Neil Gardner

Roberto I hope you do not think me to be a calling your word into question. It’s just that I see indications of close to completion going back to 2015. Could you be so kind as to give us a good reason to be able to hope that we are not at the same spot. Thank you Neil

Thank you

Can I just say that I had the C-101 since not long after it came out, but I must admit that I haven’t spent much time with it thinking that I’d wait until it was complete with weapons etc. But, last week I decided I’d have a look and learn to fly it properly and I was pleased to find that weapons aside it is a really, really nice model with a huge amount of detail and a number of nice touches. So, really looking forward to the CC now and especially as it seems to be close - without putting an exact figure on that am I right about it being close to release?

"Why should i pay for yet another map im never gonna play! stop splitting up the community and mp servers and start building these together into zones or something that actually makes sense! to expensive! I have normandy, never play it. I have nevada, never play it. Why should i buy it? TE] Forgive me but I don't really understand why you think this might be a bad thing. I myself go on this site to learn more about military flying. I know of no better platform for realism and detail than DCS and therefore what I am able to learn. For me the more settings that there are the more various and interesting the learning experience. But that's just me - I'm just wondering if you could kindly explain to me more why you have a difficulty with a new map. Thank you

I see this has been pointed out by a number of people in the context of enquirying after updates to a number if different models, but I would just like to add my own comment; I would be willing to pay for a good upgrade. Just about all of us in this community are enthusiasts and it seems to me there are very few of us that are not appreciative enough of what developers do that they wouldn’t pay for important upgrades. We appreciate that ED and 3rd party developers have to make a living, that they are business’ and it is in all our interests to keep them going. So to developers I say: have a poll if you need reassurance, but I think you’ll find that when if comes to our beautiful models, if we’ve got the money we’ll pay for them to be kept up to scratch.

The DCS simulation of the A10C is undoubtably one of the finest achievements in desktop military flight simulation. I hope it stays up there as the scope of what can be done in a PC simulator increases. Will there be, for example, any restructuring as a result of what has been learnt from the development of the Hornet? I’m just hoping that as time goes on the A10c continues to benefit from the fruits of expanding simulation technologies. Thanks Neil.

I can understand it is irritating when people have expectations over a model that are not fulfilled but the idea that there is some slight of hand or some cynical failure of commitment on the part of developers is not only unlikely to be true, it is distinctly unhelpful. No one with any sense is in business to let down their customers. Criticism is, therefore, fine if it is reasonably stated and/or constructive. Carping laced with incinuation of moral inadequacy, or ineptitude of one kind or another is wearing and breeds the sort of resentment that will not result in faster and more efficient production of updates. I’m not about to say that there is nothing to complain about, improvements are always possible and personally I love a good update if it fixes an issue, adds a feature or improves visuals. But let’s be clear, these models are all pretty exceptional already. Only a few years ago I was simming with models that even if they had the sophistication of those we have now, would have brought my system to its knees. Absolute realism for a simulation is a contradiction, and the most accurate simulations are hundreds of thousands of pounds and operated by the military. Hope this does not annoy anyone too much. Pax! Neil

Yes, it’s all looking very positive, I wish release was immenant.

All extremely exciting I must say. Is it possible to give any kind of indication of ‘when?’ Thank you Keep up the good work chaps.

Well that would be excellent, thanks for that

This is not a question I have had to ask on DCS yet, though I am frequently having to ask it of P3D or FSX, even X plane 11 3rd party developers occasionally. That is: your screen shots of the latest territorial add-on, airport or whatever, looks great, but will it grind my system to a halt unless I turn the settings down so far that the beauty I fell for hardly remains? And in this case I ask: the Persian Gulf map looks absolutely bloody gorgeous, but in all the detail that it provides will the settings have to be turned down so low in order to perform sufficiently well with our complex models, that its advertised beauteous detail will no longer be there. So far my DCS maps have not prevented me obtaining smooth performance balanced with good graphics. But there is a heck of allot of wonderful detail on those cities in the Gulf map (like Las Vegas I guess and that works well), have the Beta testers nevertheless found that performance is as good as the other maps. Thanks you Neil

I play most of the time off line. I love the idea of MP but there is a huge learning curve to enjoy traversing off line. It takes me a long time to learn how to use these beautifully complex models and that is a considerable challenge in itself. If I went out on MP now I would likely be gone in a few seconds. I will certainly get the Persian Gulf map because I do love these maps as interactive battlefield learning environments. One day I may hesitantly peep out into MP, but studying these incredible warplanes in a complex AI map battlefield learning environment is a very challenging and enjoyable matter in itself.

I now love all three of the maps that I have since the Caucus update. Obviously DCS is about setting up battlefields rather than a kind of FSX coverage of the whole planet, not least because each map has to have a heck of a lot more work done on them to produce an interactive battlefield. However, I was just wondering, particularly with the Nevada and Normandy map, is the intention to extend the territorial coverages further over time? I ask because, especially with fast jets and their increasing sophistication, one can fly over say 300 km quite quickly. I would pay for upgrades of that kind if it took a great deal of work to produce. Also, it occurs to me if the Northern France map could extend East we cold edge toward Flanders and set the scene for a whole new theatre consisting of 1914-18 battlefields and aircraft. Can you imagine that? a WWI battlefield created by DCS with DCS and partner models of the Sopwith Camel, the Albertross etc. It makes my mouth water. Neil

I think this is a splendid idea though unfortunately I’ve spent my travel money for this year. Nevertheless Germany is only a few hours away from me by airport to airport, so I could put the second meeting in my diary. PS I’d love to go to Prague though, one of the great European capitals and I’ve never been.

Thanks chaps, that is helpful

Let me be clear, there is nothing wrong with constructive criticism. We all should benefit from that. But I've noticed on this particular forum (ie the M2000), that there is a significant amount of unhelpful carping. Flight simulation is not about creating perfect representations of reality, the technology for doing that is far, far more expensive than most of us can afford. Desktop flight simulation has, nevertheless, advanced phenomenally since first I took an interest 15 years ago, and the Razbaam Mirage is an excellent example of a very sophisticated desk top simulation at study level. It is a wonderful achievement, however imperfect any of them are. Of course there are bugs and absences but they are occasionally attended to and I have long ago come to terms with the fact that I am not flying the real thing, nor do I expect to fly the real thing, but I fly a desktop limitation. Accusations levelled at developers to the effect that they are selling people a 'pup', that they are not interested in supporting their product after it has been sold is unhelpful and I think untrue (though of course I know, no more than you but I would prefer to give people that I don't know the benefit of the doubt rather than leap to more cynical and critical conclusions). Let us all be more constructive, and work together to improve this beautiful model. Take care Neil

Hello I've recently seen pictures of the M2000 carrying an air to air loadout which, as well as that which we carry in DCS, includes another 4 missiles of what looks like the Aim 7 but I'm sure they will have a different name. Is that something that our Mirage will be capable of carrying eventually? Thanks Neil

Hello I've noticed how, with all DCS aircraft (but I'm studying the Viggen at he mo), that, for instance, trim settings, waypoint settings and other things, in one 'instant action' scenario, will affect the aircraft when you return to that same scenario later. The scenario seems to remember your settings. This can make things a bit difficult because it is not always possible to correct, say, a port dipping wing, or a way point selection that doesn't seem to shift in the normal way/ I've wondered if this is a bug?? I've managed to reset everything by coming out of DCS and going back in, but does anyone know any more convenient way of doing this? Thanks all Neil

At 52 I’m thankfully still very well if you don’t count numerous chemicals that stop me lapsing into yet another bout of depression and anxiety. But having reached middle age I feel my mortality and have often wondered whether my hobbies might become so interfered with by faculties failing from age. I read on this forum of some poor chap finding this to be the case. And then keeping up with the technicalities of sophisticated models should become even more difficult. However, that said, I am an academic so I work with my mind and obviously depend upon its good functioning. The thought of various forms of dementia is fairly terrifying. But short of that my understanding has always been that the mind changes rather than fails. It becomes better at the retention in long term memory, not so good at retaining short term information so you do need to work a bit harder to ensure that information is hardwired, but your mind may still be pretty dexterous. A relatively common assumption amoungst people I know in the academic disciplines is that the mind will remain fit for as long as it remains well exercised. As for body; well, I’m afraid I’ve put on allot of weight in the last few years and must get rid of that and excercise to have a better chance of surviving with good quality of life I guess. PS its interesting how many flight simmers are of ‘more mature’ years isn’t it?

I just thought that I would offer a few fruits of my reflections on what a plonker I can be. I started my love affair with flight simulation with Microsoft Flight Sim 2002. Through 2004 and FSX, as many of you will know, the level of sophistication improve rapidly and with addon’s from the likes of PMDG the realism of PC flight simulation would reach once unimaginable heights. And that’s what I would go for time and again, greater and greater realism and sophistication. I’ve spent far more money than I’d be comfortable with my wife knowing about and the prices have gone up considerably in recent years. But the really daft thing is that I’m obsessive about realism, buying model after model of the like, the more real the better. But here there arises a certain failure of logic. The more sophisticated they get the more time it takes to learn to use them, between DCS, P3D and FSX I have accumulated more aircraft than British Airways, I want every one of the most sophisticated models I can get my mits on, but I also want to use them fully. So how on earth do I expect to master them all? Headng closer and closer to the real thing how on earth can I expect to find them to be easier and quicker to pick up than real aircrew? I must confess it seems to me that much of my manic buying may end up going to waste, but will that stop me? I very much doubt it.

Amen brother, a fellow athlete in verbal dexterity, my respect! Yes, ‘‘tis true, the makers have put forward their considered expectations that our new toy be within our grasp by the end of spring. However, most unfortunate though it be, the reality is that there is considerable latitude concerning the whereabouts of: ‘the end of spring’. And so it was that I took upon myself the burden of enquiry thus: ‘is a more definitive forecast possible?’

When? I make no apologies for asking, for I am the customer and therefore apparently always right: thus I put the question: are you able to be a little more definitive about the date upon which I am able to take delivery of my new aeroplane? I realise such questions have a tendency to elicit a considerable degree of consternation amoungst developers and an extraordinary level of sycophancy amongst apologists, but my ardour has been aroused by indications as to the superior quality of this forthcoming model and this my inner energy has become elevated beyond my feeble capacities to thus to contain. And so alas I lay myself at your feet and hope that my curiosity meet not with those standard rebuffs of developers from DCS to FSX and P3D, towit ‘it will be ready when it is ready’, but will elicit from those ‘in the know’ something firm and definitive and thereby cool my feverish expectations. Many thanks Neil

I really don’t think the F1 is the same, isn’t it a very different aircraft - bigger, slightly different shape? I don’t know but I’m interested.

RIP Jim

I was just watching the new DCS World advertising video. It’s beautiful And you find yourself asking how any flight simulation enthusiast could not want to get hold of this simulation. If if anyone asks me I would have to say that this is genuinely what DCS is like. And it just occurred to me the long way we’ve come since I bought the 1st ‘Lock on‘ from my local computer shop. Long may it all continue. Neil