Mfezi

That describes me and virtually all my colleagues perfectly. We all have dual boots, and all of us use the Windows boot for only one thing: gaming. I do everything else in Linux. I use and write mostly computationally expensive code, from aerospace simulations to aerodynamic modelling code, system identification and state estimation routines (used in creating flight dynamics models from flight test data), etc. At some point or another, we have compiled most of our code on Windows also, but all our development is done on Linux. I have never, ever seen a piece of code that pushes the CPU performance (or GPU for some mathematical solvers), that ran at the same speed or faster on Windows than on Linux. In most cases, the performance is significantly better in Linux. And if you are doing a major multi-disciplinary optimisation problem that is going to run for a week on Linux and two weeks on Windows, the choice is rather obvious. I would love to get rid of Windows (and the last few weeks, when it was trying to push the Edge browser on me again, I almost did that), but unfortunately I still fly a bit of DCS and play a few other games and therefore just cannot do so just yet. I can't wait for that day, however...

Same as the other comments: I can't vote in this poll, because none of the options say "keep the current payment model".

Regardless of "fictional" or "generic" - I still have absolutely zero interest in it and don't see why any resources should be wasted on it while we are waiting for so many interesting real world maps.

I also think that would be a fantastic map from so many perspectives. However, it is also a very busy area in terms of built up areas and there are a huge amount of very unique landmarks in that area. If they can find a way to make it work - it would be great. I would buy it.

Wow, since my last post I did a bit of research on this poster (not just here, but going back to at least 2011/2012 on various other forums). He has a very long history of attacking ED and got banned on at least one other forum for doing so. He is not new to sims or DCS by a very long shot. Unfortunately, that's the way of the internet, as per my own experience starting with Usenet in the early 90's: Try and help people and every now and again you WILL fall victim to a troll.

Please read my posts more carefully: I responded only to your questions about the AMRAAM on the A-10. It was clear by then that you already knew why certain things were still missing on the F-16. The two issues are unrelated: 1) Missing items on F-16: Because of early access - to be added later (if applicable to the real jet). 2) Missing AMRAAM on A-10C: Because of reality - never to be added.

Which answer do you think did I not read before I wrote that response? Did I maybe misunderstand your point about the A-10 that apparently can fire AMRAAMs in BMS, which would be completely wrong? Did I misunderstand that you were still, at that point in the discussion, asking for AMRAAMs to be added to the DCS A-10? I'm sure by now it has become quite clear, although Kang already answered it very clearly in post #13 of this thread and I thought I did the same: Real A-10C as operated by USAF: 1) No radar 2) No AMRAAM DCS A-10C module: 1) No radar 2) No AMRAAM Therefore, my response to your last sentence above is yes, since the real USAF A-10C did not have a radar, I was certainly happy to buy the A-10C module in DCS also without a radar. In fact, I would have been pretty annoyed if they did put one in. Perhaps I should also warn in advance, there are many other jets in DCS that also don't have radars, just like their real life counterparts. Therefore, be careful and do a bit of reading before you buy any other modules. Also, as you have already seen with the F-16 - read carefully what early access means and in what state of development the module is before you buy.

You ask whether this is a forum or a court, but really, look at your initial post: It was not a question from a "new comer to learn", as you now claim in your previous post. You didn't ask, you criticized. You said, and let me quote: "It is just pitty, plus VERY dissapointing from the CUSTOMER's point of view." That is not how you end a post if you were simply inquiring. On the A-10, you are asking for a feature that goes against the whole point of a simulation: In this case, for the developers to waste their time so you can put weapons on an aircraft that in real life never carried them and that never will carry them because they require a radar for proper employment, something that said aircraft doesn't have. Isn't there enough scope in the program already to explore an infinite number of scenarios? Why do you want an AMRAAM on an A-10? Your question is no different than if you asked for sidewinders on the I-16. As for your mention of BMS: If you were able to shoot AMRAAMS from an A-10 it is a fault in BMS, not a feature and very definitely not one that should be duplicated in DCS.

Maybe I misunderstand the rules, but I do not see how the above quote prevents you from using a feature in another game by way of example to illustrate an idea. I read the above rule as one that is specifically meant to prevent the DCS forums from being used by competitors to advertise their products or to slate DCS. Since the DCS dynamic campaign is in development, people are going to make suggestions on this forum and a lot of those will come from their experiences with other games. In fact, until we see what ED has in store for the dynamic campaign, our only reference will be other simulators and their own attempts at dynamic campaigns. As I said, my interpretation may be wrong, but I very often see references to IL-2, BMS and many old, out of production simulators in posts that do not get censored. I can only presume that ED administrators know the difference between abuse of their forums for advertisement, and neutral discussions ultimately aimed at improving their product.

I also completed the campaign about a week ago (using the latest Open Beta). Everything worked, but what I did with the TGP and MAV pages in the last mission was to adjust the contrast a lot until I could see what was going on. I never considered trying day mode, but in night mode they worked fine IF you adjusted the contrast properly. I would do it before hitting the IP, when you still have time to mess around. I'm happy to say that everything worked as expected in Open Beta. There was only one tiny glitch: I can't remember which mission it was, but it could have been the 2nd, 3rd or 4th one - the developers will know - it was a night mission and right at the beginning an F-117 comes in to land. What happened was that the moment you ask for permission to taxi, ATC goes into a loop to "hold position" that is repeated over and over (I tried the mission more than once to confirm). If you ignore ATC, taxi and take off anyway, the mission continues as required, but your wingman is stuck for a while and takes off extremely late, joining you only about halfway through the mission. And to cap it off, after the mission my normal parking spot was taken by the F-117 - I almost taxied into the back of it! That part may have been by design, not sure... The whole mission does work, so I don't consider it a serious bug at all, but perhaps the timing of the landing F-117 can be changed so as not to cause the never-ending "hold position" ATC bug to appear. Overall it was an excellent campaign and I learned a lot of new things, despite already having been familiar with the A-10C. I was pleasantly surprised that the whole thing also worked in the latest Open Beta with only that one minor glitch. By the way, the flares in the night mission worked really well. I only ended up dropping a few of my own illumination flares right at the end to take care of the last remaining truck.

These user made dynamic campaigns are fantastic and I truly take my hat off for the developers. It is a great way to get something akin to a dynamic campaign in the meantime. However, they are unfortunately not quite what a dynamic campaign like the one in Falcon 4.0 is. Once again, because DCS has a completely different base system, I don't expect them to copy Falcon's system, therefore my hope that they will provide a bit more detail in future. But I have played flight simulators since Wing Commander on the Commodore 64 (not to be confused by the much later space game by the same name from Origin Systems), through a large majority of the WWII and modern air combat simulators that came out throughout the 80's and 90's up to today. The campaign model of Falcon 4.0 just happens to have always stood out for me, as it really created an atmosphere of participating in something much larger. I assume most people here know how the Falcon 4.0 campaign system worked, but for those who have only played DCS and one or two other simulators, let me give a rough idea of what it is about: The Falcon 4.0 dynamic campaign basically runs a 2D RTS-type war in real time over the entire map, and this war runs once you enter the campaign mode regardless of whether you fly missions or just stay in the UI. You can speed up time, of course, which lets you do things like letting the war develop for the first day or two before you get involved, or you can fast forward through each night if night flying is not your thing. The system then continually generates a large Air Tasking Order, which involve both small and large packages. A package usually includes multiple types of aircraft from multiple squadrons. Assets involved, whether they are participating aircraft, ground units or potential targets are drawn from a huge order of battle for each of the countries or alliances involved. Of course damage is tracked throughout the war, although certain things are repaired over time. Targets are not chosen randomly - they depend on the various active strategic and tactical priorities going on at that point in the war. You are part of a squadron, again for which the pilots and aircraft are tracked (if the campaign balance is set up to highly advantage the enemy, it could happen that your squadron runs out of aircraft or pilots, although you do get replacement over time). You follow the real-time air tasking order and when an interesting mission comes up (let's say flying in the SEAD component of a large strike package looks like your thing), then you can decide to fly it. If you don't, the AI will fly it anyway using one of the other named AI pilots in the squadron. Which element you fly in the formation also depends on your rank, which means in the beginning you may only fly as wingman which in turn limits which orders you can give during the mission. The system makes it possible to simply follow the ground war, or you can direct the ground war (either by setting strategic priorities or by setting goals on a more tactical level - like directing a tank battalion to take a town), or you can choose to jump in and fly at any point. If you jump in early enough when a new mission comes up on the ATO, you get to start with a dark cockpit, or you can start lined up on the runway about 2 minutes before takeoff, or you can start at any point during a mission. What is so cool is that since this is effectively one giant RTS game, when you take off and watch as all the different elements of the strike package converge on the target area, you will see other aircraft returning from their strikes or CAPs or sweeps, others heading out, and others busy engaging enemy ground or air units. You can also listen in on the radio to the various fights going on around you. While you fly over the front lines, you see the 3D version of what was going on in the 2D map: Units engaging each other or moving around, the aftermath of earlier battles, etc. Apologies to those who already know the campaign system that I described above, but I'm just trying to convey more or less how rich the system can be and the level of immersion you can get by just being one aircraft in a much, much bigger war. I have seen earlier mentions of an RTS system in the DCS dynamic campaign context, so perhaps what I describe for Falcon 4.0 is not so far off from what they are developing. I'm just hoping for a bit more info - therefore my previous request. I know there are some in the community who tend to consider any input from the designers as a "promise" that must be kept at all costs and who will jump up and down if those "promises" are not realized fast enough, but I would like to believe that the vast majority of us are more realistic in our expectations and understand that some things are "ready when they are ready". I'm just curious as to the approach (or approaches) being considered by ED in relation to their dynamic campaign engine.

I'm also interested in some official information about how the dynamic campaign will work and some of the main features that they have in mind - even if it is still a long way off. The Falcon 4.0 campaign system is one of its most outstanding features and I can only presume that ED would want to top that (even if ED's approach might have to be different because of the way DCS is designed). So far it has only been the odd remark in the official updates - I would love it if they could do an interview, longer discussion or perhaps dedicate one of the news updates to only talk about their vision for this feature.

I would definitely walk away from DCS if it changed to a subscription model, as I have done with several other types of software.

I'm a huge fan of Falcon 4.0, but it took a very long time to mature. Those early days were not fun: Completing a mission without a CTD was usually regarded as a miracle. Today with BMS the fidelity is great, and there is still something about its campaign engine that no one else has been able to replicate. I'm holding thumbs for the future DCS dynamic campaign engine. I enjoyed EF2000 also - it seemed to have "atmosphere" that the other ones lacked. Maybe it was the in-game music, maybe the Scandinavian setting, but something about it really kept me engaged. I must admit that I missed out a little on Total Air War: It came out about the same time as Falcon 4.0 and at that stage I was investing too much time on Falcon.

I'm sure it was posted in jest, but that was a very cool simulator at the time. Developed by Eagle Dynamics, it is what kicked off this whole journey that brought us to DCS today. It was released about 4 years after Falcon 3.0 came out, and 3 years before Falcon 4.0 came out - so about right in the middle between those two state of the art simulators. I remember what was particularly impressive for me was how smooth and well everything worked. Two takeaways from those days for me: 1) It would be nice to have a full fidelity module for the Su-27 (even if it is for an early version) to finish what the 1995 game started. 2) I wish we could get the rest of Crimea added to the Caucasus map. I have read the many arguments around that topic, but I'm still convinced it would be a great addition.