Pizzicato

Just spent the last hour tooling around in the Shark again for the first time in years... ...and now I can't remember why I ever did anything else. :thumbup::lol: The Black Shark was my favourite module for many, many years, but then I got seduced by all of the other options and spent the last couple of years dallying with a range of other aircraft (mainly the Hornet and the Harrier). Now I remember that I truly am a rotorhead at heart, and the Black Shark is my truest of true loves. I cannot wait for the updated cockpit. :notworthy:

I believe this is the thread you're looking for: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=262535

I spent a fair chunk of last week trying to figure out how to consistently and smoothly get the Bf-109 into the air. I watched the videos, read the guides, scoured the threads, and practiced the tutorials... and still couldn't get anywhere even vaguely approximating competency. :(

I'm 99% sure that it's going to be the F-15C. The WWII team is currently focused on the P-47 before moving on to the Mosquito. The helicopter team is working on the Hind (which still seems pretty early in development), with a side-order of UH-1 multi-crew. Meanwhile, the modern aircraft team are finishing off the F/A-18 and the F-16. I feel as though the early introduction of the Viper demonstrated a couple of things. Firstly, ED's desire to leverage and repurpose existing features and tech, and secondly, their prioritising of "big name" aircraft with significant sales potential. The F-15C seems like the most obvious next step: 1. It completes the "teen series" set (the -14, -15, -16 and -18 ) 2. It almost certainly leverages many of the under-the-hood features that ED has had to develop for the Hornet and the Viper. 3. It's been the USAF's mainstay for decades, and is truly iconic. 4. Wag's has now used "eagerly awaited" on two separate occasions. I'd personally much rather see a Flanker, Fulcrum, or Apache, but I'd be pretty amazed if the Eagle wasn't the next big announcement.

It's more a question of "Do you know something that we don't know?" I can't imagine why fancy clouds would be the key to converting "the 'arcade' FPS lot from Ace Combat 37" over to DCS. :huh:

Pretty sure that's the ONLY option.

I had a set of Saitek Pro rudder pedals, but they felt cheap to me. The movement and foot-positioning felt kind of off from my perspective. I ended up selling them on pretty quickly, and went for MFG Crosswind instead: https://mfg-sim.com/en/3-rudder-pedals The Crosswinds are night-and-day compared to the Saiteks, but you'd expect that for the price difference. Incredibly study and reliable, with amazing build quality and beautiful movement (even years later). Can't really speak to the stand, but I went with Monstertech mounts: https://www.monstertech.de/en/ Same kind of deal as the MFG Crosswinds in that they're expensive, but really, really well built. The Crosswind rudders and the Monstertech mounts are both huge recommends from me. Not sure if that helps, or just confuses the issue, though. :)

Same. I've got a whole bunch of wonderful modules to play with. What I really need now is interesting things to do with those modules in an immersive and compelling environment.

This has been reported multiple times going back to June of last year. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=244357 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4119906 Doesn't seem a high priority for ED, despite how utterly immersion-breaking it is when the AI are so clearly cheating.

Hornet, all day long. Does everything the F-16 can do (with two engines), plus carrier ops and probe-and-drogue refueling. Easily the best all-rounder in DCS to my mind.

Yeah, that was my assumption, too.

Likewise. Today's newsletter was full of great news, but I'm definitely way more interested in the roadmap for core simulation improvements. Looking forward to the update. :thumbup:

Yeah. The AI comms would definitely be valuable, but the wingmen need WAY better fuel management logic, period. It's a massive issue with the current DCS implementation.

Well that's odd, but sure. Thanks for the heads up. I'd totally missed that. :thumbup:

They're always on the forums: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=200724&page=9

Bear in mind that December's not over yet, and the ED crew don't break for the holidays until January. That's not to say that we'll definitely see any more new Hornet features before the end of the year. Just pointing out that it's still possible given that we've only had two thirds of the month so far.

Lol! Quite. :D Looking forward to the first screens getting posted, as I'm stuck in work for the next seven hours. Haven't flown the Warthog in years, but I do love a nicely (re)modelled cockpit. :pilotfly:

Yeah, me too. I remember thinking that the pilot body was a really frivolous and largely pointless addition back when people first started asking for it. Now it just feels plain wrong and totally immersion-breaking when I'm flying a plane in VR without a pilot body. Shows what I know. :doh::lol:

It's in the Mudspike interview with Wags: https://www.mudspike.com/mudspike-ama-with-eagle-dynamics-senior-producer-matt-wagner/

Nope. DCS World Open Beta is entirely the right thing to be running. Any particular reason for your question, or just curious?

I was just watching this F-16 video, and was really surprised at the volume of in-cockpit vapour during the takeoff and climb out. It looks like they've got a dry-ice machine running in the cockpit. It's kind of cool in a not-at-all-helpful-to-the-pilot kind of way. Any ideas what's causing this, or how common it actually is? Edit: It's at 1m 28s onwards.

I had this exact same issue in SP last night. the -E Mavericks failed to find my TGP's laser if I'd previously used -F Mavs. I'll upload a track later tonight when I get back from work.

Yeah, god forbid that ED should actually expect some kind of financial return on their hard work to help keep the lights on...

Thanks for the response, Steve. I was really just curious about the most significant/visible differences between the three. Do they have different deck layouts, for example, or are the differences more subtle than that?

What are the key differences between the various CVNs that are modelled? I don't really know much variance there is in the Nimitz class carriers, so I'm curious about what to expect. (I apologise if this has already been covered somewhere, but this is a looooong thread now)