Chibawang

I agree, realism does not necessarily equal difficulty, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that it did. Falcon 4 is a good example: the most hi-fi/realistic simulation available of one of the most technologically advanced war planes in the world, and it's almost boringly easy to fly. (F4 fans: don't jump down my throat, I'm only making a point. I know it's not easy to be a Viper pilot.) I also prefer developers who embrace realism as the norm, but I also think they might be able to stay in business longer if they considered the "airquake" crowd a bit more. We are a rare breed, and in this day and age you have to accept it as a necessary evil of sorts. You may be right about SoW, and I'll definately be picking it up as soon as it's available, but that's not going to be anytime soon. In the meantime, I can only recommend this to anyone who's interested.

Yes, you don't really need to lead shots in the easier modes, and even when you do there is an icon of where to place the pipper. You don't have to worry about energy very much either, but I think "infinite rocket-like power" is a bit exaggerated. I'm not an expert on WW2 aerial combat, but the simulator settings seem pretty close to the real deal to me. You have to be very careful with energy management to avoid stalls, and trimming is neccessary. Firing solutions and lead distances appear to be accurate or at least convincing, from all aspects. The only optional helpers you're given are automatic prop pitch, radiator and fuel mixture control; the justification being that during the heat of battle, pilots rarely fiddled with their engines. The computer does a fine job of managing these, but I still like to leave them on manual, as it gives you greater control and flexibility. Oh, and of course to keep my integrity as a hardcore sim-snob intact. :music_whistling: Some have complained about the lack of an option to takeoff/land in every mission. Usually, I would agree and cheer them on, but this is one case where I think it was a necessity of design. The campaign attempts to accurately recreate some of the most famous missions from the war, and often a flight would be in the air running lean for hours before reaching the target area. Even I would rather skip that bit, and I would much prefer the mission to start mid flight than the alternative of throwing believability out the window and placing a friendly airbase adjacent to the enemy. In the easiest settings, I would say this is by far the best aerial combat game I've every played, striking a very nice balance between believability and acessibility. In the harder settings, I would say it's got enough depth and difficulty to satisfy all but the most stubborn and finicky of the "simming elite."

Wow! I definately didn't see that one, Yoda. Was it a limited production type thing?

That's a pretty hasty assumption... It's a Thermaltake case, and like all of their products performance/cooling is central to the design. If you continue reading the article it provides mounting options and photos of the reviewer installing an H50 water cooling system. The price is a bit high, but it's clearly being sold as a luxury item, so it's to be expected.

lolz I feel your pain, A.S :)

Looks like you're having fun there PB, kudos! :thumbup:

This is an interesting question, and I've often wondered the same. As you said, I think ED can easily survive solely as a study sim developer, especially if they continue to win military contracts. However, if they are to not just survive but prosper, I think it is important to "cater to the masses" somewhat by focusing on both facets of the flight sim community. Obviously they are ending the Flaming Cliffs product line, and I think the way they are going about that is a very smart one. That being said, once development stops on FC and they begin to phase it out with the DCS series, I really hope to see the "game mode" further refined and streamlined into something that is more entertaining and accessable for the survey sim crowd. In it's current state it comes off a bit like an afterthought. Of course I realize that software development is an ongoing effort and the main focus is on the simulation mode. As a self proclaimed realism/immersion fanatic, I wouldn't want it any other way! None the less, it is my opinion that much of ED's potential for commercial success lies in versatility. DCS is the most in depth, realistic and technically advanced entertainment sim ever released. If it were packaged with a truly fleshed out game mode, that would be another first for the genre, further cementing Eagle Dynamic's status as a pioneer in flight simulation. Whatever happens, it's going to be alot of fun, and I wish the team all my best! :thumbup:

Just seeing the ten or so lines of printed radio chatter in that article was like Christmas morning. Though, It seems that the real Christmas will come soon after the 25th this year.

Thanks for posting, James! Exciting stuff.

An additional FYI: Ace Combat and HAWX were both advertised and sold as simulations. :protest:

Yes, Viper is correct on both counts... I remember reading the same thread where James posted somewhat teasing comments about his involvement with the A-10C HOTAS project.

It is clearly a CAD model. Look at the lighting on the stick, very stylized. That does not necessarily mean they are a long ways off from production, however. I hope that panel is backlit. :o

I fully realise that the task of multi-threaded conversion is not a small one, but I can't recall having read whether or not it is planned for the somewhat near future. As I will soon begin building a new rig for the Warthog, this leaves me wondering what to invest in. I know it's far too early to say whether or not it will be supported in the next module, but has there been any official word on this at all? Also, would you get better performance at this point from a good dual core than you would from a better quad core? Forgive me if this has already been covered, as I know this topic has come up a few times already.

Yes, that would be illegal. However, I promise that if you need a good reference for the A-10 in any model, you will not find anything better out there, with the possible exception of the actual flight manual. But, the Hog Guide has extensive pictorial documentation, whereas the flight manual is illustrated. However, if all you want to know is the differences between the panels I can clear that up for you. :) As sobek pointed out, there really are a multitude of different configurations in use. As far as I can make out from screenshots of the DCS Hog cockpit, the differences are as such: Left console: Just one difference here: the TV panel has been moved down to make room for a panel with various Autopilot settings. Right console: The ECM and CDU have been upgraded from the A model, and the CDU has a new companion panel directly below it. The ECM panel has also switched places with the Caution panel. The Countermeasures panel is missing in the C model (probably handled almost entirely with the new HOTAS), and the ILS panel is now located between the TACAN and COMP panels.

If I may, I'd like to reply for Eagle Dynamics in the form of song: When the road gets dark And you can no longer see Just let my love throw a spark An' have a little faith in me An' when the tears you cry Are all you can can believe Just give these loving arms a try, baby An have a little faith in me CHORUS: Cause I've been loving you for such a long time, baby Expecting nothing in return Just for you to have a little faith in me You see time, time is our friend 'Cause for us there is no end All you gotta do is have a little faith in me (have a little faith) :music_whistling:

Yes, I sometimes go by Filange as well, but that is the handle I use at viperpit. P.S. - check your pm if you haven't noticed. :music_whistling:

Yea, the rotary switch toggles the MFD on, and then switches between day & night brightness presets, presumably for NVIS OPS. The horizontal rocker is labelled "- SYM +", though I'm not sure what function that might perform. Any idea Deadman?

Ah yes, good work Deadman. :detective: I was going from memory.

Deadman: My jealousy of your part collection is a bottomless pit. :cry: The buttons are the same size, but the symmetry ends there. The display is 5 in, while the F-16's is aprox. 4 in. The Hog's bezels are quite a bit wider, with a tapered inner edge and backlit lines connecting on screen options to the corresponding button. There is also a rotary on the A-10C bezel which is missing from the F-16 version. These variations might seem minor, but for a serious pitbuilder it would be unacceptable. Anyway, I was half joking about TM making a Hog MFD, and even if they did I would still prefer to build my own.

As I said, A-10C MFD bezels, not F-16. There is a considerable difference.

Wow, how has this not been mentioned here before? Great find, Bazong! questerymj: Programming a macro of the keystroke(s) should keep it from auto repeating. boris: As long as we're flinging suggestions/requests in your general direction... :music_whistling: I' would personally love to see a controller that supports OSRAM displays and aircore movements. Currently, the only affordable option I know of is PHCC, which is a home brew project requiring extensive programming knowledge. This would definately fulfill many a pit builder's dreams of a complete, all in one solution that is afforable and accessible.

Fantastic news, thank you for posting! And to think, I was just about to purchase a Cougar/Suncom/MSFFB2, all for DCS: A-10C. This will save me countless hours of frustration. I might still get the Cougar though, as I'm finally starting to enjoy Falcon 4, thanks to the Free Falcon team. What a glorious time to be a flight sim enthusiast! Now, if TM would just release some proper MFD bezels for the A-10C as well... :smilewink:

Haha, I love you GA. You're getting very good at the mysteriously enticing one word replies. :)

3D Sound Implements I've been meaning to suggest this for ages, so I suppose I might as well do it now while I'm reading this thread and thinking about it... :music_whistling: I would like to see an option to separate cockpit sounds (comms, betty, etc.) and external sounds into independent audio channels, allowing a user to recreate a military simulator type audio system wherein headphones relay internal cockpit sound while the speaker system handles all external sound. I've never used such a setup, but as you can imagine it would greatly increase the believability of being in the hot-seat of an enclosed cockpit. Sound is one of the most important facets of immersion, and unfortunately, it's also one of the most underdeveloped in the sim. I don't know how much work this would be to implement, but it seems like it would be relatively simple for something with such a huge payoff. Anyway, that's all I want for Christmas. It would be great to get some feedback on this idea from a team member, if possible.

Well gents, it's been said time and time again, but unfortunately the truth remains: Although Eagle Dynamics is a very hard working company with lofty goals, they are also a very small, overwhelmed and underfunded company. Fans have been asking for tools like this for ages, and I'm sure they would love to provide them but it's simply not reasonable to expect everything we want exactly when we want it. I think the best thing we can do to this end now is spread the word and encourage sales. If the game's popularity grows, so can the workforce to develop it further, and at some point the community can begin to carry the torch with mods as well. I think the A-10C module will bring a huge new wealth of people to the series, it's much more accessible and desirable to a Western audience. Hopefully that will kick start this thing in the right direction. So, I guess what I'm saying is have patience, understand what you're dealing with here and appreciate it for what it is. I see a bright future for this sim if the community will just stay behind it. So in the mean time, let's try not to go around frothing at the mouth for new content. Alright, that's it- I'm stepping off the soapbox now. :smilewink: