Mars Exulte

Weapons development is no longer handled by individual devs due to previous issues with duplication and variable performance. All weapons are centrally developed/approved by ED, unless something has changed. Last time ED mentioned napalm it was on the ''to-do'' list eventually. To be fair, in DCS, especially with the wonky damage models, the usefulness of an incendiary is... questionable. Probably make neat explosions, though.

Since when did they give a damn about that? The sky full of Horton 229s I always dealt with implies ''production count'' was not an issue before :p

Ah yeah, it was everything. Being first PC they literally needed everything, so fair point. 3440x1440 all settings maxed except for MSAA (2x only) and supersampling, which I don't use. In DCS In lighter scenarios about 60fps, in heavier scenarios 40s, and yes that is ''still playing at max settings''. 100+fps is nice but necessary. In Elden Ring about 50. In virtually everything else considerably higher. It's a midrange system, and your RAM was really outdated. I don't really know where Xeons fit in on the powerscale tbh, other than they are server side hardware which is basically meaningless prior to the MT update we just got (DCS was all about single core speed prior) I had I-7-6700k watercooled to about 4.6-4.7ghz, 32GB of DDR4 3200mhz, NVMe dedicated to DCS (not much different than the previous SSD, tbh) a watercooled 1080ti 11gb oc'd to 2ghz. No, I would not expect they would be in DCS anyway. It's unusually heavy compared to most games, though. I phased my old system out prior to MT update. I'm kinda curious how it would handle now with the bottleneck lifted.

T-45 Goshawk, no question. It has no weapons, but best for overall learning.

We can do the math, and it is what it is. Electronics have never been cheaper than they are now, even allowing for Nvidia screwing everyone hardcore. Our first PC back in 89/90 (I couldn't read yet, and that was one of incentives for me to learn) was a 386 that cost $3,000 or $4,000 (I don't remember which). I just built a full scale high end DCS VR machine for $2,000 and change. We don't even have to consider ''inflation'' the raw numbers themselves are lower. When you factor in inflation, it just gets even more exaggerated. Yeah, there was less variety in machines and software but tech was always advancing and every few years your old machine wouldn't run the new games anymore. So yeah, there was still a high and a low end. If anything the rate of technological advancement was so much higher your machine's lifespan was considerably lower. My last machine lasted about 6 years before I got rid of it (I-7-6700k and 1080ti), it was STILL playing everything at Max settings, it just wasn't high end VR suited so I easily could have got several more years out of it. In between 1990 and 1995 your machine would be completely useless for anything but legacy software and running a printer, and you'd have to upgrade the entire mess again because technology had already tripled or quadrupled by then in capability. Now we're quibbling over 20-30% every 2-3 years MAYBE, and it takes 5-8 years to actually double, ever slowing down. So not only were the individual components considerably more expensive, but their life expectancy was much lower.

I really don't care about the request one way or another, but just as a tip to OP and others... you should not be looking at that anyway. How many specific G you're pulling is rarely relevant, I really can't think of any time in two decades+ of simming that I ever paid attention to that, you're interested more in speed. If you're trying to sustain max turn, you're interested in speed and adjusting your pull on whether speed is going up or down NOT G. If you're going for max pull in general, then you're going for a short term move dumping energy and again the Max g you actually achieve is irrelevant, you either got on target or you didn't. It's like the AoA indicator. It's there. You do not ever look at it. Think of these almost as diagnostic tools for testing purposes, not as something you realistically refer to during combat. While you're staring at these tertiary diagnostic meters trying to figure out if you're ''maxing G'' your opponent is flying his plane. -edit For combat purposes, the buffet and gray/black out is all the visual feedback you need. You're either disrupting airflow or not and you're either blacking out or not. The EXACT NUMBER at any given moment at these points is completely irrelevant.

AI in a simulated environment is not the same as AI in the wild. It's entirely possible to make an AI that is for practical purposes unbeatable in what is still effectively a video game. Thus far, the ''AI fighter pilots'' I've seen, like that one a year or so ago with the bs ''hitscan'' mechanics, was very simplistic.

How exactly do you think sequels are usually made? They do not start from scratch everytime, even if they change engines, because that's a waste of time and money. The only difference between DCS and others is the ''sequels'' are released directly as a patch, allowing all your purchases to carry over. Probably. Probably. That is effectively what is gradually happening. The reason multithreading support took so long is it required a complete rewrite of the executable. The reason Vulcan is taking so long is it's a similar major rewrite of the graphics side. It's like replacing the engine in a car for more power, you can't just drop a V8 into a Volkswagen without also redoing the frame, drivetrain, etc etc. So, these big changes DO involve substantial rewrites. Putting the game in a new box and renaming it won't fundamentally change how it all works. And throwing it in the trash and starting over would simply kill.the company, even if it didn't it would be 5-10 years before you saw anything. I'm a huge critic of the way they do their stuff around here these days. Their issue is one of priorities and almost definitely their corporate culture. It's not the engine or resources, and burning everything down won't solve anything.

Well, technically the satmap should tend to look like whatever it actually looks like, as it is a satellite image. If there's ambiguity or uncertainty the other map shows water simply as blue.

Agreed. There was a lot of variety but it was all very limited and hobbled by technology. Nowadays, there is no practical limit to what can be done, it's just a matter of willpower and time.

Props for mentioning the 110. Terrible aircraft, but I always liked how it looked in the brief timeframe between takeoff and the inevitable spiraling fireball.

Lighting, local conditions, recent weather, and algae levels and type all influence this, probably among others. Water is not necessarily ''blue'' and inland lakes do indeed tend to be green or brown due to sediment and algae. They can also be red or pink, for that matter.

That's what we have, an AH-64D. The radar dish on top is the most visible difference, although it can be removed.

Look at you over here with your 1980s concepts. ED is aware of the issue and have a solution in the works for the last 15 years but you can't just ADD a rewind button. If they're going to do it it'll need to be a fully modeled rewind button, developed with subject matter experts in the VHS player field (which aren't exactly easy to come by these days). /sarcasm if it wasn't clear

Clearly, the Navy is not one for punctuation or paragraphs.

I vaguely recall someone talking about maybe doing a MiG-25P once upon a time, but it's been a while, and as is often the case, wishes sometimes end up stillborn.

Now, now, if these guys were going outside very much they wouldn't be on the forums.

What part of ''text edit'' was misunderstood? It is literally extremely easy, and you could tweak the MiG's handling yourself by modifying the numbers. If I can do it, they can do it. Because of a lack of will, not ability. Don't mythologise this stuff into some monumental task. MANY things ARE complex, but not ALL. Period, full stop. I'm a fanboi, too, but I draw the line at candy coated bull<profanity> excuses. They pass it off as ''we have a perfect fix planned and don't like half measures'' which is bs and how <profanity> like the MiG's bs gets neglected for ten years. Low priority? Sure. Better fix planned for unspecified future? Great! That has f all to do with why a ''good enough'' tweak wasn't implemented years ago when it has been easy to do all along. For Christ's sake, WWII planes still have JET SOUNDS and it's also been near ten years. That's not likely a simple fix, but it's not TEN YEARS complex either.

That is blatantly untrue. People often make off the cuff suggestions/requests for stuff that is neither quick nor easy, but there's no point in mythologising it either. There are a lot of things that ARE in fact easy to do, things like simple text edits to fix the guns on the F-86 or the MiG-15's FM, for example. I know because before they started encrypting everything that's exactly what the community did. They could literally have fixed some of our longest standing issues 10+ years ago in an afternoon of tweaking if they wanted to. They did not, most likely due to corporate culture/bureaucracy.

ED aims for +/- 5% so it's not perfect, but very close. It's never going to be exact, and doesn't really need to be. As long as it's within narrow parameters, it's good enough for game purposes. While it's possible to just live simulate a virtual wind tunnel, that's not a realistic expectation from a home PC. It's a lot better than it was, and more closely matches expectations as mentioned even by these rl pilots, but it's always gonna be a LITTLE off, because it's not the real thing. And also, as you mention, controls are very different from in-RL and the ''feel'' will obviously be very different. SME ''feels'' shouldn't be completely dismissed, but it's not wise to overweight them, either, as it will literally never ''feel'' like the real thing in any way. Remember those now mediocre sims from the 90s? Yeah, they were often sold with the tag of SME input and real pilots breathlessly describing how realistic if was. We would now say they were crap and the plane flies like it's on a rail, but A REAL PILOT SAID. So, yeah, a grain of salt is still required.

I saw that, too, and noted the AI being its usual self. Really highlights DCS biggest flaw : it's a great simulation but a terrible game (ie all the stuff you're supposed to do with this fancy ultra detailed aircraft). But hey, we have 152 miles of fully modeled wiring harnesses (under the skin where you can't see them, of course) and the rivets were accurately counted, that's what really matters.

On the offchance anybody is interested, my flight was today. Lot of fun, very noisy. Radio wasn't plugged in, so we couldn't communicate (unfortunately costing me an opportunity to take the controls) but was a great day. It was way louder than I expected, very glad for the headphones. Erik Johnston was there so it is likely the takeoff and landing was recorded. -edit Cockpit upload It's a bit cramped in there so I had trouble taking photos properly -edit update for history This plane was built in Grand Prairie, TX in 1943, was based at Avenger Field and utilised by WASP among others, at least some of whom went on to fly/ride in the plane again in modern times 60-70 years later. So it's a proper ''active duty WWII plane'' although it was not deployed overseas, being a trainer.

What is the point of this huge wall of text both explaining the obvious and somehow also begging? Do you think it's sitting on a shelf somewhere and Nick Grey is like ''NO NO, not yet... let them... stew in their angst a bit longer. The suffering makes the meat taste... sweet.''? They will release it if/when it's ready, and forum users writing lengthy discourses on the ''community's needs'' and ''ED responsibilities'' is, at best pointless.

I saw when he quit, and it's all a bit overblown. Eventually, AI will become a big deal, it arguably is already, and as mentioned above, like the internet, it will be both really useful and really dangerous. You asked how AI will impact the development of DCS World. It will not in the forseeable future, and at no point will it suddenly conjure <profanity> out of thin air and make all your assorted dreams come true. As mentioned earlier, it also does not bypass all the legal issues that must still be resolved. It is a TOOL. It is not magic. No, we know exactly what its capabilities are, which we have already outlined are currently lacking. It can generate some functional code, it must be reviewed and made sure it ACTUALLY works and be repeatedly tweaked. Yeah, we know. I played with it a bit myself. Oh well, Jesus, argument over. The Tube has spoken @@ Again, I will refer to crypto, a technology that has useful use cases for our future but was grossly over sold. Development costs money, and products need customers. Yes, they are hyping their products, and yes they are nosing around for money. These are commercial enterprises, dude. They literally are working on subscription models and tiers for these things. For now, and not unrestricted. So, just like myriad other examples of freeware. Crypto is usable, being used, and pioneered numerous concepts that will be gradually integrated throughout digital life. It was not useless, it was OVERHYPED. When the baseline is ''useless <profanity>'' being ''100x better'' is not as stellar as you make it sound. Again, we've read the same stuff you have. We've also read what was said by people not attempting to monetise an article or YouTube channel. Yes, we know. Which is what we said. It is not a magic button. *rolls eyes* It may be that useful someday, but not anytime soon. That's not likely to be how that works, but sure. If it makes you happy. Ignoring the fact it still needs access to detailed data about aircraft, specific physics, methods of operation, and previously mentioned legal issues, among other ''terms and conditions'', all in a digital form that it can actually parse and correctly interpret. That is called ''word salad'' and is an excellent example of what we're talking about. It has no damn clue what DCS is or whether it can actually do any of that, it's just reciting generic ideas about its potential to code without recognising any of the hurdles in front of it or whether it's ACTUALLY able to code in this PROPRIETARY engine it has not been trained on or exposed to at all, and again, has exactly nothing to do with its access to or ability to understand the data necessary to code for DCS. We noticed. Ftfy