Varis

You are not yet ready for this information. --Ambassador Kosh

Thanks, the first passage is what popped to my mind first. Just my reading of it was different :)

You bet but what do you want ... how to fly any helicopter and understand the aerodynamics, about the specs and development of military helicopters, or rather are you interested in war stories or real world operational usage of helicopters? For war stories, I was told that Low Level Hell is one of the best and details flying a recon helicopter in Vietnam... should have that in a week or two At least Jane's books could be a good source as well and you can watch some Youtube like Soviet Helicopters 13 / 18: Air Rovers (Wings of Russia series).

A source for that could be nice?

I believe this won't start a flamewar but isn't it a bit shaky to suggest ED should abandon old modules and concentrate on milking the new (and often half-finished) ones? Come to think of it there's a few modules where there is at least some talk of re-implementation - although some of those are old and unfinished. As you say the Ka-50 is the only real attack helicopter, and I believe it's quite central to many heli players. It's a stable module and a capable aircraft and ED is able to sell it without huge discounts and massive bundles - probably lots more fun to fly than many newer modules. It's kind of a "founder" module though I'd probably agree with you to the extent that it's been overshadowed by all the fixed wing hype... the situation for helicopters could be better in a couple of years since we have 4 highly capable combat helicopters in the roadmap. The Mi-24 statement does feel a bit like a cold shower :cry: I doubt the Ka-50 rework is higher priority than Mi-24, the latter of course has more commercial potential in the short term. I hope they will improve the environment around the Mi-24 while we're waiting for it.

Dude... let's not go there. IPR issues are easily solvable with a small army of lawyers, but there is a single reason why not: The most traumatic and dividing question in the Tolkien fan community through the decades has been, "Do balrogs have wings?". Some renditions have naively taken the stance of one side while others have tried to skirt it eg. in the movie I thought I saw wings but I can't recall them from all the scenes, maybe there was just tons of CGI with fire and smoke effects so yeah I must have imagined it! The creature was scary as hell it even roared and eeriely reminded you of a minotaur. Plus Gandalf (one of the most badass characters you could claim) had to fight it in two separate movies. Then you propose to mate this with a highly detailed flight simulator. It would be the greatest war known on internet forums. PS. I still think balrogs could be modeled as a variable swept wing configuration. It's a kind of a hunch at the moment.

Which distinct/discrete tiers of combat capability or historical era do you think are obvious in DCS aircraft (and other equipment)? Which are recognized and codified by the developers and the community (campaign equipment, multiplayer missions etc)? Which of them are readily workable, with full combat environments supporting operational and tactical authenticy, combined arms, and a workable number of aircraft? Any that have little hope in their current state? Basically my impression is: 1) Modern day (which is 1980s and a few outliers like JF-17): Hornet, F-15, Su-27, Mig-29 and a lot of others with few limitations on available equipment. 2) Cold war (1970s or so). Mig-21, Gazelle, the older ground attack variants. 3) Low intensity (limited capacity compared to all of the above). L-39ZA and the other trainers in when upgraded in the future. This category is quite fuzzy or weakly developed. 4) World war 2. (Extremely obvious - concentrated around the year 1944!) 5) Civilian. Very limited combat capability or the mission has no military focus. There are a few odds and ends. F-14 and Viggen could be a bit between 1) and 2). The older helicopters are kinda between 2) and 3). The Korean war era jets, Mig-15 and Sabre are special, not truly WW2 but are they for 3), would feel natural that way?

It's a very serious consideration. Basically you want two things: 1) Task (feature) progress tracking. Take a look at what Razbam is doing, they partially implement this (Mig-19 is a very good example). 2) Defect (bug) tracking. Razbam partially implements this and Leatherneck/Heatblur also used to do this. Comment: To be honest, I don't know why we would really need 1). If done well, it will make some players at peace - for the rest of us, it's just a nice to have thing and sometimes it might backfire... if there are delays the developers at least may have to explain themselves. There are workable alternatives: You can just post partial and sporadic information (hype). This is bit of an industry practice and if used well, it again can serve marketing and give players some headsup. Downsides are building false expectations etc. Another approach is not to tell much until you have something which is close to completion - Deka seem to favour this approach and are implementing it well; Polychop officially stated they are doing this and have mostly the most rigorous approach to this at the time being. I can't think of downsides besides weak marketing and lack of preceding hype (not seen in case of Tomcat...). Heatblur seem to be a case of carefully balancing between the two. For 2), please consider this. We who run Open Beta are officially considered as field testers. However proper quality work would require the use of a defect tracking system, which mostly does not exist in DCS. Running a defect tracking system which lists the known bugs and ideally allows the players to report bugs directly into it (they WILL be screened by professional developers or even trusted volunteers) would be a way of engaging the playerbase in the development process. ED and 3rd parties could even mentor their customers into effective testing communities - there is some untapped potential here. Given that flight simulation is an industry where development times are usually very long and the results may not be completely satisfactory, this could be seen as a compensating gesture and a way of partnership, and likely would make quite a few people better informed and more happy about the state of things.

The update system of ED is very clear if you understand software development. What was a very recent messup was that the wrong stuff got pushed into open beta. I have been following with half an ear recently as I haven't been flying hornet (semi-broken in open beta) or viggen (just busy with even newer toys). Things would be more transparent if the ED updates page mentioned which date the version was pushed to the customer base. Has there even been a stable update for a good while? There have been problems in the hornet so ED hasn't been able to push stable releases that much. The viggen suffers even if it's OK in open beta because they don't go cherry-picking stuff from the open beta... which would be a little bit dangerous and really not worth their time. Patience is a prerequisite for sanity if you are in DCS.

I'm working on a little mission with Mig-15s etc in Normandy. There was a T-55 platoon heading over to defend a friendly airfield under attack until they encountered an insurmountable obstacle and the lead tank got stuck. I will attach a couple of pictures below, it was South of Chippelle. Please tell whoever put that shed (or maybe it's a public lavatory, not sure based on the design) in the middle of a road (or a footpath, Soviet armored forces obviously classify it as a road), that for the next time I'll instruct the platoon leader to blow it up and drive through. Carry on comrade.

Amazing progress! Looks like around the FM & engine there is still lots of work to be done.

You can set up multiple steam directories. I think I have game spread over like 4 drives to optimize capacity and performance for each. You can easily move the game around by clicking on it -> Properties -> Local files.

I recall Nineline stating that autumn doesn't end until around 21st Dec so possibly they follow astronomical definition. I feel it's strange since would think meteorology affects military aviation more than astronomy. Not certain. And it's always ED, apparently the year is already ending and we're still in the autumn for a good while! :pilotfly:

Which aircraft will have you learning more about air warfare and ground attack tactics? Many of my friends say get the A-10C. It is a versatile and capable ground pounding platform, I give it that. But I already have a few modern day AG platforms including the less useful(?) A-10A... and A-10C is a bit bland. L-39ZA has its own following and is used at least in some kind of insurgency missions in multiplayer. Not sure if the add-on campaign is as good as it claims to be. No flares is the great weakness of this aircraft. The power level is limited so it fits in interesting scenarios... maybe together with mig-15 and sabre? It's supposedly quite fun to fly and operate, it's claimed to be agile as well.

Military all the way! Got interested in DCS in the first place because of the full combat environment with helicopters and ground forces. That said there would be some room for a mixed aspect. Think about cases of civilians using military bases/airspace or there being civilian missions for Mi-8.

What resolution will you use?

Probably better to pose new questions in a separate thread :-) The idea with new features in open beta first is basically that once ED knows that most people won't be pulling off their hair when they try to use them, they will be in the stable/release version as well. If you want to live on the edge it's possible with the Hornet and open beta since the plane is under heavy development. It can be a good idea to fly a more stable, secondary plane on those days and weeks when the Hornet is broken. It's my approach since I live on open beta (it's used in multiplayer a lot).

Should run fine and the GPU can be upgraded when you're ready for VR. Please move to h/w forum.

The editor is fairly easy to use if you want just some simple missions (but they are not scripted tutorials...). You can set the exact challenge you want for your level. 1 Mig, 2, 3, 4? No problem. Only guns or IR missiles as armament? Can do! 4 wingmen in state of the art craft? Not much limits on what you can build with it... Would actually be quite nice if the 3rd party module creators would add a mission or two for new maps... but development takes a long time, resources are limited.

How would you actually rate the WW2 planes in terms of capability: performance (climb, speed and dive), dogfight (maneuverability and armament), air to ground? 1 to 5 and 5/5 meaning the best in class. You can copy from below. Fw190 performance: dogfight: air to ground: Bf109 performance: dogfight: air to ground: Spitfire performance: dogfight: air to ground: Mustang performance: dogfight: air to ground: I know Mig-15/Sabre must be awesome in all of them so no need to rate them ;)

My procedure is something like this: 1. Browse Chuck's guide 2. Learn cold start (refer to 1.) 3. Learn a number of weapon systems one by one (again, 1.) 4. Go to DCS Finland server/discord... and eventually somebody will start talking you through all the radar modes, radio, the navigation functions of the computer, TACAN, ILS... (Actually this often is my step 1.5). 5. Check in the manual every time Chuck made it too simple/too brief for your brain to understand or if it's too esoteric what you want to do Ooo... nice idea! Any "quick startup" lists are too long anyway, who needs those self-tests when you have respawns :music_whistling: Plus a few pointers on weapon systems could always help when you've taken a break. Can't forget them weapons. And radar modes.

Which WW2 aircraft do you think people would get most use out of ... or just all of them? How limited would one be if going with just one aircraft in the WW2 context? How would learning curves and playability compare to other DCS modules? Controllability and primitive systems could be seen as an issue in WW2 planes, posing challenge for navigation, take off and landings. Are we still waiting for the WW2 crown jewels before the floodgates open... do we need more missions, a better multiplayer? How are the fast missions in WW2? Is there much point in WW2 aircraft without the Normandy map? I take it could also be quite interesting for helicopters/CA.

Is this really the same after 3 years and with 2.5 DCS now? It feels contrails are soon gone still, which makes at least identifying/finding friendly formations a bit harder (eg. when formation flying). The performance impact should be carefully considered before eg. giving it an option for server admins - cannot be a client side setting in MP because of balance reasons. A mod in singleplayer could be a feasible solution.

The main problem could be that it's very easy to get on target. Instant lock and fast flight which makes it very effective in helicopter only environments. It was removed from the last round of the Helicopter Tournament. I've seen mistrals miss at least due to flares and also seemingly direct hits might result in very little damage quite often. But overall it's quite effective against the right target.

I'm hoping everyone gets a couple of nice days off around the vacation period as well. But does it even matter if something is a bit rushed out? Did that not happen with the Hornet - the fans kept asking for it so ED felt obliged? We are already giving a fair bit of rope to developers in the DCS ecosystem. The fans get their hands on it for a first taste. And anybody who wants to be a beta tester can be one. The rest can listen to first impressions and opinions so they can know beforehand what product quality they are getting and can decide the when. As long as commitments are kept and jobs finished - is there any sense in losing one's marbles?