=4c=Nikola

No. The only value of that map would be historical context, and I'm not into historical scenarios.

I believe that's just a texture map on the nose, so it should be easy to edit normal map and clear bumps.

Niiiceee, tnx.

+1 for 4 Harms. The door was open with A-10C 6xAGM-65 on LAU-88.

Why would you not use community bug tracker? It already contains everything reported.

Ok, The new SVG is beautiful, I cannot wait to try it out. It just looks amazing. SVG technology is really good imo, it will allow for better fps and clarity of displays win-win situation. Can we have such insights every month or two?

Ok, it's obvious that we (customers), ED, and razbam have very different views about EA, and that's going to vastly affect my decision to buy next EA aircraft. Until now I refused to pre-purchase, and now I will just extend that decision to EA. I'm sorry, from this week, that is the only way to ensure I get what I pay for. I'm glad we got that sorted out.

What I struggle to understand is why's there a rush to pull a product out of EA? How developer benefit from that? Obviously there is a benefit, otherwise they would not insist on that and, seeing angry customers, they would change the decision.

Is that a payware package?

Of course there are differences between newest modules and modules developed 10 years ago. While DCS A-10C is very robust and works really well, it is lower fidelity than let's say DCS F-14B. Imo, A-10C's and K-50's level of simulation is not acceptable anymore because prices has gone way up. DCS A-10C and K-50 are in fact between FC3 and modern DCS modules. Now, what level of abstraction is required for a video game? It depends what do you want to achieve. Lets take INS for an example: You can just pull position and attitude variables from core engine, add couple of switches and a timer for alignment and consider it a complete system - 1 day job. Then your customers say, well it's kinda fake, alignment time does not account for latitude, alignment works even while aircraft is moving... You decide to respond, add a few constraints for alignment to work and add simple dependency between align time and latitude - 10 days job. Customers are happy for some time but eventually someone starts to complain how your INS is magical, it knows aircraft's position and attitude perfectly, it never fails... So you decide to google it a little bit, you find good data about INS drift and simply affect your perfect position with ins drift model. Additionally, you add some degraded modes in case of damage or failure - 100 days job. Then customers complain it's still too fake. You decide to scrap all that code and write a proper integrator - no more faking it with taking exact object position from core engine - 1 year job. Everyone's really happy but then someone asks you why the device doesn't react to frequency, current and voltage transients and why drift is not dependent on bearings wear and tear state. At that moment you need to stop and decide whether you want to spend next 5 years developing electron level simulation and material based wear and tear which will increase level of fidelity by 0.001% and turn your product into slide show simulator or accept barrage of insults that your product is "not a real simulator". In development things quickly spiral out of control and you need to know where to stop. Tom Scott has a somewhat related video:

Well, that's a very nice insight, but please, in future just use @Fri13 post as a template. It contains everything you need, and he gave you that for free. Imo, you need more insight posts like that to get people in loop and exited. So, no teasing 3d models that will be released in 5 years, but exciting features you're working on that will be available in next six months. I'm waiting for ARBS clarification as well.

Tnx for clarification.

And if I know 100% that document is itar controlled and I open a topic where I use my own words to describe what is written in it, and then add page reference in that document?

Is it allowed to reference itar controlled document? For example writing that your post is based on A.B.4.3.7 page of such document is allowed or not?

Some RL pilots reported that it's not that unusual to see ship turning during recovery ops. About your first question: @G B reported that case 3 marshal stack irl is almost always offset. It doesn't really matter how large offset is, procedure is the same.

That's easy. Gain access to the aircraft, bring large dynamometer, anchor it properly and measure. Second question, formula for kn is n/1000

Maybe it's a better idea to limit developer to 2 EA aircraft: Developer is working on 2 aircraft. When one of them reach all goals they've established, the aircraft is released from EA and they unlock that slot for a new one. Of course, internally, they could develop whatever they want, but no contract, no announcement, no advertisement, no forum section, no pre-purchase, no launch unless aircraft is in one of two allowed slots. This would prevent a developer to start new project until current one is finished.

God knows how many things in DCS are calibrated up to 38C. It’s not as simple as changing the number.

I just hope you all in ED understand that's not good PR-vise.

That's a good question. I do not know. I guess it would be a matter of managing processing power resources.

INS drift math model is available for free, scientists already did the hard job, it's not a black magic. There's no a single reason to not be modeled in game.

Who ever said that DCS simulates a simulator? I'm just comparing two flight simulators. One is used by adults fully understanding that simulating every flight from ramp to ramp is not efficient way to practice. And the other is used partially by elitist snobs believing that they are somehow better because they do not cheat, blind to the fact that cheating is core of any simulator.

What?

OMG, just look at this instructor station of professional full motion simulator with all that cheats. They can instantly at any moment change aircraft state, position, wx, set failures... arcade noobs, someone should tell them they are cheating. Oh wait they are professional pilots...

@Snoopy: You're right, that's not what you said. I've never read your post, just reacted to this guy who really miss-presented your words: I reacted to this not because I want wing flex or not but because this is such a bad attitude that advocates blindly believing anyone over thinking with your own brain. I'm sorry for inconvenience.