Smoky

Not if Steam isn't working (eg their authentication server is down). If steam doesn't load or connect properly then you can't load your game unfortunately. Once Steam has taken control, you lose it. The days of simply running an executable are over with Steam games.

Please explain how it is optional if every version of Call of Duty I have played to date has been non-steam, then when it is time to purchase the next version (in this case MW2) it is available only on Steam. Even if you bought the box version, as I did (thinking I would avoid Steam), you still end up having to deal with Steam. I wasn't looking for anyone to try and sway me or change my mind. I hate Steam, and always will. It's a horrible service with horrible service quality. Their heart is in the right place, making it easy for even the most noob player to "get along". But the execution is severely flawed. And Steam could care less about any of you. I have a very long tech support exchange which proves that. Good luck if any of you experience what I did, where a game simply doesn't work. And there's nothing you can do to fix it because all of the file versions are under their total control. So you just waste $50 on a game. All Steam says is "thanks for your purchase!" And posts like Jesse's aren't very constructive. When I replied it was all feedback about Steam based on facts and my own experience, which no one bothered to ask about before crucifying me and my opinion. I didn't point my finger at anyone or call anyone names or insult anyone. Too many good people here to put up with nonsense like that. Unsubscribing.

No NO no NO no NO no NO!!! No Steam ever! Steam is single handedly ruining the PC gaming market: -games release late -updates are inconsistent -inability to perform manual version management is troublesome -if steam goes down you cannot play the game you paid for!!!! -if there is a problem with multiplayer, steam will never care. And the developer can blame steam. Down with Steam!! They are the WORST thing to happen to PC gaming, EVER!!! Just my 0.02

Yes!! "DF'ing" That's it. Thank you!

I think this may be what I was referring to. Though the description of TACAN in Falcon seemed similar so I thought maybe it was the same technology. It works like this: two pilots get separated in clouds. To rejoin, one will key the mic, the other will use their HSI needle which is pointing towards the key'd mic signal source. This tactic is useful for finding each other but risky over enemy territory since the enemy could use the radio emission for tracking.

Yes, TACAN! I remember having it in Falcon. Thx

Thx! That is indeed a good tip.

A10 pilots can use their HSI / TACAN to point to wingman emitting a specific frequency. It makes rejoining formation easier, especially in bad weather or at night. And it can be used to find a tanker, etc. Will this be modeled in DCS WH? Thanks. Sorry if I'm not properly describing the feature.

Thank you! Excellent links! Rep inbound!

Ok. I just remembered that the orig LOMAC req's were 8.1, and wasn't sure if it ever moved past that. Thx! Still...I wouldn't worry about DX10.

Fortunately simulating breathing is not in the DirectX scope of features, so no worries there. :D Since FC2 doesn't use DX9 (does it?) I doubt you will have to worry about needing DX10. (PS: DX10 is a farce anyway. Hardly anyone (except Microsoft) adopted it. DX11 will be the next mainstream version to be concerned about).

Thanks Gadroc. I will only be using this for DCS A10 anyway. So in DCS I can set it to provide a forward view only? You hit on a good point...porting the HUD to a physical HUD device would be tastey. It seems like I saw a HUD for simming somewhere but I can't find it now and I can't remember how it worked. But that would be great too. Then all we would need is to open up the forward view. I'm using a projector so the more depth/integration I can achieve between physical hardware and external view the better to take advantage of the big screen.

Awesome! I missed that before. Thx!

Drool Subscribe This sounds like an excellent way for me to get the pit I need without having to spend any time on it. I built my current pit when I had no kids. Now I desperately want to rebuild for an A10 pit but have ZERO time cuz of the kiddo. This sounds like just the thing!! Can't wait! One question: Let's say I go the full monty on the dash panel with the monitor and mfd's, etc...Is it possible to set up Lock On to display just a forward view with no cockpit? Or with no cockpit but still show the canopy? (the latter would be ideal) Just wondering how this physical pit can be made to coexist with the on-screen presentation of the cockpit, so the pit and display work together rather than providing lots of redundancy in controls/displays.

Modeling the A-10's manual reversion system would allow sim pilots to really take advantage of the A-10's survivability and improve immersion by allowing accurate modeling of emergency procedures and limp-home strategies. Will DCS: WH include the manual reversion system? Cheers, -Dave From wikipedia: Durability This A-10 Thunderbolt II suffered extensive damage over Baghdad during Operation Iraqi Freedom in early 2003, but still made it back to base The A-10 is exceptionally tough. Its strong airframe can survive direct hits from armor-piercing and high-explosive projectiles up to 23 mm. The aircraft has triple redundancy in its flight systems, with mechanical systems to back up double-redundant hydraulic systems. This permits pilots to fly and land when hydraulic power or part of a wing is lost. Flight without hydraulic power uses the manual reversion flight control system; this engages automatically for pitch and yaw control, and under pilot control (manual reversion switch) for roll control. In manual reversion mode, the A-10 is sufficiently controllable under favorable conditions to return to base and land, though control forces are much higher than normal. The aircraft is designed to fly with one engine, one tail, one elevator and half a wing torn off. Its self-sealing fuel tanks are protected by fire-retardant foam. The A-10's main landing gear is designed so that the wheels semi-protrude from their nacelles when the gear is retracted so as to make gear-up landings (belly landing) easier to control and less damaging to the aircraft's underside. A belly landing would be required in the case of a landing gear failure. Additionally, the landing gear are all hinged toward the rear of the aircraft, so if hydraulic power is lost the pilot can drop the gear and a combination of gravity and wind resistance will open and lock the gear in place. The cockpit and parts of the flight-control system are protected by 1,200 lb (540 kg) titanium armor, referred to as a "bathtub". The armor has been tested to withstand strikes from 23 mm cannon fire and some strikes from 57 mm rounds.[41] It is made up of titanium plates with thicknesses from 0.5 to 1.5 inches (13 to 38 mm) determined by a study of likely trajectories and deflection angles. This protection comes at a cost, though; the armor itself weighs almost 6% of the entire aircraft's empty weight. To protect the pilot from the fragmentation likely to be created from impact of a shell, any interior surface of the tub that is directly exposed to the pilot is covered by a multi-layer nylon spall shield. The front windscreen and canopy are resistant to small arms fire. Proof of the durability of the A-10 was shown when then-Captain Kim Campbell, USAF, flying a ground support mission over Baghdad during the 2003 invasion of Iraq on 7 April, suffered extensive flak damage to her A-10. Enemy fire damaged one of the A-10's engines and crippled its hydraulic system, forcing the back-up mechanical system to operate the aircraft's stabilizer and flight controls. Despite this, Campbell managed to fly it for an hour and landed it safely at the air base in manual reversion mode.

Since they are not functional in BS, they prob will not be functional in WH. (The BS manual even states that O2 is not needed in a simulator and thus not modeled. That said, I think it should be. As should the breakers. O2 especially, as it is part of some emergency procedures.

I would very much enjoy a multiplayer SAR mission. This map allows a coordinated effort like that to become very interesting.

Pics?

I will post pics once my project is done, but my plan is to cut the map into squares along the current folds. Then have each "tile" laminated and mounted into a three-ring binder. The tiles could then be navigated "Mapsco" style (ie. pg 1-4 is a quadrant, and so on). OR, ideally, I will store the tiles as a library and then just pull the tiles I need for a specific mission, eg. Moonshield on 104th. That way I can use the laminated tiles as in-flight charts. So I might order a second map for the wall, just because it looks so beautiful as a whole. But I might wait to see if this project is updated post- DCS:A10. :D For now, I've exported the PNG to PDF (huge file) and loaded that into my iPad. I use my iPad as an ultra-high-tech kneepad at the moment. If data were passed to the ipad for centering and flight-following that would be neat. But as it stands the iPad and a high detail pdf make for a beautiful tactical aid. Really, excellent work on this map. I love being able to navigate by roads and powerlines and tracks now. You guys really improved the immersion with this one!

I really had no idea there were such strong convictions either way. This is turning out to be a cool thread. When I fly, it is to enjoy myself. And for me, personally, that means attempting to achieve a level of immersion. And LockOn is so enjoyable that the immersion comes easy, until the goofy stuff starts happening. And then it gets awkward. I think for the most part folks are getting the points I tried to make in the OP. It's not about strict behavior, but about behavior management. I liked the comment about no excess in either direction. And about FC not turning into Xbox. I guess it's just an attitude of "try to do" and not "must do". Especially on a server where immersion and simulation are important. And there are many folks who don't even try when they join a server with formal overtones. And that decreases immersion. When you're in a server, say the 104th, and you takeoff against the pattern, do tower flybys, and take out any target you come across (opfor or not) then that seems kinda lame. And it's not about elitism or noobness. If I go into a quake server and start tk'ing, spawn killing, or glitching then I'm not a noob...I'm just annoying. Same applies here. If you do taxiway takeoffs, suicide runs, and treat others poorly than after a while you become unwelcome. There are just other servers for informal play. Pointing out that there is a distinction doesn't make for hubris. If I assumed that all pilots who preferred arcade were less skilled than those pilots who preferred sim, then that might be elitist or arrogant. Such a sentiment couldn't be further from my point of making the distinction in my OP. I think the discussion here validates that the distinction does indeed exist. Perhaps it would behoove hosts to decide the behavior they wish to encourage and consider labeling their server and briefing with appropriate detail as Crunch suggests. Then it becomes less of a "recognize a sim environment when I see it" perception and ends up more of a concrete "house rule". Cheers

I like this idea. I'd take it a step further and increase the post-op interaction by having the pilot (optionally) enter their own BDA, based on their own estimates as is done in the real world. Then it could even be a mini-game to see how accurate your are. In a persistent-battlefield campaign such human-pilot feedback could be used to inform the subsequent missions (if we worked on a mission assignment structure like in EECH). If the BDA were inaccurate then folks might think they are going to mop up AAA on an column while really two SA6s survived the last attack. Would be interesting. I also agree with an earlier comment to increase the spotlight on the FAC role, especially for the A-10. It is a very effective FAC platform. In FC2 the best we can do is compromise with an underwhelming loadout that includes smoke. I can never load up the A-10 as heavily as can be done in the real world in FC2. I hope that changes too. I should be able to bring a couple smoke pods, 4 Mavs, and even a couple Mk82s along for the ride, but I never see that as a choice.

Guys, First, I never said anything about banning. Or enforcement. You are making up your own stories at that point. So I don't know how to address those queries. RE: KA-50 takeoffs, use the server/house rules for etiquette. If apron t/o and landing is ok, then awesome. Point is to be aware. RE: Pure simulation, we're talking about behavior, not sim fidelity. And I never said I had a problem with learning curves. In fact, I believe I accounted for that with my proposed item "If I don't know, I will ask."

Please elaborate. How does my wanting someone to behave with some measure of etiquette in a server labeled as a simulation server mean that I am elitist? I have to admit your logic is difficult to follow. You yourself mention you are "still learning". Still learning what? Are you intending to "learn" to coexist between arcade and simulation servers, thus being the thorn on both sides? Or are you "learning" to be a better sim pilot? I suspect the latter. If that is true, then your comments are even more at-odds with your intentions. Put another way, if you are not seeking to multiplay in an environment with simulation etiquette, then what are you still learning? And there really are only two buckets..sim and arcade. We can pretend to blur the line but at the end of the day you're either flying with the mindset of simming, or arcade. You can't flop back and forth and call it something new. It's just arcade at that point. Funny that folks are getting so perturbed by this. lol Wasn't my intention. Really I just wanted to see if the majority of folks here flew with sim etiquette or if most prefer to d!ck around informally, lone-wolfing, doing taxiway takeoffs, and what not. I don't care what any specific person does, since I fly only on sim servers. I was just curious about the community. No harm intended. Allows jets to cool. :D

Cougar MFD's + a couple monitors, and a cockpit template with some switches. Use the monitors to display gauges, etc. Or even the entire front panel (make it touch screen and map the control hotspots). That would cover most everything. And of course, pick up the new Warthog HOTAS! I may upgrade my current setup and go that route for A10C. I've been enjoying racing/flight flexibility in a quick swap.. but the A10 is my baby and now I'm thinking a dedicated A10 pit might be kinda nice. It's tough to decide between a "glass panel" representation or physical switches and gauges, or a combo like Oakes did with his setup in Black Shark. Cool to be able to make the choice though. :-)

Glad to see so many efforts underway before the product is out! You guys are awesome. Per the discussion: collaboration can be a good thing fellas!