Rick50

A few things to consider: These aircraft are NOT simple. There's a lot to learn. Most customers have a limited amount of time to devote to a "game" (yea, it's a simulator, but in our lives it's essentially not a training tool but for our chosen style of "entertainment"). And there are great tutorials. But different people learn differently. Different teachers have teaching styles, different presentation styles for different students who absorb the lesson in different ways. Think back to school, college or workplace instructions: Ever had a teacher that you dreaded going to, because it was a struggle to absorb their lesson? Maybe too wordy, too slow, talks down in a condescending manner? Maybe another teacher you liked because of how they explained things? How they actually did the "hands on" portion? Or jumps too quick to get to the point with no details? Maybe not enough in the nuts and bolts of actually accomplishing things? Too much theory not enough hands-on? Or maybe all hands on at too fast a rate, skipping over verbalizing important steps that are assumed the students know by heart? Not enough theory? Dry monotone theory with no pauses that just goes ON AND ON AND ONANDONANDON... maybe teach is too critical of student, maybe far too lax and too much unwarranted praise, not enough feedback, or maybe you are drowning in feedback and it's distracting you from the process of absorbing the hands on part of the lesson? My point is that people teach differently, and people LEARN differently. Different institutions teach with different styles too... a kindergarten lesson is going to be presented VERY differently from an Army Lesson on safe handling of a grenade. Or a University Biology lesson. Or a car driving lesson. They'll have a different feel, different presentation, different expectations of the students. I think there's room for many different styles, what works for some doesn't work well for others. When we have choices of teachers, we have the opportunity to seek out a new source to learn, when we run into a topic that stumps us. We probably come back to the first teacher for the rest of the topics, but maybe to learn that one thing, we seek out a different teacher because maybe they've covered it differently. Pilot instructors often notice that they learn more as instructors, than they did as students, for a variety of reasons. One told me that becoming an instructor was super useful in becoming a really good pilot. Because instructing is on some level also learning, often in more depth. My own father was a highschool teacher. Smart, knowlegable. Competent. I never spent time with him in a school classroom... but seeing how he struggled to teach us kids non-school things... man, sometimes that was painful. ---- As for DCS content providers, It might simply be someone's getting a lot of grief from a few people over tutorials, that can really weigh heavy on someone sometimes. But really, we don't actually know much of anything. Often people are vague on purpose, because while they feel strongly about something, they also don't want to hurt others feelings, don't want an escalation, don't want friends to go on a crusade that wasn't wanted. Sometimes just want to part ways peacefully and chill. Sometimes it's best to just let a subject rest.

Whenever I visit the forum, the text in actual posts is really tiny, most of the time I need to "pinch zoom" to read the posts. I usually use a smaller laptop with about a 11 inch screen. Sure, I can go into my computer's settings and select "grampa mode" with HUGE font size... which makes it good on this forum... but then makes other sites' fonts MASSIVE and don't fit on the screen more than five words per line... so is there a forum setting that I'm not seeing? An option to change text or font size to my preferences? Thanks!

Hmm... strange that they would include such poly's that simply aren't needed... even FPS sims don't need that kind of details, but for window dressing that will never be used in-game?!?! Sure, the exterior looks great, but this is why a 3 year old system chokes... uneeded details that don't contribute to enjoyment. My guess is they looked for good 3d asset to buy, did so, and just put it iin-game with no model optimisation, reduce the polys not seen by the player.

Well, yes and no. Yes, for the use, putting a physical sticky label onto the cockpit, for use by the pilot. No, for the use of very modern "computer printer" style lables. But generally, yes, that's kinda the idea. I'm talking about the types used in the 1970's 80's and 90's, black border with white lettering, sometimes red tape. Mechanical printer that makes an raised surface for the letters.

SEPECAT Jaguar GR.1 Why? Mostly manual. Single seat low level flight strike a/c. Unique look.

Ah yes, the Thud... and right around the same timeframe, more or less! Still, it's interesting that the Phantom saw so many new innovations carried aloft through it's history

Ah, makes perfect sense! Thanks! Yea, not being able to see IR light sources might make it difficult to see FARP's, friendly ground units, individual friendly troops... or even IR laser designators from ground troops...

Awesome, thanks!! Didnt the Iranians buy a 747 for air tanker?

Just noticed in a screenshot of the CPG... he's got the the monocle for the PNVS... but ALSO the night vision binos on his helmet?!?! What?? I mean, nice to have night vision, but... doesn't he already have night vision for flying in the dark with the monocle and PNVS ?! Am I missing something? I didn't think the bino night goggles were used in the Apache... Or is the binos just for emergency battle redundancy, in case the PNVS and or monocle fails during a flight, can still manage to get to a FARP / safety? Kinda confused by that, any real-world 'Pache pilots weigh in on this?

Ok, it seems that DCS already has liveries for Air Cav, 82nd Airborne, and Israeli Saraph (the D Longbow, but named in Hebrew for a venomous fiery winged serpent). Also seen is external fuel tanks on the pylons.

Well... they do use the D. Albeit made under license by AgustaWestland, but I doubt there's a lot of difference between the two. I mean the first 8 units were actually made by Boeing... and the rest made by Agusta Westland/Leonardo from Boeing-supplied kits. But DCS representation is that of a US Army variant, not the UK variant, so we're still on the same page, that it's not "exactly" the same! Edit: While essentially a Boeing product, the UK variant does have some differences, they use a Rolls Royce turbine, Bowman secure radios, doesn't use Hydra rockets but CRV7 Canadian rockets insteadn (much higher velocity and Kinetic Energy for Flechette rounds),

available now... might be slow to download, seems popular

Wait... he's got the the monocle... but ALSO the night vision binos on his helmet?!?! I mean, nice to have night vision, but... doesn't he already have night vision for flying in the dark with the monocle and PNVS ?! Am I missing something? I didn't think the bino night goggles were used in the Apache Or is the binos just for emergency battle redundancy, in case the PNVS and or monocle fails during a flight, can still manage to get to a FARP / safety? Kinda confused by that, any real-world 'Pache pilots weigh in on this?

Ok, so we know that many older aircraft did not feature switch labels for all languages, and sometimes aircraft would be sold to other nations. We also know that virtual flyers may not be able to read the markings in other languages. So I have a solution that preserves some semblance of realism, even for people who fly planes that don't know the native languages of the planes they fly: Old school label makers! No, not the computerised units of today. I mean the ones that used a black thick strong tape about maybe 8mm wide, and you stamped each letter individually, mechanically, and selected each letter and number from a rotary dial. At least one manufacturer was Dymo, and the results can be seen here: Dymo on Etsy Dymo mechanical manual printer at Etsy These used to be seen on all sorts of vehicles, radios, by switches, back in the 1980's and before that, in the real world, and on some military equipment. So, it would look more immersive, if you wanted say English in a German vehicle, or Spanish in a British vehicle, even if the real vehicle never had Spanish labels, because anyone who could get such label makers could outfit a cockpit in maybe 2 hours of work. I'm not saying it "has to be" this way, just an idea that is based in the real world of old, a possible option for us virtual fliers!

Riiiiight... but then after all the noise and havoc, none of the enermies would be down! Spray and not hitting, not my idea of a good survival stratergy! Might be a better idea to pretend as a civilian with a hidden 1911, just walk out of there...

Hmm, I don't remember seeing Phantoms with the fuel probe like that before! Was that limited to UK Phantoms, or did other nations have that too? Did the USN have probes like that? Israel and Iran? Didn't USAF Phantoms have a port on the fuselage spine?

Hmm... that could be a nice workaround for people struggling to do such precision close formation flying! That way even n00bs could participate in complex missions before they gain the highest skill level! Especially since the Phantom is probably not as easy/stable to fly as say a Hornet... considering no stability assist computers and such. Good idea, I like it!

Was the Phantom the first plane to "regularly" deploy precision guided AG munitions? I mean, I know there were a handful of planes before it that used guided ordnance... but those seemed to be still partly in the experimental / evaluation / special purpose missions phase. Like B-17's with radio controlled glidebombs, or F4U's with the Batbomb anti-ship weapon. Not sure if the F-111 carried Paveways before the Phantom or after it, but although most early Phantoms just carried dumb munitions, it did seem to me that for the dawn of modern guided AG, a few Phantoms carried and designated regularly. Is this opinion correct, or am I missing something?

I think I'd break my neck turning that far back unless I loosened the shoulder straps a LOT and bent forward, move my shoulder, before turning! I mean, I know visibility is very important to combat helo pilots, but I do wonder if that's a normal move in an Apache? Maybe its easier to do that in a Kiowa, I dunno...

available now

Well, considering there's at least TWO recreations of the Top Gun intro using DCS, I'm sure a recreation of both Janes LB 1 and 2 are not far away! I prefer this one:

Well, as much as I do believe that other modules were very popular, he's probably correct about the Hornet being highly anticipated! Thing is, even if we had raw sales data, it wouldn't be totally clear to measure anyway, as I'm very VERY certain that the total number of DCS users has grown considerably since the Hornet launch... so comparing numbers as an absolute would be a mushy conclusion if we're being honest. Remember, when the Hornet was approaching completion, a lot of DCS modules were trainer planes, and the hot tickets at that time were Harrier, Mirage, Gazelle, F-5E, Mig-19... the Hornet was gonna be a whole new era of complex multi-role aircraft... and frankly, I never EVER thought even that first year, that the Hornet would be developed to have so many of the newer smart munitions simulated with such details... I just thought it was amazing that JDAMs, laser pods with Paveways, and toss bombing cues were so well represented. Never figured they'd go so deep as to have SLAM cruise missiles and the anti-armor skeet munitions... I have to wonder if RalfiDude and Grim Reapers would be interested in showing off the Apache... though I'm certain the GR will be making tutorials by next week, and I'm not sure if Ralfi is even interested in eggbeaters at this time!

Do they carry SA-80's ? I mean, I know that the UK MOD does issue "Armalite pattern" rifles for certain applications. Pathfinders, Executive Protection Details, SAS and SBS all use Colt Canada/Diemaco C-8 variants... basically an arctic M4 with a better barrel.... maybe their Apache crews use those too? Edit, should have read the rest of the thread first! Ok so the shortened "Carbine" SA-80 variant is carried on Apaches. Hmm.

Even the UN operations are often armed. When I wore a blue helmet in the 1990's, I carried a C9A1, (a Canadian made variant of the FN Minimi, better known as a M249 SAW from video games)... no semi-auto... just full auto, and a 200 round belt, with a spare belt box in my load bearing gear (strange vest that fit over the kevlar vest). When we were driving, I was on the Browning .50 soooo... Maybe the original poster is from a country that doesn't issue M-4's, so maybe it's distracting? Or maybe doesn't want the view restricted like that?

I don't see it as "ignoring". I'd bet real money that the devs themselves WANT the maps you listed !! But this isn't "War Blunder". It's not simple AI, with semi-fictional vehicles playing "air quake"... the textures in DCS are high quality, the vehicles are high poly's, high textures, the terrains match the real world. On occasion, screenshots look so good as to confuse if it's a picture of the real world. The systems are real, the weapons behave realistically. The fire control systems work as the real ones do. And the maps are HUGE, in both area modelled, object count, poly's represented, and massive textures. Also, teams that make maps are tiny, probably just a few people in some cases. Why is that all relevant? Because it means that making just ONE map takes 2-4 years, depending on the scale of the project. It's a slow laborious process. The results speak for themselves, just look at anything on the Syria map for proof of that! There's probably a technical reason why we haven't seen Vietnam maps yet as well: the billion palm trees, the high population density and the houses they have, the varied terrains... I bet a map of Vietnam, that meets the visual and realism quality that Ugra's Syria map has acheived... would be MASSIVE, and woujld probably choke even the top game systems of today. Nordic nations, Korea, Vietnam, Israel Egypt Jordan are likely to all be made at some point, as long as DCS is still popular and making revenue, but we'll have quite the wait to get them all !! Other games and mild sims could make reasonable versions of all those maps in probably less than a year, but ED has a very high quality and realism expectation to meet.