Mars Exulte

Yes, but those are much more controlled and scientific in nature than a live pilot in a live aircraft deliberately self destructing. Very true, also our home controls (and usually the ingame sim) have no real limitations on your behavior. You have to do your own idiot proofing. Very true. I think as soon as they started getring away from manually actuated controls (ie old WWII stuff mostly) where pilot physical strength was no longer the determinant for how far a surface could deflect, they'd pretty much be required to implememt artificial limits, warnings, etc etc because the aircraft systems would be perfectly capable of doing something disastrous. NOT doing something like that would have virtually guaranteed the occasional self destruct when somebody ''oops''d. Yeah Yeah, among other things. Makes uncontrollable aircraft controllable and helps keep pilots from doing anything too unreasonable. They do, but in a controlled ground test (see above videos), not by flying a plane at Mach 2 and yanking the stick to see if it disintegrates. DCS in general simulates the overwhelming majority of key points of aerodynamics, to produce aircraft that fly approximately like the real thing. It is in general an order of magnitude more detailed than most/all other publicly available simulations. That said, it's still a video game, with a video game budget, and video game priorities. It's not a 1-to-1 recreation, and while they frequently add new features and modeling, it does indeed lack certain things, and always will. Literally every piece of software out there available to the public will, even if the only limitation on them is processing power, becauss whatever they produce has to run passibly on a midrange home computer of the last 5 years or so at least. It's POSSIBLE to do a 1-to-1 recreation of real world aerodynamics in digital format, they use such things to develop some of the aerodynamics on some of this stuff, but they can't run that kind of indepth simulation dynamically for the game itself because you wouldn't be able to run it. As for damage models themselves (which is what this has more to do with in general) the core modeling is fairly simplistic. Major components and airframe parts are tracked, with a variety of damage states, but it's also not a 1 to 1 dynamic simulation for all the same reasons. That said, they have overhauled the modeling for the WWII stuff now, and are supposed to do so for the jets next, so I'd say this part will improve substantially in the future, although as always, it won't be perfect and you'll still be able to find anomalies.

That's how several 3rd parties got started. That's also why several prospective or even official 3rd parties ended up dissolving : because it's a lot harder than people usually think it is.

For the same reason 9000 other aircraft haven't been done ultimately : there are only so many developers and so many hours in the day. If they did this one, you'd be griping about why the *insert* hasn't been done yet. Like a lot of others Assuming, you know what they say about that. They've probably ''considered'' thousands of planes what of it? Possible? Sure, it's old enough and crude enough it very well might be. It's also an extremely niche aircraft that does exactly one thing well(ish). Like bombers. Would people like them? Probably. Ya know what people like even MORE though is a plane that can do more than one thing. I like the 25, too, but realistically, it's a poor choice for DCS especially with its many current shortcomings in AI and ECM.

Sarcasm aside, the extreme edges of the envelope are where the simulation breaks down anyway because there's no data for it. ''What happens if you yank the stick all the way back at mach 2?'' asked no one ever. Other scenarios are similar. They don't usually test things in regimes where serious damage (or risk thereof) is a certainty because... why would you? Nobody's trying to kill test pilots or destroy planes ''just because''. So, in the simulation you simply hit a proverbial ''brick wall'' where structural limits are exceeded and the plane goes ''WTF IS HAPPENING?!!1!!'' and explodes. In real life the details might be different, but end result is likely to be similarly disastrous. So, in conclusion, don't fly like a nublet and it won't be an issue in the first place. You will not routinely rip wings off any plane without serious negligence, regardless of developer, plane, or regime.

It's a video game. Hype & exaggeration is a thing. /End thread Nobody over 15 thinks *anything* is ''face melting'' and anybody that does needs go outside and remind themselves what life is really Aside from that, being shocked a two man helo is two man is just.............

Pretty much. It doesn't need ''improvement'' or ''expansion'' it needs to be tossed in the bin and another attempt made.

In real life you can physically damage or destroy a plane by being stupid, careless, or otherwise unsafe, yes. It would take a lot to rip a wing off, but it's theoretically doable. Thing is in real life pilots are trained, have a sense of self preservation, and have controls that aide them in rudimentary tasks like not dying. A gamer rarely has much if any training, no concern about dying, generic placeholder controls with no feedback, and literally ZERO self discipline, combined these factors add up to mean gamers die to or doing stupid shit waaaay more frequently than is the case in real life.

I've always like the A-400, even if it was a bit of an unnecessary boondoggle... but then, I like turboprops in general.

No, there aren't. The only reason to keep older versions is if it won't work for some reason, or if you can't reach decent framerates with it.

They're already intending to expand/improve CA, beyond that this is beating a dead horse.

True. You don't need an EXPENSIVE HOTAS, but you DO need one. Telling people otherwise is basically setting them up for failure and frustration. It was wrong then, too. That ''appeal to the casuals'' bit is just stupid. War Thunder doesn't need a HOTAS because it has ONE game mode that is specifically designed for M&K. Otherwise, even War Thunder needs at least a gamepad, and ideally a simple HOTAS. You cannot multitask with a M&K to 1/100th the extent you can with even a cheap HOTAS. No, it is very much NOT true. People shopping for expensive peripherals for a brand new hobby are putting the horse before the cart. All very true. True, especially if you're joyriding. Sub-optimal for sure for fighting, but doable if careful. No. Just no. DCS is not optimised for mouse usage like that in any way shape or form and this is a terrible idea. This is a good way to get somebody to waste $80 a module and then not be able to use it because... surprise... DCS doesn't work worth a crap this way. It's not War Thunder. Let's not lie to people that it is. Aviation wise in general, yes. Not at all, because all the habits and concepts you built up using a mouse and keyboard will not apply, and you will have to get used to using all your fingers and limbs, memorising where commands are, and getting used to a completely different form of control. Seriously, helping noobs is fine, but this sort of reasoning is just blatantly false and is the OPPOSITE of helping them. This is akin to somebody learning to fly a hot air balloon with one cord for up and down, and then saying ''It's flying! All the skills transfer over!'' No. They don't.

CPU load is often dynamically shuttled between cores and threads automatically. Also if DCS et al are hogging a core or two, that still oeaves the others free to do other work. The root issue is DCS is using a twenty year old engine (more or less) when many cores weren't a thing yet. ''Fixing'' that means completely rewriting the game more or less, and there's added complexity because the complex physics don't have much tolerance for latency introduced by parts of the same calculation being conducted on multiple cores and recombined later. Windows etc doesn't just magically distribute the workload, software has to be specifically created with a certain workflow in mind.

Exactly, expansion is fine. But it needs to be done properly. And why in the world would we expect it to be done ''properly'', when flight, the core focus of the game, is still not done ''properly''? If it's going to be half baked and useless, there's no point in doing it. And for the notion, ''Oh, well, of course it would be done PROPERLY!''... based on what evidence? The only evidence we have right now is that which I already highlighted : we're not even doing the ''flying'' part properly right now. -edit To add another ''properly'' and thereby make it an even number of properlys, but I have sullied it AGAIN so I must say it once more and properly close this comment.

It's pretty funny seeing people asking for expanded Naval Ops, anti-subwarfare, expanded ground ops, expanded this, expanded that in a flight sim that even the flying part currently needs a lot of work. I mean, the one thing this game is focused on is still coming up very short with nearly non-existent AI (both on the ground, and also in the primary focus of air combat), no dynamic campaign yet (a staple of most 90s flight sims as I recall). The only foray into "expansion" we have currently is Combined Arms, which is very barebones and itself extremely hobbled by the entirely absent ground AI. So what are we going to do, add ships and subs and what have you, and then ALSO not have AI or a dynamic environment to use them in? I say this as one of the hardest of the hardcore fanbois around here, not as a criticism of ED (as I'm quite lenient with these short comings). But at the same time... the core bits of DCS are nearly 20 years old, and even for 20 years ago these main aspects of AI and campaign were poor. So no, I'm not really a fan of "expanding" the game into even more half-baked diversions with awful AI and nowhere to use them? DCS only does two things very well, and two things only, and those two things are the modeling of the individual aircraft themselves and the graphics/environment (and that second a relatively recent addition). There are FAR more pressing concerns.

No, it's a necessity. Screens range in size from 17'' to *insert giant TV of choice* and from presumably 1080p on the low end to 4k (or higher). That is a tremendous range of hardware. Also, you're NOT ''zooming in''. The default view is already zoomed OUT (relative to the size of your screen if it was a window). This means default FoV already have crap visibility compared to what you could really see if you were there. This becomes less of an issue the karger your screen, as the default FoV approaches something approximating real life and overall visibility improves. Yes, it does, because when you are at the default fish eye lens field of view, you can't see a damn thing. Assuming you're not under a high g load, you can turn your head as much as you want in real life, and pretty fast... I have never heard anyone complaining about this before. ''You can turn your body around as far as you want and as fast as you want!''.... uh... yeah? If you're talking about TrackIR and people with high sensitivity settings, that's not optional. The tracking lights have to face forward and you can't turn your head very far or it loses signal. Restricting your ability to look around would make the entire thing moot. And me having a full scale pit with ultra high end controls gives me a huge advantage over somebody trying to use a gamepad or cheap all-in-one HOTAS. There's no way to balance hardware except to restrict the game to mouse and keyboard, 1080p, and it checks go make sure your screen isn't over 19'' in diameter @@ Just play the game and wuit worrying about what other people are using. The problem with this mentality is realism has nothing to do with any of this. Your complaining about random quality of life items that are in EVERY SIM EVER MADE SINCE THE 90s. Further, the hardware people uses varies tremendously, according to their budget and enthusiasm. There is no way to control that nor should anyone try. It's also a given that whatever controls you're using there's a 99.9% chance they're nothing like what the ''real'' thing uses, nor do they feel the same, you're not subjected to physics etc etc. Hardware is an readily assumed ''none of this is right, but it's a video game and it doesn't matter.'' I'm all for realism of game mechanics, and not compromising unnecessarily, but some people doth protest overmuch.

The best motion simulator is... no motion simulator. Seriously, they're huge, expensive, and don't even remotely feel ''realistic''. The VR headset gets you 90% of the way there, if you want tactile feedback, then invest in Buttkickers or a JetSeat (preferably both) and that will get you the remaining 10%. The motion introduced by a moving rig is not even ''somewhat similar'' to the motion of actually flying. But, whatever, if money is no object, go for it, why not? Just keep your expectations in line : you'll spend a lot for relatively little.

''If these leaks turn out to be true'' Translation: ''I'm yet another desperate youtuber pumping out crap clickbait videos, please like and subscribe!''

Pretty amusing how couple years ago everybody was like ''HURDURRR MICROSOFT WILL KILL DCS!'' But if you look at what keeps popping up in commercial/military usage... it ain't MSFS.

@SkateZilla Very concise and informative! Thank you!

More money very literally does not mean more things getting done quicker. Diminishing returns is a thing. 10 coders working on a physics engine is not inherently inferior to 500 coders working on a physics engine because all those different people still have to coordinate. When you're building a house, you don't get to ''speed up'' or bypass laying a concrete foundation. You don't get to build the roof at the same time as you run the plumbing. Things happen in a logical progressive order for a reason. Ultimately, the people running this know a lot more about what they need and would benefit from then any of us, and these ''every two weeks'' threads where people propose ''alternative business models'' are ridiculous.

GJS is a fighter pilot, ala Mover etc

That's correct. The original timeframe for stuff like the Caucasus map was the 2008 Russo-Georgian War (which features prominently in most the campaigns), so infrastructure would've been pre-war late 90s/early millenium. Xilon's basically looking at Google maps not realising a lot of things have changed in the last twenty years.

Yes. However, you shouldn't expect a particularly warm welcome on well trod topics. Again, nothing wrong with discussion, but not all ideas/posts are equally meritorious. ED's business model is their business, not ours, persay, they know their income/outflow, we don't nor is it anything we need to know. In particular they don't need us brainstorming on new ways to take our money (they presumably have several people on salary for that who know a helluva lot more about ''the market'' than we do) Welcome to the internet. Also, if you want an echo chamber/safespace where every idea you present will be well received... tbh read only is the only way that's going to happen. I could say the sky is blue and at least three people will attack me one of which will insult my mother. Ditto for people who think their old shoe ideas are new and exciting. Nobody has to explain their point of view. Especially since most anyone active on these forums participated in the last 2-3 of these identical ''business model suggestion'' threads. Search should be in the top right, looks like a magnifying glass. You can see all the back and forth through several dozen pages if you want, and most of these people commented in them, too (including me).

I see they've kept the traditional teal interior

If it can't fly for *at least* two more years, than it is almost definitely one of the very first prototypes. The first few in any given series are usually non-flying testbeds. If it was close enough to the finished product that that SPECIFIC AIRFRAME would fly, then it wouldn't be two years away. Aircraft are like DCS modules : until it's wheels up everything is subject to change. If it can't fly, it is the literal opposite of an aircraft. IE ''does not exist yet''. We know. It's always funny watching the nationalists rush out to defend the long list of paper projects proposed by the RF @@ Eh, there's always that one tryhard who wants to be different I think you mean the X-32, right? It's a bit odd looking from certain angles with the nose scoop which is fairly uncommon on US designs these days, but otherwise it's a pretty straightforward blended delta like most other modern presentations.