Varis

I almost didn't spot the 2nd appearance... but it's not a sign... it is TWO signs! :pilotfly:

You seriously didn't spot the Mi-24? :helpsmilie:

So anybody flying the new C-101 yet?

Well FC3 can be a very good option now that there's a sale. Just saying.

Viggen would be the best there, generally. The HUD is weird but they reportedly made the plane with the human being in mind as much as possible. Much easier to learn than the modern planes that you have. If the HUD appears bugged you're probably just in a wrong mode or wrong viewing angle. Check the threads if you have a problem, it's also a quite popular module so help is not far away! Or you could try a helicopter to really expand your experience. Huey would be my first pick unless you want something really different and exhilarating which might be the gazelle.

I'm wondering how the panel quality is on the large 4k screens. Seen some models have issues (also on smaller models there's backlight bleed etc, don't go for a cheap monitor).

Probably Mig-15 but then again I'm more for the fighters. And an array of guns including 37mm... you have any other module like that?

Word on the street is shift+click might work... for airplanes at least.

Maybe could be more a mods & apps (scripting/editing) related thing. Technically it's output of course. I think some people use the term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telemetry

Couldn't you just write your own python code to generate such segments into the code you want?

Wow, that was a ton of replies! Good points from all of you. Thanks, very illustrating. Interesting to find it wasn't just my own relation to simulation products as a customer but a wider through of the simulation market. What has changed things a lot for DCS is the large online community, YouTube, and some abundance of multiplayer groups. (Maybe not easily visible in the server browser if they use private servers.) Learning and leveraging the simulator content is much easier than when it was just you, the machine and the manual. It's fundamental to understand how ED/DCS differs from your regular gaming product. For one thing ED seems to spread its development effort thin and wide to multiple teams instead of focused development, things like the Hornet being a rare exception. Development cycles are long as a result but ED also thinks long term in subjects like life cycles etc. The military side is just as peculiar because very likely ED practices human resource balancing between the military and consumer sides. So what appears as ED's emphasis on given feature sets or release schedules may actually be out of ED's hands on a large scale. Also, at least some players seemed to have a very good grip on what was coming in 5-10 years. ED's strategy and focus have changed at least twice during the period.

I was able to recover by using the Repair function in DCS and by copying the mission back from an external backup (that didn't work initially).

CA probably needs a few more messages like DCS has as standard (radio/text chatter from your tower, friendly flights etc). There could be an adjustable subscribe/push system for those messages... not sure what DCS currently has for it and it's worth another thread in CA/general. Eg. also when your ground units have found the enemy and are engaging/destroyed.

*salivation increases*

Alpenwolf is pouring a lot of love and effort into this, again we have a mission that will play different from before, new ideas for the best balance and I'm sure we'll see some quite interesting tactics this time around. For HT2 vs HT3, also how well shkval&vikhr were working affected the results a lot. I hope Bluefor gets a good CGI as well for HT4. Awesome move from ECV56 to fly the Mi-8, maybe I'll join you guys one day. Much respect :thumbup: Right now it seems we can use more guys on Blufor (usually very well manned). Varis - Gazelle Mistral

ED probably has a dozen or more project teams working all of the above. Mi-24 too with a light crew (part of Belsimtek). And CA 2.0 I'd hope.

The 1070 seems more than adequate for this resolution but inside Dubai city for example it's easy to drop to occasionally to 40fps or below with my system. Typical frame rates seem to be around 70-110.

So what I did: 1. Create mission 2. Fly a couple of times from the editor and save 3. Quit DCS and change the filename 4. Editor complains about missing file in the file browser GUI and crashes while loading the mission 5. Name file back to what I think was the original name 6. Repeat crash (now seemingly at a different point in the loading process) 7. Remove MissionEditor folder 8. Repeat crash still Any way to recover from this? I guess it's more a feature than a bug, something must be messed up in DCS's bookkeeping? The last errors/warnings are 2018-12-18 03:49:08.729 WARNING DCS: track file empty 2018-12-18 03:49:08.729 WARNING DCS: mission file empty Running latest OB. PS. Sent a couple of crash reports.

borchi_2b: Thanks for the reply, it's quite interesting to hear what's Polychop's take on the matter! That's of course a valid point. I'm not so sure how it applies to Polychop, though. The Bell 206A (OH-58A, Max. takeoff weight: 3,000 lb (1,360 kg)) first flew in 10 January 1966: Over the years there has been several upgrades to the Kiowa. The OH-58D is already a very different beast in quite a few respects (Gross weight 5,500 lb (2,495 kg)). (I'm hoping Polychop is targeting this version, as it'd make it the #1 module for DCS... they will tell us when the time comes I believe.): For crying out loud, that's an AGM-114 Hellfire right there... Why the proposal could be interesting for Polychop is that they don't have a high profile in DCS and the potential customers go for other, more famous and charismatic modules. (Even the French cinema has rather gone for the Mirage 2000.) Helicopters in general don't get much attention and a large part of the problem could indeed be that the potential customers don't realize how different the platform is and what they could get out of it. There could be a deal between ED and Polychop that the latter is compensated for its efforts (after all DCS gets more customers/revenue), but more I see it from the interests of Polychop, they need ways to bring attention to their products and to actually capture the sales potential.

Didn't really notice any such difficulty with viggen yet... just that if you're not in control of the rudder you can flip on your back in a second. Mostly it's just a bit different in a very nice Swedish cold war way :D If you like fighters the Mig-15 is much more fun to fly than L-39 which is slower and seems to have a weaker engine. Mig-21 I'm saving for my later years in DCS due to its reputation :smilewink: With one false start at DCS when BS2 came out I couldn't agree more. I just tend to take it in very small portions and keep having fun in the meanwhile. Any learning plan is very long-term and only if you can appreciate the slowly accumulating knowledge will you enjoy the learning aspect. Maybe with the exception of a few people who have extreme levels of motivation about learning aircraft systems, they may have a an edge but the game has a very different purpose for them.

Autumn ends 21st Dec and you have to take any schedule in DCS with a larger grain of salt. Besides FC/MAC another option is to concentrate on one of the older / simpler aircraft. Mig-15 or L-39 for example.

Retired 9 March 2018 so possibly it could be a high-fidelity module down the road. I guess in less detail not really an issue any more.

I wouldn't take time from busy developers by asking them directly if I haven't given the idea a little bit of thought. Asking the player community often brings out surprisingly well researched points of view, and in any case, at least a few different kinds of second opinion. The free aircraft don't have any rotary wing craft in them, so the free to play materials do a bit of a disservice to helicopters in DCS. This means that even third parties like Polychop are facing an uphill challenge in marketing their products. The next question is which helicopter might be suitable for a limited version. I think attack helicopters from the Cobra to Mi-24 would not be suitable as the appeal is in having the full package. (Both of those might be good choices for an installation in future versions of MAC.) The latter kind of has its civilian/lightly armed incarnation in the Mi-8 though. One problem I see in selecting the Mi-8 would be that it's reportedly rather challenging to fly (although well modelled) and also the fairly sluggish behaviour might be a turn-off for people who want to fly combat helicopters aggressively. A Kiowa could be a much better choice. For all I can guess it would be much more agile, not too temperamental and all around a possibly exhilarating experience. Hopefully less twitchy, and of course slower than the Gazelle. The Kiowa Warrior is still massively more capable than the basic version, starting from the mast mounted sight. Thanks Zhukov, that's an excellent analysis of the costs side! How about the possible benefits?

Looking back over the lifetime of DCS and ED products, there have been a few strategy changes. You end up asking if the current one is still the correct one, or perhaps it's time to turn a new page, or to revive old projects that back then were not successful. It's a decision where ED sometimes needs to have a great vision and sometimes they just need to play by the seat of their pants. I want planes... LOTS OF planes This is where DCS is at today. Players asked for more planes... ED delivered them. For a price. It was a good move, because ED started cashing in money and was able to expand, combining this with significant engine upgrades until DCS 2.5. DCS excels in highly detailed simulation of combat aircraft. This is a defining aspect of DCS and should so remain if ED doesn't want to turn its back to some of its most loyal fans. The question - how long will ED be able to sell more and more planes to the same crowd who already has 30 or so? Can DCS find enough new customers if the old ones leave once they get bored? Or is ED capable of offering interesting game and simulation features as a part of the DCS platform, making people to stay much longer? One key idea in modern marketing is "customer lifetime value" - keeping your existing customers happy so they pay more, instead of spending your effort in finding new ones (and possibly ruining your reputation in the process). Me, myself and my Mk IX Spitfire In the meanwhile DCS has also grown to new audiences. Steam sales are bringing in mainstream gamers intrigued by jet fighters and air combat. WW2 assets are capitalizing on the WW2 trend and possibilities for multiple historic eras are building slowly. We first saw the Mustang some 6 years ago and the WW2 environment is still far from complete. We are missing key items like multiengine aircraft, a good collection of maps to play on, DLC campaigns for German planes and a notable multiplayer scene. Will still take several years to get all that with the current rate of development. In DCS, resources are spread thin and timelines are unusually long - which highlights the need to pick the battles and to take the best windows of opportunity. But what about early access and quality Originally I didn't want this subject (that has caused much commotion) in the thread, but let me just comment briefly because it connects. Aggressive expansion is taxing ED's resources and bringing new risks. It is harder to maintain existing modules when new stuff is added every year and loyal customers together with new people are suffering the results. Recent events have also highlighted ED's role in supporting 3rd party developers and guaranteeing the results of their work. Not an easy job that the community is placing on ED. ED's strategy of expansion has been a bold move, and I'm not saying it has been a bad decision. Quite the contrary. We have received well fleshed out combat environments with several usable aircraft on both sides of the curtain, new players have been attracted to the game and DCS has broadened and deepened its revenue base considerably. Another aspect is all the little improvements and major updates that ED has been doing to the DCS platform itself over all the years. Graphics is better, performance has increased, features are more complete... These have received little fanfare, even by ED themselves, despite bringing value to every single module out there. Would somebody please think of the operational authenticy The improved offering from DCS and the growing player base are great enablers for ED's next move. We are getting closer to the fully fledged combat environment that DCS: World was promising 7 years ago. It is no longer about just a couple of flying things - a much better context can now be simulated and new development could be directed this way. A change of focus is possible for DCS. In addition to faithfully simulating a number of aircraft, DCS could also do an exciting survey of the tactical and operational context around them. The original Combined Arms module was a step in this direction but the many limitations of the simulation engine held back ED's efforts. They are trying to make progress currently but I'd hope they put more bullets in this clip. The progress has been stagnant and radical improvements are necessary to make DCS an enjoyable combined arms combat game. All this is necessary to make the air warfare meaningful and to lock scores of new players into hours and hours of battle that involve fun on so many different levels. (If you look at some competitors in the gaming industry there are examples how this can be successfully done.) When the ground operations themselves become interesting and there are other players fighting them, the players taking care of air support feel they have a vital role to play and they connect better with the game and their fellow player community. Also the operational level of warfare can be highly relevant and interesting. (The strategic level is not necessary and would not fit in with the scope of DCS.) Many conflicts are decided on this level and it is widely discussed in literature. Creating this side to the game will provide the players with a feel of being a part of something real and much more bigger than just a simple mission with some planes and helicopters in it. There's a reason you have selected these targets and things can be gained by taking them out. The dynamic campaign is obviously moving in this direction and I earnestly hope that ED can bring about a full implementation according to their visions this time around. In a summary, DCS now has an opportunity to expand beyond just technical realism into the domain of tactical and operational authenticy. If they can pull this off there are lots of new and fun experiences in store even for old players. The Multiplayer is coming, are you ready With the advent of the dedicated server, DCS may be in for a sea change bigger than what ED realizes. The player base has been growing and while development of the multiplayer has been sluggish, there could be an explosion given the large long term player base and a better multiplayer experience. This is a scene that could connect closely with more well rounded general warfare features, adding a whole new appeal to DCS. The learning curves would have to be smoother for scores of new people being actually siphoned in to populate the multiplayer. The community has to get its act together and welcome new members with high accessibility and alternative approaches to coaching and mentoring. ED should do more aggressive promotion of historical, trainer and helicopter modules to get new players started, while tomcats and hornets would be full price and keep up ED's pricing model and premium product brand. That said, some brief comments on two aspects that also relate to the focus of DCS: The Cold War opportunity In terms of the aircraft, I have a hunch that the years in the 1960s and 1970s would have the most untapped potential in today's DCS. We already have a couple of planes from those years but there are many more which can be freely chose from due to no longer being in high tier military service. Some pilots would still be available to comment on flight and operational characteristics. The systems are fairly simple to learn yet complex warfare is possible. Also many famous conflicts are from the historical period, from Vietnam to the Arab-Israeli wars and even the Falklands somewhat. The Terrains This is another aspect where I find the current DCS lacking. New aircraft are exciting, but flying them in the same terrain over and over gets boring. The current roadmap is promising, but will take several years to implement and I'd hope maps would get more focus. There is also the issue that many players are skipping maps in their purchasing choices - it seems Nevada and Normandy are not yet used to their full potential and mission development for PG is going slowly still. At least Nevada should be heavily promoted (bundles and discounts) to get it moving and in general I think ED should monetize more heavily on aircraft and use the proceeds to discount map modules as they bring the platform and the multiplayer scene forward.

Always nice to get a new combat aircraft with multiseat potential! :thumbup: