Feuerfalke

Originally TM wanted to release replaceable sticks for the Cougar as well. That was the main reason for the exchangeable stick. Why they made it compatible with the old stick is probably because they safe development cost. They can use the same connectors and possibly some other parts as well (hat mechanics, electronics). They were quite good in the Cougar, so why drop it and come up with something new that might have problems? I also doubt they will make a FFB variant. That increases cost a lot, can cause a lot of possible mechanical and electronic/software problems and it increases the size of the base. But IMHO the later alone would simply crush a major advantage of the current design, as the baseplate and the slim case fit very well on a seat. For pitbuilders this offers a lot of possibilities. Besides that, FFB is mostly used for WW1- and WW2-Flightsims, to my observations FFB-Joysticks in modern warfare simulations are a rare sight.

Agreed on the ingame briefing, Bucic. I'd go for at least one of the following alternatives, preferably both: 1. Possibility to print the briefing for terms of realism (e.g. with frequencies for flight, base/tower and divert airfields) 2. Possibility to show ingame (A simulation of the kneepad, with a (move and scaleable) map, preferably with options to draw or write on it and a second page with the briefing with frequencies, callsigns, etc. IIRC these points are already noted in the features wishlist-thread.

Worse than that: Don't expect 90% of the players on a server to actually read them, no matter how good or important they are... But that conclusion is true for all aspects discussed here: It's not the realism or simulated events that make the game, not the graphics, FM or DM, it's the players and how they either play this game or fly in this simulation. That's what makes the biggest difference, IMHO.

The detachable stick won't lower the cost notably as most of the hardware is in the base of the stick - at least that's how it was in the Cougar and if Sticks are really interchangeable with the Warthog-HOTAS, that won't change. Maybe they will add a FFB-Stickbasis complete with a new stick instead, like an Apache- or F/A-18 Replica? :happy:

Sad but true. :(

No. For several reasons. 1. PhysX is mostly used for optical effects. Not only because it's layed out for this kind of calculations, but also because you can't make e.g. a simulation based on a piece of hardware only a fraction of endusers has access to. 2. PhysX has been overtaken by multicore-processors and gfx-chips. When PhysX was released the advantage was pretty obvious: Force it on and you had a tremendous drop in FPS. With modern graphics cards, no matter if it's ATI or nVidia, as well as modern multicore CPUs in cooperation with Win7/Vista, there performance drop is very minimal. 3. Reading 2. you probably wondered, "hey, how can I enable PhysX with ATI?". There are two ways: Older games usually had a variable in some setup-file (Like GhostReconMWF), which you could simply edit manually, for newer games, nVidia supported ATI (!) in creating a patch that allows to use PhysX on ATI. It's not an "official" patch, though. nVidia helps ATI? No not really. They just see that it's not worth it and use the knowledge and theory of PhysX for things like CUDA and newer technologies to use the raw computing power of modern GFX-chips to assist the CPU. Long story short: As EtherealN already posted, multicore-processors, modern OS and technologies to make the GFX-chips aid the CPU will be much more important and flexible for future releases. (BTW, I'd personally go for an ATI if I had to buy a new graphics card now.)

:megalol: Classic!

ZQuickSilverZ, I think the main problem is the vocabulary. Hover or staying in close proximity, wingman or teamwork, battlefield or enemy territory, battlefield or engagement area, low and slow from a helo vs low and slow from a jet, tactics in real-life vs tactics ingame, threat for aircraft or enemy units, asymetric warfare scenarios and WW3 scenarios, etc. So, in general, you are probably right. In general everybody is somehow. You're probably even right with what you mean. But your descriptions and generalizations from those, sorry, IMHO that's a different story.

I'm sorry if I didn't get your initial point, but it seems I'm not the only one. One reason might be, that your arguments are based on reality, but referring to a game and that you have a strange view on tactics and military mixed branches operations. No need to. Mostly I am the wingman and I enjoy flying with people who know how to utilize teamtactics, brevity codes and situational awareness. Be it WW1, WW2 or modern air combat. The principle is the same and it goes FAR beyond just watching each others back. Ahem... To be honest, I think that you mix up a lot of things, settings, reality and game. An example: What is a battlefield for you? An area where enemy and allied forces are engaged? Then I'd got to tell you, that your statement is definitely not a true statement. In asymetric battles like the current in Iraq or Afghanistan, both helo and jets fly very well directly above the engagement areas. If you have a Fulda-Gap-Scenario in mind, neither will overfly the combat area as a general rule. Both, helo and jet will use their standoff-weapons until AA- and CAP capability of the enemy has been reduced. Besides that, your idea of tactical communications is pretty limited to the game as it currently is modeled and entirely based on basic TS. Good missions can do a lot more, though. As in real life, ground-forces can assign missions to you, call for support, lase or mark them with smoke, same is for AI and player CAS-aircraft, which will work together with you on eliminating the targets. (Possible in F4AF as well). Who knows, they might even share laser-designated targets in FC2/BS-server? And what did you learn to program new target-points and way-points for in the Ka-50? Long story short: To state that a jet and a helo are no wingmen is non-sense, they never are, but to say they can't work together is just ignorant. In real life they do for decades, in a simulation that isn't a total failure, it should work as well - and it does, depending on the people flying, of course. A lone gunzo-dogfighter and a lone rotorhead probably don't mix.

That's pretty easy indeed: Make a software update when Warthog is released and include the profile. :D Non of us mortals has any use for a DCS:Warthog-Profile now, anyway ;)

If you use Teamspeak you can set up the device you want-usually one, but AFAIK you can run USB-soundsystems in parallel to built-in sound. So for Teamspeak/Ventrilo this is most likely no problem. Now, for one engine splitting up the sound on two devices for separate ingame communications is a whole different question.

No he doesn't. You say it only works for helos and he disagrees with that quite obvious. Well, actually watching each others back is just a minimal fraction of what a wingman does. The funny thing about this is, though, that the situation you described is something nice to do in the game, but that's no real helo tactics for several reasons. Hover itself is dangerous, as sobek pointed out. You usually only do that for "longer times" when you are attacking e.g. with a pop-up maneuver. But exactly in this situation the helos are usually separated to attack from different angles and even more important: Do increase survivability. Because in real life, if you have been spotted, you will be engaged by either mobile AA, Airborne threats or Arty. And if you and your wingman are close together, your a much easier target. Don't let yourself be deceived by the lack of aggressiveness and intelligence of groundunits in BS. In a plane, however, teamwork decides over victory and defeat since WW1. Well, here you forget a very simple thing: A jet might be faster, but he also flies a lot higher. So if there is a whole batallion hiding behind a hill, you'll see it, when you fly over it. The aircraft above might see it from ~40nm with an AN/AAQ-33 under good conditions and of course from a much better angle. (But of course a jet is rarely a wingman for a helo... ;) ) You really should try other simulations like Falcon, for example. It would be a real eye opener for you in terms of tactical awareness, sharing own positions and targets, detection and lock ranges, wingman tactics against air- and ground-threats. ;)

I'm not as confident as you are, that it will be released in late May, but I most surely will get one - whenever it will be released ;)

:music_whistling: :D

Well, the most dramatic problem with the Cougar was the weardown of the potentiometers. With HALL-Sensors, at least it won't suffer from that problem.

No it hasn't. It has tanks moving on the ground, even soldiers running around, but that doesn't make it an infantry simulation. Hell, it even hasn't collideable vegetation :D

IMHO this is where the basic misconception is. In order to share "simple data", as it was put before, you really have to make a single engine that uses "real-world-physics" to be able to simulate all aspects of the world, share and interpret all information. Simple, isn't it? But what formula do you use to simulate real-world-physics? Sorry to be blunt, but there is no such simple formula. You have to simulate each single aspect of each single branch of the game and bring that together into one unified engine. So this engine has to cover it all, from how to treat wounds to how to burn through ECM, from moving grass when soldiers pass through it, to atmospheric turbulences, from a handheld compass to radio-navigation, from a lost tank-track to the hydraulics failure on the airplane. Wow, that's gotta be one heck of a simulation. On a personal sidenote: Wouldn't such a simulator be the non-plus-ultra for the military? They have the money, they have the need, why do you think it is still impossible for them to create something similar that worth the description "simulation"?

I think he made it pretty clear that he disagrees with your statement: And I fully agree with him that this statement is wrong as wrong can be. Flying in wings, groups and squadrons was common practice a LONG time before helos were even invented.

Well, honestly, comparing combat in a BlackShark versus combat in an A-10C is more like comparing Hide and Seek against professional soccer or football. Of course everybody has his favorites.

It CAN be a win-win-situation in terms of a success, but it doesn't need to. Remember, there are a lot more players playing Battlefield and Modern Warfare. Neither is a military simulation that deserves the name. The market for flightsimulations is not large either, not daring to mention naval simulations. But an enterprise like the ultimate battlefield simulator is a VERY daunting task and you have to calculate that it will be a success. But that's not that easy considering this market is rather a niche in the gaming business. On the other hand, if you look at Storm of War, they are at least offering the possibility to add human controlled ground vehicles, possibly even infantry combat. But of course it's still a flightsim, so don't expect too much of that either.

Well, it's not wrong to have dreams. But it get's ugly when you feel RL or company XY sux because it doesn't live up to those dreams. That's the danger with these expectations. To keep it in the flightsim-language: No matter how high you fly, remember you will get back to earth. How is up to you.

:wub::wub::wub: (Yes, I know it's not really a beautiful plane, but... I just love it ;) )

The funny thing is, the same discussion is going on on all simulation forums from time to time. And on the IL2 Banana-forums a guy recently summed up the same idea into just a few needed facts: He asked for a simulation with unlimited level of detail, unlimited realism, unlimited number of vehicles and aircraft and an unlimited world. I answered him, that this wouldn't be a problem: You just need an unlimited amount of refunds, an unlimited development time and unlimited PC power. Pitty nothing in the real world is unlimited, so you have to make compromises. As I posted before: there is no such thing as an Eierlegende Wollmilchsau, sorry. Still a nice dream, no doubt. Maybe someday all software-developers will unite, because they realize what huge marketing success such a simulation would be. Chances are, though, they'd produce Sim4 together, as you can make more money from it. :(

Yes, yes, the good old Eierlegende Wollmilchsau. (Egg laying woolpigcow) :shifty:

Exactly. IMHO many people are now testing the changes in FC2, but once you really can play BS and FC2 on one server, player-numbers will most likely rise dramatically.