isoul

At last we got some info concerning the BS/WH compatibility patch. We can just hope that there are some fixes concerning the BS on way along with the rest stuff. Thats what I expect when I wrote the OP. THX ED! http://www.gamingshogun.com/Article/8965/DCS__A-10C_Warthog_Review_-_PC.html

British Harrier II are being retired this month (or the next) as announced back in 2010. If ED developed such a sim in the past, now that the aircraft is retiring, maybe it got the "green light" to release a detailed sim of the Harrier II. For now we got a sim for Ka-50 which had no avionics upgrades recently and the operational Ka-50 number is officially 15. The aircraft won't be produced as we know it any longer BUT still ED had a contract. So... if you can get a contract for a helicopter which counts 15 operational units worldwide almost everything seems quite possible. Personally the Harrier II would be a nice addition to the DCS series in my opinion! +1 for the bloody Harrier II!

Pigmachine I think that compatibility between DCS modules is one of the main aspects of the whole series. To me, this "interoperability" of the modules would be the most interesting part of the whole series. I wouldn't expect ED to back-step in this sector. Of course I have my doubts about making FC2.0 compatible with the DCS since you 'll have some F-15/Su-27 pilots flying in "easy mode" (compared to the DCS aircraft) preying on the more complex-to-fly A-10C. I believe that at some point DCS series would have to part ways with the older FC, mostly due to different fidelity each product uses to model aircrafts.

Flamming Cliffs 2.0 aircrafts being flown against Warthog or the Shark... I don't think that would be fair since DCS aircraft are modeled in higher detail thus making them harder to fly while in FC2.0 things are a lot easier to fly.

I am skeptical too RichardG... From the first very first few times I flew the a mission I 've noticed that AI wingman acts weird. Even in quick mission I see that my wingman flies quite unrealistically compared to the friendly Mi-24s. And NO, AI of air units is important even in multiplayer.

Great idea. I always believed that since the Ka-50 has a somewhat narrow variety of guided missiles, implementing more rocket variants would be great. Frag, A/T, smoke, illumination are good but there are some usefull variants left out like the S-8DM(FAE variant), S-8BM(Penetrating variant), S-8PM(Chaff variant). Same goes for S-13 rocket too.

Stay at range, a bit behind the convoy, since the attack won't commence unless the convoy itself approaches the ambush area. I think 2-3km would be ideal since, when the fight begins (giving out the enemy's position in the wooded area), you can spray the area with rocket salvos (probably set at med) and finish off what you can with your cannon (HE rounds). If you scout infront of the convoy you won't be able to spot ambusher in the woods and you 'll probably be forced to circle around before you open fire on them. Hover NOT since you aren't the one who is ambushing.

It would be good to reproduce all (or almost all) munition types. Personally I miss the FAE warhead variant S-8.

Where did you find such info? I am not doubting your argument but it seems that someone searched in detail... extreme detail if you ask me. In such detailed sources we can find many interesting things.

A great general and military theorist, long time ago, said something like: "In war, the simplest things are the best" Common sense is the simplest "defence" we can use... Can't agre more with you Speed!

Yeah there are some J-issues with the wingman's AI... (got it?) Actually I am certain that AI of almost every other helicopter is better. Check out how the Mi-24 AI pilot handles it's heli in the quick mission. My wingman won't fly like this even after Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God himself bless him! God bless us all!

I 've tried it before buying TrackIR. I found that, while it tracked, in general, the movement of my head, it was sometimes too sensitive while some other times wasn't tracking it correctly or wasn't tracking it at all. Of course the tracking was depending on light conditions in the room quite much. Compared to TrackIR its a "day and night" comparison. I believe the main source of problems Cachya has are derived from the dependability on tracking high contrast areas of the image (the reason you use a black&white "goofy paper" on your head). AFAIK TrackIR, for example, tracks IR light produced by IR LEDs and captured by an IR camera. This works great since you have few to none IR sources in your room. On the other hand Cachya follows high-contrast area (bright colors such as white) captured by a normal camera. You understand that there might be more that one "bright color" in your room (generated by sunlight, a spotlight or just a deflection) so these will easily interfere in the tracking process. Of course Cachya's price cannot be compared to TrackIR. Still, personally I believe its TrackIR or nothing.

What I know is that having some forward speed gives some additional speed to the rocket resulting in slightly bigger range. Forward speed may reduce the possible(?) impact of recoil when a salvo of rockets are launched. Still I 've seen helicopters launching rockets both while hovering and while moving forward so I believe there is no absolute rule about it.

Welcome on-board! Have patience and check the training or the manual too. Black Shark is hard to learn but you 'll feel great when you start doing so!

@sobek: My friend I didn't say that ED is making me lose my interest on DCS neither I said that ED owes me any additional features. Losing interest on something is a personal preference and I would gladly pay for any additional features implemented. I said that ED, the way it is choosing to act, doesn't help us not to lose interest. If you read my posts carefully you 'll see that I am not insisting in a patch released ASAP. Instead, an announcement stating that there is work being done and that some fixes are on the way along with the upcoming compatibility patch would be, at this point, almost as good as a patch! I am sending you some companies that are developing PC entertainment titles in a form of interoperable series(in PM), since I feel comparing different companies or products doesn't add anything to the thread nor I think that posting a list here would interest BS funs. I would just like to mention, answering to @bengo in the same time, that Call of Duty, BattleField, Total War, Flight Simulator or similar series of titles are series of the same franchise but not a interoperable titles of the same series (like DCS). Concluding, I 've just requested fixing already implemented features and if this is not possible at the time, an announcement including some info for us (the BS users) would be great aswell. Additionally I would kindly request that you answer/argue on things I 've wrote, not things that you though I 've wrote, since misunderstanding things I want to say seems a rather strong possibility. The matter seems depleted to me. I think I 've posted what I felt it needed to be posted and I explained my self several times. Continuing posting here, for my part, would just derail the thread and probably harm the purpose of it.

Let me further explain myself. It may be tiring to say the same thing over and over again but I will gladly do it in order to let devs, forum mods or whoever cares to be "in the shoes" of a customer. I am aware of the fact that BS will benefit from WH development. There will be some new features implemented in BS from WH when a compatibility patch is released. HDR, Low Altitude Clutter, new & improved AI units etc... I am more than glad about these. Still there is a little "but" somewhere... So, what about existing issues? Till now (10 months since 1.0.2) BS users didn't see any actual benefit from the development of the WH. Sure there will be benefit but this will come after the compatibility patch is out which, in turn, will come after the urgent WH issues are solved which, in turn, will come after we have waited for 10 months already! Even when the compatibility patch will be out no one can guarantee that there will be fixes coming along. It may only add some new features to the existing BS in order to be compatible with the WH. Who knows? No one even bothered to include some info, which would cost nothing, about plans on patching the BS. If there was something going on concerning the issue BS has, ED could include it in an announcement so we would be aware of it. So, till present day, we 've seen or heard of no patch fixing any issue. An action you have seen not and you haven't heard about is equal to no action. What more do you expect to happen for us to lose interest? Is that so hard to fathom? And one last thing concerning the "BS benefiting for free" matter... Carrying over some features from WH to the BS for free is a little sacrifice every company, that is developing a successful game series (different interoperable game titles, like the DCS series) should do in order to "earn" a dedicated online community. Doing so will ensure that the DCS community will have a strong interest on the series for many years to come. This, in turn, means that DCS series and ED will equally benefit from such action. Keeping your customers happy in order to keep them interested on your product isn't some kind of favor... its a way to run a successful business. PS : Sorry if I seem to be somewhat harsh to ED, I really respect them, but since some of you don't get my point I have to explain what I feel & think with more "crude" words.

Nate, perhaps you didn't got my point correctly. Let us not particularize the patch matter to one bug or another. The point is not if the bug that annoys me most is addressed or not. The point is that BS and DCS series has some issues and there was totally no action for several months right now. Even the announcement that was made didn't include a word about the BS. No, I am not upset that ED moved on to another product. Thats good and promising overall. You mention that ED will continue to support BS choosing some viable financial model (meaning it will pump out cash from the sale of Warthog so it can pay the wages of the support team). Beware, though, that this "strategic choice" may prove to have some negative impact on the DCS audience in the long term. What I mean? I own BS and I really like it. Still I expect its flaws to be corrected in some reasonable time. I was planning to buy Warthog at release but since I saw that the BS patching is done every now and then (for whatever reason) I am reluctant and prefer to wait 'till I see that the Warthog state is quite good. The Warthog is being released, after a long beta, with issues while the BS issues weren't addressed. I decide to buy Warthog after these issues are addressed. In the meanwhile I have the BS which has its own issues that I hope they will be addressed with a compatibility patch which will come AFTER Warthog's issues are solved... In this time I believe that DCS series will lose some part of it's audience. Sometimes the "strategic choices" a company is making can harm the community and the title's reputation which will have a negative impact on sales. Still, having some info about an upcoming patch for BS would cost nothing and would keep the interest high. It wouldn't harm ED to include a few lines about the BS so its audience (that they are potential A-10C buyers) won't lose their interest. Check what other companies that release titles of the same series every now and then do to ensure their community's commitment to the title. The best solution to me is to have a small portion of a company's dev team dedicated to support while the rest are commited to developing new products. Many companies do that and its financially more viable, even though supporting an old product doesn't gain you any direct profit, rather than setting full focus on development and then shift to support and vice versa. If ED can't do that they must consider if their business model will be viable in the long term. If ED left BS, the first module of the DCS series, as is then it would be the biggest mistake a company could do. This would vastly harm DCS reputation and potential sales. To me this is not considered an option but a "killing-blow" to the series as a whole. PS : Excuse me for the long post. I just wanted to point out "potential dangers" to the DCS audience deriving from the decisions ED makes. I may prove to be wrong but a fact that maybe alarming to ED is that a lot of people seems to agree with my posts. Surprisingly, almost half the forum rep I got right now came from this thread. I think there are a lot of BS funs feeling the same way I do.

That is why I believe the specific issue should be addressed immediately after it was realized. Now the same obvious issue is plaguing both the Black Shark and the Warthog.

For example, what annoys me most and what is more obvious that anything else, is wingman's AI. Is that an aircraft specific issue (meaning that the AI can't get along with Ka-50 flight model only) or this behavior is carried over to DCS:A-10C Warthog wingman AI, meaning this is a shortcoming of the simulation engine in general? I may misunderstood the concept of module in DCS. But what difference does this make? Would this be addressed earlier if it was in one category or the other? Having an issue present for at least 10 months, no matter if its module related or simulation engine related, is quite long. Making an announcement concerning solely the latest product, while a part of the audience is waiting something for the Shark, is quite disappointing. Stating that the brand new product will, unlike its predecessors, get more frequent updates while you are waiting for 10 months already is, sorry to say, quite annoying.

Eddie, unfortunately, it's totally reasonable to wait till all issues of Warthog are solved and then start working on a compatibility patch that may address the Shark issues as well. This is my concern... How long we 'll have to wait and how many DCS modules will be out till the Shark will get the proper attention. The Shark's audience is far from impatient and the fact that devs can do "one thing at a time" should be considered before releasing the Warthog, or at least before making a public announcement concerning only their newest product. I think we all agree that BS audience waited long enough and while the Shark was the only DCS chapter out, before the Warthog's release, it didn't get the required attention since FC2.0 release! The recent announcement came without stating a word about the Shark or mentioning any plans for fixing its long known issues. So, actually no one promised us that there will be fixes to the Shark along with a compatibility patch while no one can ensure us that the next compatibility patch won't implement more bugs that will be fixed after the 3rd DCS module is out in the market... It wouldn't harm ED to announce something about the Shark too. If DCS is a series of modules, ED have to support each module accordingly.

Unfortunately, 159th_Viper, I didn't miss that explanation which is referring solely to DCS:A-10C Warthog, neither I criticize the "short and small" approach decided by ED on the A-10C. What I am talking about here is the "Large and Long" approach on the Black Shark. To be more specific : DCS Black Shark released (English Language) : 10 December 2008 Patch 1.0.1 released : 10 August 2009 (9 months since release) Patch 1.0.2 released : 14 May 2010 (9 months since last patch) Today is : 10 March 2011 (10 months since last patch) Still we have issues in a "wait list" since release (ex. Wingman behaviour/skill). I wish ED team adopted the "small and short" approach for DCS:BS too but the announcement leaves little room for hope, ED mentioned nothing! The whole announcement was Warthog-wise. No one bothered telling us what plans are there (if there are any) about addressing BS issues. What I got from that announcement? ED is going to put more effort on its new product while BS is in a waiting queue for 10 months. This means that BS patch will be pushed further into the future and the BS audience will have to wait even longer... I hope I am not right but... ED did almost nothing for BS in the past 10 months. Now that the Warthog is out and requires attention I can't help feeling that our "wish" (about patching the Shark) will go down to the bottom of the drain. Personally I don't care if I can fly with Warthog pilots while my game is at the state it was one year ago.

It was 15 days after the official release of DCS:Warthog and a patch was out addressing numerous bugs for that product. On the other hand there are months since last patch for DCS:BS and I heard no official word for patching and addressing issues with BS. ED only announced that, for A-10C, the patches will be released more often and will be smaller reducing the chance of implementing new issues along with fixes. I am sorry to say that I feel that ED's other product (DCS:BS) seems to be forgotten and its audience "forced", in some indirect way, to buy the next chapter of DCS series, in order to get patches more often, or stay with BS 1.0.2 and all the bugs and other issues. This is making me ever more reluctant to buy DCS:Warthog since I find ED's way of thinking about patching their products quite odd. I understand that DCS:Warthog is their brand new product and needs support to take its place in the market... but BS needs support too to satisfy it's audience and make a name for ED that it stays committed to their products by not letting them "rot" in a timely manner. DCS supposed to be a series and, as we imagine that something new will come up next, we ought not to forget the already released titles. We need to move forward but a glance in the past titles can be useful too. At least, when we talk about "series", I understand that there will be the same quality and the same attention, in terms of support, for all the products in that series.

Black Shark will always be special. Black Shark is something like the Air Combat Aces of World War I ... No matter how many years have passed, no matter the means they had, no matter the simplicity of their machines and the "primitive" stage of Aerial Warfare... THEY are the FIRST who wrote history in the air while others just followed. For that they will be remembered! The OP is far from pointless!!!

The problem that comes to my mind when I a thinking of DCS:BS is the "Wingman's (in)ability". I find that wingman has hard time in doing most things right. The best thing he does is attracting enemy fire and making himself the No1 Target of the enemy... saving your butt (the truth must be said) in some occasions but subtracts much of the fun on many more! I hope this could be addressed somehow... Now, its really sad that LWR works "a bit weird". Still, the saddest thing of all is that it has been like that for many months now and while DCS:A-10C Warthog went officially on the store's shelves... ED's older product (meaning BS) has still some obvious issues that haven't been addressed for quite some time now. This (along with the Warthog's recommended PC specifications) is making me reluctant in buying their latest product.

Fear not the W7 x64! It works great for me from the very first day.