GhostDog

FC2, in all likelihood, has reached its last iteration, which is probably a good thing, considering the intellectual property and technical issues involved with its development. However, the enthusiasm for flying a wide diversity of aircraft in multiplayer has not diminished. If anything, it's stronger than ever. However, the development strategy of the DCS series is not geared toward meeting that demand. It revolves around military contracts. Whatever the military customer asks for, is what the civilian player gets. Moreover, the time between DCS modules is measured in years. Given that the stable of DCS aircraft is currently equal to exactly two, it's clear that the DCS series, by itself, cannot satisfy the demand for more flyables from both the red and blue sides, not within a reasonable time frame anyway. Perhaps the strategic thing to do would be to build on the LOMAC experience and create multiplayer flyables specifically for the DCS environment. These flyables could use the SFM (AFM in the case of the T-toad) and 3DOF cockpit that FC players are familiar with, without involving the IP and technical issues associated with the legacy code from LOMAC. They could be packaged as part of a multiplayer add-on for the DCS series. You could call it something like "DCS: Combined Air Operations". In this way, ED could continue to earn a return on its investment in FC, while enhancing the multiplayer experience and improving its revenue between DCS releases. And perhaps ED could finally cut ties with a certain company which shall not be named. Just thinking out loud. Thoughts? :pilotfly:

Sochi-Adler has two runways. The longer runway runs SW to NE. In the game the SW end is numbered 06 and the NE end is numbered 24. The shorter runway runs from SSW to NNE. IRL the SSW end is numbered 02 and the NNE end is numbered 20. Takeoff and approach is normally on runway 06.

Sam Jackson flies DCS? Sweet! :D

I got a discount, so I'm only giving Billy a little pocket change. :smilewink:

It's a retail copy, so hopefully I won't have to worry about those issues. Thanks for the heads-up.

It seems to be assumed that most players will already have a background in another simulator like Flight Simulator or Falcon, and many of the basics of flight, such as landing procedures, are not covered in depth by the manual.

Depending on the features, I would be willing to pay for some modifications. For instance, the ME interface, MP interface and new Caucasus map from DCS:WH packaged as an expansion/compatibility update for FC2. I'd definitely pony up for that (on second thought, no I wouldn't; see below). I realize that FC2 is in all likelihood not going to get any more updates to it's aircraft, but there's something to be said for keeping at least some of the existing flyables flyable in an MP environment. I'd say the T-toad, Su-27 and F-15. Edit: or, conversely, (and probably more feasibly) create a mod to make those three (3.5 if you include the vanilla toad) aircraft multiplayer flyables in the DCS series for those who own FC2. That way, you continue to promote FC2 sales and enhance the multiplayer aspect of the DCS series at the same time.

As nomdeplume aptly stated, it's not a technical issue, it's a business issue. However, I happen to disagree that the demand for an accessible (in terms of cost, technical requirements and ease of setup) and compelling MP experience is weak. One of the reasons that FC 1.1x sat on my shelf for as long as it did after I purchased it is that there simply wasn't any good reason to play it without human competitors. In a simulation as complex as DCS, the AI will always have severe limitations IMHO, which makes robust MP capability an imperative. Granted, the study sim market is a niche market, but that doesn't mean that it can't grow. The best marketing comes from satisfied customers, and one of the strongest selling points that DCS fans can use with their friends and acquaintances is the MP experience. If you neglect the MP component, it becomes much harder to make a case for sitting in front of your computer for hours at a stretch learning how to fly a virtual combat aircraft (combat is a team sport after all). It's easier to show people than to tell them, and you can't show them without accessible servers and good missions.

Thanks for the tips :)

Six years of waiting is pretty patient I think. A dedicated server is a standard feature that ED has inexplicably never seen fit to include during the lifetime of the series. Limited resources doesn't seem to be a sufficient explanation for this. In general, ED seems to be slow to draw lessons from the multiplayer aspect of other games and gaming genres.

Would you advise dual-booting? There aren't many applications that I want/need to run on Win7 aside from games.

I'm going to upgrade from WinXP Pro 32 bit to Win7 64 bit soon. Any advice on precautions to take, pitfalls to avoid?

Yep, tks!

Wonder why I can't? All I really want is the image of the short-range navigation panel for the Su-25. If someone could post it, that would be great.

I don't suppose there is a way to our hands on the image files in the FC2 .pdf manual? I'm building some touch buddy buttons, and those would come in handy. They're protected and can't be copied and pasted.

If you've checked all the locations for all of the above chains in NYC (I assume you're talking about NYC), and you need it by tomorrow, and none of them have BS in stock (hard to believe), you're S.O.L. :dunno: Maybe you could try Jersey. If you have a couple of days, you can order the DVD with next day delivery from Amazon.

As far as I can see, you're climbing too steeply and losing airspeed too quickly. Kuky addressed this in his response: The Su-25T is top heavy to begin with, and it handles poorly when it's fully loaded. Maybe you should try extending further when you set up your attack, and climb to your attack altitude at about 20 deg attitude, while keeping your airspeed above 350 kph. Extending your flaps one notch as you ingress should help also.

Thanks for the help guys.

I let the INS align for a few minutes after selecting route mode. That did the trick.

Even if I were drastically off the course line, and you can see that I intercept the course line shortly after takeoff, as long as I was on the proper heading, the heading bug on the ADI would reflect that, and you can see that it never moves. My aircraft handling is a bit clumsy, but I know how to bushwhack, and I know what's in the range of possible deviation within a given time at a given windspeed (in this instance I think it's around 5 m/s). Something else is going on.

I'm still a bit noobish, and I'm learning how to use my new pedals and HOTAS as well, so that's what's behind some of my less than proficient manuevers. But as far as being slightly off course, the ADI wouldn't be that far out of whack if I only needed to correct by a few degrees. And that wouldn't explain why it doesn't respond no matter what direction I fly (I've tried that), nor the intermittent behavior.

I haven't flown any other missions. I'm working on getting up to speed with the Su-25.

I'm still getting weirdness. The strange thing is, about 30-40 km into my route, the ADI comes to life and aligns with my heading and course, then about 10 km later it dies again. I've attached a track so you can see for yourself. iaf_nav.trk

I'm certain I'm on the right course, so maybe it's the INS. I'll wait a few minutes before taxiing and see if that resolves it.

I take at least 7 min from startup to takeoff. Should I wait for the INS to align before I start to taxi?