combat, but I like to use all other systems with their supposed controls instead of binding everithing possible to HOTAS. The only systems that I prefer to have on my HOTAS apart from weapons and sensors, are gear, flaps and airbrake - you can really mess up a rough weather ILS if you struggle in using the in cockpit flaps and gear controls, which is especially true in aircraft whose control buttons/switches are small in size. But that's just me. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

An easier lobby/briefing room to go through the mission would indeed be a great addition. ATM we have to deal with a briefing box that barely takes up 20% of the screen and then make sure all players are ready before an unpause... You could also tie in functionality like the ability to take any picture/document briefed in here and insert it to the virtual kneeboard on the fly as part of mission specific pages. +1 Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

You do know that you can just disregard these if they annoy you...

In all honesty we ARE in Leatherneck Simulations' subforum... so why wouldn't we concentrate on that. It is true these threads pop up like mushrooms in the rain... So which aircraft would be the best project specifically in LNS' hands and why?

Yep, this topic is currently ongoing on another thread, but beibg specific to Leatherneck Simulations, after the work they've done with the Fishbed, I hold up my hopes for them specifically to do the next Soviet aircraft. They have the skill and expertice needed for sure.

That would be brilliant. It might be quite interresting as well.

I bet there are two kinds of people. Those who find the simpler modelling, but a larger host of aircraft more appealing, and then thise who would like to concentrate on a few aircraft that are fully modelled. From multiplayer standpoint would argue that even a package of soviet aircraft modeled to FC3 standards woukd spice up the gameplay. Such a package would make all those DCS-level aircrafts' players' life more interesting by having real players control aircraft that must now be controlled by AI. I feel it is rather simple to dissmiss additional FC3-level aircraft by those who only do only fly the fully modelled aircraft. I mean I much rather fight against a real player in his/her Foxbat, than an AI. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

As I just said, it is not about which aircraft would be effective against said western fighters. It is about there not being enought eastern fighters at all, effective or otherwise. I meant it more as a rethorical question than an actual "which would be the optimal choice" kind of question. But I do agree, I'd love to see all of those aircraft. Then we could have a proper cold war Soviet fleet.

Entitled or not, reasonable or not people will complain. About the short discussion on the sim being "balanced"... I don't think people mean balance in terms of each party having equivalent forces, weapons nor performance. I believe people talk of the lack of "balance" as in "there is no aircraft for the OPFOR at all. Think about it this way: If we were to remove the Su-27/33 from DCS completely. Apart from the MiG-29, what do you use against F-15, F-18, F-14, F-5, Viggen, Typhoon and Mirage? We do need more eastern aircraft, not for the sake of "BLUEFOR is OP, nerf!", but for the sake of there being gameplay in the first place. And YES I do know you can always put any fighter against any other, but western fighters have been designed to fight eastern fighters. And we ARE talking about a simulator here. Not Ace Combat. As for who should do and what, what might be in the works behind the curtains... I do not know. I would of course hope for all kinds of full fledged eastern modules, but even just FC3 level simulation on a couple of other Russian aircraft would bring a lot of fresh air with them. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I think I talked about this in another thread, and I totally agree. With the METAR I wish we would also have requencies to get that info in flight, as per real aviation. I bet we, and ED know the weather system needs an overhaul.

Now I bet some of you might laugh at me, and I fully understand that it would be a MASSIVE undertaking, but... Why don't we stop pointless arguing, since this seems to be turning into a yelling contest, and create a mod for MiG-29A with the info that is available? I mean a bunch of you here say it would be possible and feasible and all info is available... so why not make it yourselves? There are a couple of modding groups working on other aircraft for DCS. And even if it would never see the light of day, I bet everyone involved would really understand how much work ED and other developers have to put in their modules to get them to work... Making a non-commercial mod doesn't require approval from the licence holder, right? It is just a fan creation. With respect, MikeMikeJuliet

I second this. When flying FC3 aircraft, I'd rather have the radios on the bottom of the screen where they take up least useful space, than on the side where they cut away some of my external view.

Welcome! There's never too many flightsimmers. A little word. Some of the Su-25T tutorials are bugged for some players. Emphasis on some. So if you encounter problems in the tutorials, it might be, that it is just broken, not necessarily that you are doing something wrong. Otherwise the Su-25T tutorials give you a good head start to get you going. I've said it before to a couple of others, I would be glad to keep you company and toss in some advice as you progress, but my schedules are what they are, and for some strange reason I can't host a server, which makes co-op practice difficult. Though, if you are interested otherwise, I, and a bunch of others are here to help. So feel free to contact if you are stuck. Whether this helped or not, still: Welcome to DCS. I hope you find a pleasant, if somewhat challenging stay ;) Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I tried to find where it was last posted, but I do remember it being stated as WIP when ED was close to releasing the first versions of 1.5. and 2.0 I'm in the understanding that dedicated servers will be part of the 2.5. release at some point. It has been a couple of months since this was last discussed by Wags if I'm not mistaken. So yea, it's coming. We just have no real timetable for that. I bet ED doesn't want to release a dedicated server before the current versions have been merged together, since that would mean creating two separate server softwares. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I started thinking about the Mirage encryption key, and I wonder, could it be changed while the program is running, Ciribob? I mean, by building the overlay so, that it could be changed without touching the .luas directly? The less the end user needs to stick his/her hands on any .lua or skript file, the better. It could be filtered so, that the aircraft would need to be stationary (i.e. on the ground), with no damage, engine off and electrics off... That way no-one could just go and change it airborne, if that's what you couldn't do in the real thing, but still allow you to change it without the need to restart programs and edit files. Just an idea.

Yess! Works like a charm. Thanks Ciribob!

Hey Ciribob! First off. Excellent work. This is exactly what we need. Secondly, I've got a little problem. I'm using Thrustmasters t.a.r.g.e.t software for most of my mapping for added functionality to my Warthog stick and throttle. I am able to output DX-buttons via the skript and DCS itself recognises the inputs (from the virtual input device, since t.a.r.g.e.t combines both the controllers virtually...). The problem is, SimpleRadio Standalone does not recognize these inputs... I tested, and if I run SRS with no skripts for my controllers, it recognises buttons with no issue. Could it just be that SRS doesn't for some reason understand virtual controllers? Regards, MikeMikeJuliet