Burning Bridges

From what I understand the magic word is "autogen". The global maps in typical flight simulators is basically a 3d terrain model with some landuse layers from which the computer generates buildings, forest etc. That means small footprint but after a while things look odd and repeat themselves. Interestingly, true professional photorealistic scenery, which model the exact features have roughly the same size as DCS (eg TrueEarth UK South) the same footprint on disk (+- 50 of Gigabyte), the same price (+- 50$) so there is not much difference. Those maps are big and cannot take on more than a few 100kms across. I think what DCS could use in this regard is exactly the same: a global autogen scenery with coarse resolution that is used when we fly outside the map area. Right now the transition from best terrain model in the world to "less features than Mars" is a bummer. But I don't think this is planned because it would be yet another major task that could take years.

LOL there is even a post at the end by me asking for a downloadlink that was never followed up on :D but tbh ChSubZeros skins is perfect

Thanks a lot, looks so much nicer now!

I have never seen a question of this type answered with any other than "maybe; but only some time after the product is finished" From what I see this module is a lot of work and extremely ambitious. So it's also almost obvious that LN would keep this exclusive to their expensive module for a while, until the investment has paid off. On the other hand it also sounds like an experiment and if it succeeds, in the future there could be more aircraft with it - either Jester AI or someting similar or even better. We should wait and see how it turns out if it worls great on the F-14 then why not fly the F-14 for a while.

Interceptors are an area where decision makers occasionally go overboard. Think of what the Germans did with the Me-163. The first airplane that could break the sound barrier but it had only fuel for a few minutes of powered flight, went up vertically to the bombers overhead and was made from wood. A british design - I believe it was the Saunders Roe SR 53 - had a mixed rocket/jet propulsion and would perhaps be much more interesting from a technical point of view. This could have been the standard interceptor of NATO forces, but as it went the Americans "persuaded" German defence minister Strauss the contract went to the Starfighter and the British design was abandoned.

would it actually be possible to get the old feature back where it could be disabled in the Special Options tab? I fly only training with the L-39C and must load it in mission editor and disable it for every flight manually.

Thanks a lot, because this currently inhibits my time with the MiG 29 greatly. The only workaround for me was indeed to take trim from the usual mapping and instead create a new one with a modifier key. It also helps to have the key for reset "trim" ready.

We should at least make a interceptor / nightfighter campaign. People on the internet are already making jokes about DCS because of this. Normandy Map + assets + 109 = 100$ but no missions because it's a -K

Just to chime in, I find trim is indeed too sensitive (roll) Now matter how I try I can not get it right with my stick, or only for the briefest moments.

That "overexposure" is the new graphics engine which uses very modern shaders. In fact I know exactly what you are talking about and it can indeed make some things look worse, especially the cockpits. And it takes time to get used to. But perhaps with time you will realize that it also creates some of the best lighting in a computer game you can get right now. Fly over Nevada on a sunny day and you should see there is a difference like "night and day". The new graphics engine has very natural lighting (I would go almost as far as my mood goes up a little when I fly in sunshine). The old looked ok but when you compare them it's like you see through a sepia filter, or as if there was a partial solar eclipse. That's how bad computer graphics have been until the advent of natural light shaders (IF they work, shaders in most games don't do any good but that's yet another topic) Light makes everything brighter so you can't have only the benefits, but while I consider the new graphics took also some steps back in general it is much better and I would never go back. I hope that helps you somewhat in making your peace with the new look of DCS.

according to US sources on captured plane: 2.2g with tanks, 4.5g without

As far as I understand it's the other way around, the speed necessitated the plane to be weak. In order to attain Mach 3 they needed to make the plane as light as possible and they could also not build from titanium. So they had to use a shortcut which was to make it only as strong as necessary, i.e. to take off, accelerate to Mach 3, shoot down a plane and land.

The placement of units seems to be often wrong on the new Caucasus map where topography has changed. I could imagine that the frame drops are caused when dozens of units are colliding with water, exploding etc at the same time, as I see many smoke columns at the beginning of missions. But author already stated in the briefest terms that he does not investigate the problems so I would delete the missions, they no longer work.

There was a lot of Western hysteria about the MiG 25, but once such a plane had defected it turned out to be mostly hype. You can google for a youtube documentary "Wings of the Red Star, Mig 25", it explains very well how the Mig-25 was designed only to catch Mach-3 bombers like the Valkyrie (the Russians were also prone to hype). It's capabilites as a fighter were null.

Afaik the MiG-25 had a structural limit of just 5g. I can already envision the outrage if their superplane flies apart as soon as people pull the stick. And I'm not saying that it would be impossible to fly but boring, more like an airliner.

I know but you would see them from directly behind I guess

I expect when the Fw190 A comes out I will be a happy camper, simply because this has been a lifelong dream since I built 1/32 Hasegawa kits. Possibly the P-47 will be on my shopping list too, depending on wether it's easier to fly than other WW2 planes or not. With those planes there is already lot to do. If I had to name my absolute dream it would be a Nightfighter. Ideally this would be Bf110G - highly interesting from the technical point (they had RADAR !!) but very complex too. A Mosquito or Me 262 Nightfighter would also seem possible and perhaps more realistic, given the current work on the planeset. Although the 262 was the 2 seater so a completely different plane, it's probably not gonna happen. Which leaves the Mosquito, yes I can see that will be a very good and popular plane to fly. But a man can dream right. A landing in the very early morning hours with the exhaust and the inside of the cabin faintly glowing, and a shot down flying fortress somewhere ...

Let me add my 2c From those planes I have been able to fly the Spitfire and 109 are really nice looking but hard to fly, the Mustang is easy to fly but ugly. The Spitfire and 109 are very hard on takeoff and land and German planes (Bf 109) are all hard to enjoy because they have no trim and it's the aircraft that flies you rather than the other way around. Mustang is surprisingly easy but lacks in graphical fidelity, there is a free graphical update announced but as it is now it is even worse than Flamig Cliffs planes. This is not much of an issue I personally get more enjoyment from flying the Bf109 in Nevada than the flat and repetitive Normandy.

^ I'd take that as "NO" :smilewink:

Here a a comparison this is how it looks now :(

The L-39 cockpit has been broken for quite some time. I reported this a long time ago but unfortunately no one took notice. I still have those some screenshots how it used to look before it, the instruments dials were crisp and clear and now its a pixelated mess. [EDIT: Screenshots from ca Oct 2017] I can't even fly with the L-30 anymore because when I come from other planes where the cockpit has been steadily improving it's so rough.

I absolutely like it, did you release it? Such a camouflage soviet scheme is something that is currently missing.

Really nice, I have flown with it many times.

Personally, I would give them a pass on this one. Afaik the 109 was one the planes begun during the Shevchenko disaster and finished by ED to the best of their ability but let's be honest the external models are really not that great (especially 190D). The Spitfire cockpit and model has already left a much better impression on me which I connect with being developed by ED and I will personally wait until more WW2 planes of this generation arrive. I expect the 190A to be the new milestone. Also a big update to the existing planes is currently done so no one can say that the existing users are left behind.

The metal looks so nice, I feel like I can reach out and stroke it ;D