RedTiger

The size is a common complaint, however I have used the Fighterstick at un-F-16 levels of height above the floor and I didn't have any problems. I don't think the "correct" height would make you grip it from above. It would be more like a comfortable position with your arm at hip level (again, think about the F-16). Barring that, have you ever seen those enormous blocks with buttons some helicopters have on their collective? You have to think about it like that. You're not supposed to fly around with your thumb up on the pickle button all the time. My thumb is usually down around my fingers where you would expect it to be if you made a fist. As for having too many buttons, I wish they'd get rid a of a few and put in some sliders or twist knobs. I need all those buttons as of now due to a lack of those.

This is a good point. Ground unit AI seems to always be the weakest link of a flight sim when they should probably be developed to the same degree as aircraft.

Comparing real-life spotting ability with what you see in game, either way you slant it, is a bad idea. If BS handles objects like LOMAC did, there are some inherent problems already in the sim. Objects in LOMAC on higher settings tend to become nearly invisible at even moderate ranges because the engine is attempting to render them in full detail instead of scaling them down to just a black blob place holder object. Aircraft even "close", close enough that an actual fighter pilot would be expected to see them (under 4nm) appear to be a few translucent pixels. Spotting these aircraft is very, very difficult. It isn't so hard when you see them flying around in a somewhat parallel way, where their movement is very apparent. Its when they're flying right at you and not moving very much relative to you that I find difficult. Unfortunately this usually happens when they're shooting at you. Depth perception on a monitor sucks. It sucks really, really bad. If I get killed by something I didn't see, its usually in the cases where depth perception is needed to see it. I purposely run LOMAC on a low LOD setting (in other words, the setting that determines how far out objects are rendered vs. how far out they appear to be black blobs) to compensate for this. It makes air to ground too easy since vehicles stand out from far away, but it makes air to air more believable to me. I haven't played too much with the BS config settings, does it have a LOD setting like this?

Wow, I had the exact opposite feeling when I first opened the boxes, Shrubbo. It felt like I had a professional piece of hardware in my hands rather than cheap junk made for video games. They look like equipment that would be at home on heavy-duty machinery. In fact, CH makes controls for industrial-grade machines: http://www.chproducts.com/oem/index.asp They do not "look like crap" unless you describe the yoke you'd find on an actual Cessna Citation or the HOTAS you'd find in an F-16 or F-15 as looking like crap. They're not made to look like anything, they are made to do a job and do it very well.

This makes me wonder...what does the targeting sight of a Stinger look like? Or any shoulder-fired heat seeker? As simulated in most flight sims, you can uncage an Aim-9 and pretty easily tell if its actually tracking the aircraft or a flare. Seeing as how these heaters are probably always uncaged, can you tell if its tracking a flare? Maybe it wouldn't be indecision from the AI but rather not being able to track the aircraft while its still in parameters. ^^^^ That DOES sound cool, doesn't it? :D

There was a wee bit of side discussion about how random the DCS campaign is, but yes, the main discussion is about an on-going dynamic campaign for multiplayer. However, if someone's asking about a 3rd-party DC, I don't see how my thoughts aren't on topic.

Here's a thought: It would be interesting to hear from someone who has flown the campaigns in BS extensively (in other words, multiple times). Perhaps a beta tester? To what degree exactly is the campaign random? Are there enough combination of triggers, units, and missions to create enough permutations to truly seem random? My assumption is that a person flying something like a flight sim campaign is only going to be able to perceive something as "random" to a certain degree and then every bit of randomness added on top of this is basically a waste since it won't be recognized. What's "inside the bubble"? What is outside the bubble? Should we care what is outside the bubble? From a realism stand point, tactically, should we realistically be venturing outside the bubble? If not, can you still criticize the campaign if nothing exists outside the bubble because you decided to play Dora the Explorer and find your way out of it? Another way of putting this is to wrap your minds around this; if an F-16 shoots an AMRAAM over the Korean DMZ and no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise? ;)

Hey, in the 60 seconds of opening footage, what aircraft are you flying? It looks like a Hornet, is it the acceleration pack one?

Same here. :(

The general consensus is as follows (last time I heard): IL2: multiplayer, massive number of aircraft to fly Battle of Britain II: campaign and AI If I may comment here with my knowledge but lack of first hand experience, the AI in BoB II is supposed to be very, very convincing. Much of their development time was put into making the AI good. It isn't simply "difficult", its actually realistic. On lower settings it makes mistakes and flies like a timid rookie. On high difficulties, it flies very aggressively. It has real-world limitations on situational awareness. In other words, you can sneak up on them and bounce them out of the sun since they are blinded by it. The reason why they put so much time in it is probably because the campaign, much like Falcon, is considered the "main event" of the sim. There can quite literally be hundreds of AI aircraft in the air on a given mission. This is mainly just my guess, but I think with that type of scope they wanted to have very realistic AI to allow you to employ realistic tactics. All that would be ruined if the AI had super-human senses.

I think the 1.12b patch, or whatever the Vista one is called, is specifically for Starforce. Meaning Starforce needs an update to recognize Vista. If I'm right, I'm not surprised it doesn't work with Windows 7. I'm surprised the fix you found worked, I would assume you'd just be totally screwed. :(

Rhen, your highfalutin knowledge astounds me. Bravo, sir.

We should help ED and seriously examine this. Maybe if we can accomplish something, we can get the "ED Testor's Team" thing attached to our names. Ok, first step, you can download Tacview here: http://lomac.strasoftware.com/tacview-download-en.php Now lets all go shoot some missiles and record what we see. After that we should think it over a bit. Does a LOMAC missile has problems knowing where it is, where it isn't, where it was, where it wasn't, where it should be, or where it shouldn't be? Or perhaps all of these? We should all report back here with our observations by Friday.

Didn't you and I have a long discussion about Falcon 4, Teapot? For having zero respect for US service people, you sure do enjoy playing as one in that flight sim you like so much. :noexpression: Oh the irony. I once knew a USMC Major that couldn't bring himself to play the Germans in WWII war games or the Russians in modern day war games. He said it was "against his religion". I guess you don't share that difficulty?

Yes, you're right, the Hornet's not really on any particular wishlist. I can tell you from now experiencing 2 study sims worth of aircraft that don't really grab me by the balls, I'm afraid this one is going to gather dust since there's no combat involved. I guess I'll wait for the FSX version if I do get it. I wonder what the pro version will have.

What would be really, really, REALLY interesting is if during air to air missions online, real-life control limitations are enforced. Guess what that means? No HOTAS for the MiG-29 and Su-27. Or, you get a "HOTAS", but not in the same regard as the F-16 and F-15. Wanna schlemm? You gotta flick the switch on the dash board, aka keyboard. ;)

Other than any argument of "buy it, its awesome!!!", if you did not already have a copy of any MS FS, would you all recommend waiting for the FSX version or should I try the FS9 one?

If you just want a HOTAS because, frankly, you need one = x52 (regular version. The x52 pro is not worth the extra money, IMO. This is coming from someone who owns one). If you know that sims are going to be your new favourite hobby for years to come = CH products.

Oh yeah, I'm aware of the VSR Superbug. I actually stopped a couple places on the way home from work one day in hopes of snagging a cheap copy of FS9 so I could give that one a try. Unfortunately, its not on the retail shelves in my area anymore and I didn't feel like picking up a copy online at the time. If I want to get it, I'll have to wait for the FSX version. I know you can shoot missiles and drop bombs, but still isn't the same.

Here we are, I found it. Post #3: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=29396 I'm not sure what EvilBivol's "credentials" are, if you want to call them that, but he did run his own blog on this stuff and he seems to be knowledgable. :)

EvilBivol-1 provided some good commentary on the state of Russian arms developement and productions a while back. This was some months ago, so it will take time I do not have to dig it up. The take-away from it was that the concept of "production" in Russia is not the same as it is in the West. They do not have the capabilities to produce sophisticated hardware in great quantity. You'd be hard pressed to call two squadrons of a fighter thats on par with an F-15C as "parity".

They supposedly have plans to buy a couple squadron's worth of them.

All that matters is if people pay it, my friend. ;) If people happily pay for them and are satisfied with them, they're obviously worth it. Though every time I think I'm going to buy FSX so I can get some of the addons, I wonder how fun they'll be if all I can do is fly. I guess some people just enjoy the switchology and idea of flying a fighter jet.

You're missing the point, I think, but its cool. If I had to guess what child would become the future pilot, the one who sits at his computer playing DCS/Falcon all day vs. the one who flies his toy airplane around the room annoying the heck out of his parents, I'd guess the latter. ;)

Funny you mention arcade. My first exposure to air combat was playing Afterburner at the arcade in the local mall. My next bit of exposure was probably the movie Top Gun. Interesting how this eventually developed into flying realistic simulations, no? You could make one tiny little further jump in logic and see how the kid with the 20/20 vision waiting in line behind me grew up to become an actual fighter pilot. :) Kinda like how Star Trek inspired some to become astronomers. Funny how fiction often gives more inspiration because it easily captures the imagination! Today's H.A.W.X. player = tomorrow's F-22C pilot. :D