ZQuickSilverZ

That is true. However the vehicles themselves interact with the enviroment differently. It is totally different when you have an aircraft using air to create lift than a ship using water displacement to float. Perhaps I should have been more specific and stated water and air vehicle physics. Im glad to see you were paying attention in class though.

To me its not about having a vehicle location. I am sure heading, mark, speed, and altitude are easy enouph to communicate between graphic engines. The problem in my opinion is map size and physics. Map Size Obviously air units need large map sizes. Land vehicles need smaller sizes otherwise they are too spread out. Then you have naval units and thats a mixed bag. You need to be able to place your aircraft carriers anywhere in the water but, you don't want them so spread out that they can not engage each other, but you don't want them too close either otherwise they are just spamming each other. There are tricks to get around some mapping problems. For instance a tank could be "fenced in" so to speak. A ship really only needs to see the water and maybe a couple of miles inland. They don't need the whole world mapped, just the coast and under the water(for submarines). It would be interesting to see how they handled the water. For the naval sim player the ocean needs to be be moving. It needs to "look" like real water. To an aircraft what we have now is workable. Physics I think its pretty obvious that air physics, water physics and land physics are all very different. How do you translate the physics relationship a vehicle has with the ground to someone playing an air sim.

I have suggested this elsewhere. I will state it again. I do not see why you can not have a secondary studio (we will call it Studio B) make civilian aircraft for the DCS maps. They would have to meet DCS or LO standards however. As long as ED is the gatekeeper (for quality control) I would not mind Studio B making civilian aircraft. Think of it kind of Like Infinity Ward (DCS) and Treyarch (LOFC2) both make Call of Duty for Activision. Two separate studio's working on the same game franchise. I mean ED is kind of already doing this with DCS and FC right? Two different flight sims working together online. Why not throw a third in there for civillian flight. *In this instance civilian flight could actually be military aircraft. Fuel tankers, transport helicopters, cargo aircraft, and aircraft supporting VIP's. Basically this would be a catch all for all non combat aircraft. I can see some interesting missions with this. For instance how about anti air units that only spawn when a cargo aircraft lands on the runway (he is delivering them). Or a win condition of a VIP's aircraft landing at a specific airfield (possibly a carrier). Or having a limited number of spawns that can only be refilled by a tranport aircraft landing (you use the arming screen to refill your cargo.... which is only available at the airfield you took off from to keep people from spamming at the landing runway). Im not suggesting ED make these. I am suggesting a partner studio that has to go through ED's quality control. So what do you guys think? By the way Tyger was fascecious supposed to be facetious? (Sorry I'll stop being facetious now :)) Definition of FACETIOUS 1: joking or jesting often inappropriately : WAGGISH <just being facetious> 2: meant to be humorous or funny : not serious <a facetious remark> (Ok NOW I will stop being facetious :)) Just kidding around (see definition 2). Seriously though how is the 74th coming along?

To me it is irrelevant if it is a good move. I mean WoW is not going to interfere with WoT. It is just a new game. Plus it has WoT's juice pushing it so it already has a leg up.

Finally a WoW we can really get into. http://game.worldoftanks.com/news/general_news/wargamingnet_expands_world Wargaming.net is the famous award-winning videogame publisher and developer, best known for the epic MMO World of Tanks, which has already captivated hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world. At this stage we are glad to announce World of Warplanes game, the new project by Wargaming.net which is based on military air dominance ranging from the 1930's through the 1950's. World of Warplanes is a stand alone Free to play game being developed by the team that created the award winning and highly acclaimed game, World of Tanks. “We are proud to be able to develop another high quality Free to Play game for the world’s gaming community”, said Victor Kislyi, CEO of Wargaming.net. “World of Tanks has been extremely succesful and we look to bring the same high quality if not better to World of Warplanes.” With the recent announcement of the partnership with Lesta the overall portfolio of Wargaming.net now features more than 20 titles highly acclaimed by media and players. Follow the news and stay tuned for more World of Tanks! Yessssssss :)

HiJack what I read about Tacpak says it has ground targets. Though you are right as far as I know about there not being a mission editor. I think it is much more tactical to be able to place them where you need them (that is a little more DYNAMIC, as in dynamic campaign). It kind of makes it a flight sim / real time stratagy game. You should have just one person on each side that can place units, and they should decide before the game even starts how many they can place and when (to avoid spamming). http://vrsimulations.com/tacpack.htm " Not only will you be able to take out AI aircraft in single-player, you'll be able to dogfight your friends (and enemies) multiplayer, take out SAM and AAA, or bomb a hostile airfield - all in free-flight" Also listed on the feature list are these "A/A and A/G missiles, ballistics and guided/unguided bombs. " "Drop AI into sessions (see AI menu below). Assets such as SAMs, working carriers, tankers and more may be dropped by team members into the battlefield." "Ground Moving Target Indication (GMT)" "Ground Moving Target Track (GMTT) " "Fixed Target Track (FTT)" These tell me not only will we have ground targets to shoot at........ we will have MOVING ground targets to shoot at. We will also be able to do aerial refueling. "When the dust settles you'll be able to call for a tanker, fuel up behind an intelligent AI refueler flying dynamic racetrack patterns, then RTB to review the action (and lick your wounds) via TacView - an amazing ACMI playback system." Originally Posted by Pilotasso "Would love to see how that compares to LOMAC, if it has solid multiplayer Im sold." So far its just one aircraft. And lets not forget FSX has issues with framerates for most people wich might make combat very difficult (not to mention you just added alot more calculations). I would say wait until they come out with one more aircraft just to see how they interact with one another in multiplayer.

I can kind of see the point about enviroment. I understand today's computers have limitations. But when you play flight sims how often do you see waterfalls, or bluffs, or waves. I would like to fly over water for instance and see the water crashing into a cliff instead of just butting up to the shore. I would like to have waves for instance because whenever we fly over water we just assume the water is calm. I think it would be cool to fly low and have a wave spash water up on the cockpit glass or maybee even have a wave hit a helo and have to adjust from the impact to stay on course. Lets face it the aircraft are "there". ED proved that. The next step is to work on the enviroment.

Maybe I should have been just a bit clearer. I thought I acknowledged that a tank would need at least 3 people. This requirement by itself would almost necessitate online play. Perhaps I should have said an ONLINE tank simulator. I assumed this would be a given with the three person to a tank comment. I agree about a crew for sure. Jumping around from station to station or depending on A.I. is not at all desirable. That is why an online tank sim would be so hard though. Its hard to get three people in sync and hard to get a good enouph crowd to make an online match "doable" (you know 3 people per tank times several tanks). I guess thats why we will always be stuck with arcade fair like WoT. Though Wot is successful and a fun game. Also I am sorry but I don't see anything in Steel Beast that screams to me "must have". The sad fact is there is just not enouph of a market to float servers for this game. Unless it was massive multiplayer.........maybe.

I know ED is a FLIGHT SIM company. But I think it would be SO AWESOME to see ED make a high fidelity tank game (maybe a spin off studio). I know a tank sim would have different graphic and physics requirements than a flight sim and may fall out of thier expertise. Also there is that whole needing at least 3 people to properly operate a tank problem. But I think World of Tanks has proven there is definately a market there for tanks (though admittedly WoT is pretty arcadey and not a sim so the markets are a bit different I suppose). I have no delusions of this actually happening of course. But this is a DCS WISH LIST. And to me DCS T-72 would be pretty awesome. Again I know this will never happen but its fun to imagine the possibilities. This was written for entertainment purposes(mostly;)) Also I would LOVE to see gunner controls for a PC. They basically had this in the old star wars arcade game. Why haven't these things ever been publicly available? If you have a link to USB gunner controls please post it.

1.On the flip side there is also typically level systems that limit what you can do early on I don't see levels. I see money earned and fuel bills. Money I guess is sort of like experience except you have to spend some of this "experience" for fuel and repairs. I don't see having to use it for new aircraft. Maybe you could use it to buy customized paint or decorate your hanger. 2.grinding If you enjoy flying it should not be a "grind". There are alot of fun things you can do in a piper for instance you could NEVER do in an F16 and vice versa. I could see them coming out with aircraft "packs" or selling individual aircraft online. 3.and will have a monthly fee or be ad/micro transaction supported. I rather pay to keep server access monthly and say get an aircraft every three months or so. I don't like micro transactions. And sometimes those micro's are not very micro.

I think it is pretty commonly established and confirmed that DCS Fastmover is next. This is NOT a post to push an agenda to have DCS Apache come out next. I am just curious to know IF it is still on the table that is all. That is why I specifically stated I was not asking for a release date or any details.

My friend suggested they make DCS Lightcycle (TRON).......... He needs a DCS Kick To The Nuts.

Q: Your press release indicates that Black Shark is the first in a series of DCS modules, with more aircraft/helicopters to follow. How soon will these new aircraft become available? A: We are already developing the A-10A “Warthog" and AH-64A “Apache” (with planned front-seat / back-seat multiplayer) and other western and eastern aircraft will follow with an approximate interval of every nine months. To announce these later aircraft now would be premature because plans can often change and lead to delays due to numerous factors such as our work in the equally important military simulation market. Is this still in the cards ED? Not asking for a release date or even any details, but it would be nice to know if this is even still being considered or not. So how about it?

I think you guys are looking at this all wrong. If they do indeed make flight gear and are looking into making an online flight MMO then in my opinion they just opened up a whole new world of possibilities. This has never been done before. Also I am excited about the possibilites of having a civilian/military mixed server. I really do not see why you can't have casual fliers (lets call them private pilots), virtual airline pilots flying routes, and military mission flights all going on in the same server. The MMO could offer a new list of flight routes for virtual airline pilots weekly and new missions for military pilots monthly. You could limit where military is able to spawn to keep them in range of each other but it wouldn't "fence" them in. Obviously there should be a HUGE penalty for military aircraft shooting down civilian and same team aircraft.

Succellus I know they make more civie stuff. But they did just make combat rudder pedals. Also it may be civie AND military mixed. Also take into account the name. Does Thunderhawk Studios sound civie to you?

I liked T-72 Balkins On Fire. It was "REAL" enouph for me. The flora seemed really well done (a BIG deal in a tank game). I thought the physics were good (its neat to watch your ammo arc and your tank react to fireing and landscape). It had damage to components simulated. The ballistics seemed realistic in trajectory, penetration, and deflection. It had land mines and varied vehicles to shoot. Let me tell you after playing DCS Blackshark for a long time it was an intresting switch to blow a helicopter out of the sky with a tank (admit it .... you have always wondered).

MadDogMcQ that dog in your avatar is just awsome. Is that your dog? Is it male or female? Whats its name? I have always wanted a bulldog but they are so expensive. Not so much the purchase price but thier medical needs. If I ever do get one it will be a grey and white female. Sorry to break topic. Anyway I don't see any need for the manual to be printed really. A map would be nice though.

They own Saitek..... that is intresting. I think it very well could be a nice online sim. I mean they would obviously want a game that would take advantage of thier hardware right? Thier gear is definitely sim oriented.

NullCharacter maybee there was a misunderstanding. From reading OhmWrecker's post he does not strike me as the typical troublemaker. It is your server of course, but maybee you should have investigated just a bit. Did you even ask him for an explanation? Maybe I am wrong but he does not sound like a griefer to me. Does he sound like a griefer to you guys?

Mower loves himself thiiiiiiiis muuuuuuuuuch (notice the robot arms)

Seriously? Gee Mower I expected something a little more slick from the Teflon Don Juan.

Mower are you paying attention to this??

delta9856 we NEED rookies. Glad VRS Superbug could bring you here (Mower are you paying attention to this..... FSX brought us new blood. Plus 1 for FSX..... note it).

Isegrim I am sorry I don't. Only that it's proposed for USAF and will be called OV-10X. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/09/photo-boeing-pitches-ov-10x-br.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OV-10_Bronco http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissance http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/OV10092309.xml

North American Rockwell OV-10 Bronco might be a cool aircraft to fly. I hear they are even upgrading it. I feel it is a good fit for DCS/LOFC2 while offering something unique.