Pizzicato

I can't wait for the Kickstarter to begin... ...just so that I read people passionately arguing about something much more interesting than multiple installs. :) I'm in the same boat as many others, though. I think the potential for this project is enormous and it's very likely to be the first Kickstarter I ever contribute to. The grand vision for the DCS series keeps getting clearer and clearer. The idea that it could eventually evolve into an FSX-like base for a wide range if third party developers is very, very exciting. I'm on board.

Correct. I would say that the rendering technology used in those Nevada shots looks very similar to what we already have in DCS. I would be very surprised if it's representative of what they're bringing to the table with EDGE.

Thanks Panzertard.

Check out this TRK for an even better example. The craziness that ensues on landing is pretty much perfect: 1. I land 2. My wingman lands on top of me about 1 second later 3. I remain burning on the deck 4. My wingman's burning Su-33 slows to a halt about 100m ahead of the ship (but suspended in midair at deck height) 5. My plane explodes 6. My wingman's plane begins reversing towards the carrier (at least that's what it looks like) Not sure whether to :megalol: or :cry: TwilightLanding.trk

I've just flown a couple of self-made practice missions for myself and an AI wingman. The missions are simple "take off from an airbase and then land on a moving carrier" affairs. Unfortunately, I'm now 4-for-4 in terms of my wingman suicidally landing 2 seconds after me and smashing through my still-attached-to-the-wires aircraft. This happens regardless of whether I allow him to stay in formation or command him to RTB. Adding this to the list of behaviours to be addressed when the ATC gets updated would be hugely appreciated. Thanks! NightLanding.trk

I tend to agree. On the flipside, though, it's waaaaayyy better to have people excited and engaged as opposed to being completely uninterested.

Helicopters are a bitch until you really know how to handle them... ;)

A +1 from me, too. Definitely a good idea.

Wait. What? EA had a licensing deal to use the Jane's brand. Under this this agreement, they published and funded the development of 20 different Jane's titles. Jane's Combat Simulations: US Navy Fighters (1994) DOS Jane's Combat Simulations: US Navy Fighters Marine Fighters (1995) DOS Jane's Combat Simulations: Advanced Tactical Fighters (1996) DOS Jane's Combat Simulations: Advanced Tactical Fighters - Nato Fighters (1996) DOS Jane's Combat Simulations: Advanced Tactical Fighters Gold (1996) DOS Jane's Combat Simulations: AH-64D Longbow (1996) DOS Jane's Combat Simulations: AH-64D Longbow: Flash Point Korea (1996) DOS Jane's Combat Simulations: AH-64D Longbow Limited Edition (1996) DOS Jane's Combat Simulations: Longbow Gold (1997) DOS, Windows Jane's Combat Simulations: U.S. Navy Fighters '97 (1997) Windows Jane's Combat Simulations - 688(I) Hunter/Killer (1997) Windows Jane's Combat Simulations: Fighters Anthology (1997) Windows Jane's Combat Simulations: Longbow 2 (1997) Windows Jane's Combat Simulations: WWII Fighters (1998) Windows Jane's Combat Simulations: Longbow Anthology (1998) DOS, Windows Jane's Combat Simulations: F-15 (1998) Windows Jane's Combat Simulations: Israeli Air Force (1998) Windows Jane's Combat Simulations: Fleet Command (1999) Windows Jane's Combat Simulations: USAF (1999) Windows Jane's Combat Simulations: F/A-18 (2000) Windows It was only after EA walked away from the relationship that the wheels fell off: Jane's Combat Simulations: Jane's Attack Squadron (2002) Windows JASF: Jane's Advanced Strike Fighters (2011) Windows Some additional notes from CJ Martin: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=49612

The DCS Hornet was confirmed ages ago. It's the C variant, not the E, though. And don't hold your breath for it, either.. :D

+1

Heh! Me too. We need ED to thrive.

Fantastic little mission, Telomere. Loved it! Oh, and B and C... :( :D

Loving the look of the Mi-8. Can't wait to get my hands on that one. Regarding Edge, I must confess to being rather surprised that a producer hasn't had access to a build for over a year. I don't mean to imply anything by that - it's just that it's an uncommon occurrence in my own experience (accepting that ED is a very different beast to the games companies that I've worked at over the years). I assume that not having had access to a build for over a year doesn't mean that Wags hasn't had visibility on progress, though. Looking forward to seeing the final 1.2.4 fix list, too. Thanks for the update, Wags. Very much appreciated.

Has there ever been an official explanation as to why this change was made and what it was meant to achieve? People have been getting horribly (and unnecessarily) confused by this for months.

Just to give credit where credit's due, the update was from Chizh, not Matt. ;)

YES! :thumbup: I was thinking about this only last night. I'd love to be able to see which missions I have or haven't completed at a glance.

When Wags first announced the updates, he mentioned that he was hoping to give news of EDGE in the first edition. It obviously didn't work out that way, but it does suggest that we might not have to wait months for an insight. Time will tell, but we live in hope. :)

Because they released a new update to DCS, version 1.2.4.12179.160. That's different to the Friday update. Your auto-updater should have updated you automatically. If not, use the manual updater in the DCS World folder in your Windows Start Menu.

Each to their own. I'm really excited about this one. Can't wait.

Hey guys, I was just wondering if A2A refueling got removed from the FC series? I was just going to try it out with the Su-27, but you can't even assign a key to the "Refueling Boom" option. I know that this used to work with earlier versions, but I haven't flown a fighter in forever. Did it get removed in FC3 or was it taken out in an even earlier version?

I appreciate (and agree with) the desire for a new graphics engine, but that video looks way, way worse than the current DCS World engine IMHO. Not impressed at all.

It's roughly as hard to understand as the idea that this very vocal community represents only a fraction of the wishes and desires of ED's much wider consumer base.

Actually, I can paint this a little more clearly and succinctly. Imagine it's December and we're treated to an "Official Trailer" for DCS F-15C. In it, we get to see the amazing AFM and a wonderful clickable cockpit. We all go out and drop our $50 without hesitating. We download, install and go for our first flight... but what's this? No clickable cockpit? Don't worry, that's a different purchase. It's only an additional $30 bucks. I'm assuming that nobody here would be cool with that, but that's precisely the scenario here. If this was an official DCS World trailer, I'd be raving about how awesome it looks, but it's not - it's a DCS FC3 trailer. We're only accepting of it because we live these forums and know exactly what we're getting. Discrepancies in the trailer aren't an issue for us because we know we're seeing non-FC3 content. Joe Newbie, who's presumably the target audience for the trailer, is not going to be so well informed, though. That's why I have issues with this.

I'm sorry, but that's a poor rationalization. If you show in cockpit, in engine shots of specific aircraft you're setting a clear expectation. Comparing this with games that show per-rendered cutscenes in their trailers is equally specious. All of the content in those trailers ships with the game. That's not the case with this trailer. Imagine the furore if EA, Activision or Ubisoft released "official trailers" that contained significant amounts of footage drawn from other $30 - $50 games without calling it out. They'd get slaughtered for it and rightly so. Like it or not, it's false advertising. The trailer could - and should - have been constructed from assets drawn solely from FC3 and DCS World. I don't see any grey area here. I'm consistently a huge supporter of ED - arguably even a fanboy - but this is a disappointing turn of events from my perspective. At best, it's misjudged. At worst, it's outright dishonest.