winz

This is something I would like to achieve in the future. :) But I wonder how 'fun' it will actually be, because all missions you fly during one day would most likely set in the same weather. ;) Nope. But the dynamic weather in DCS World is able to achieve this.

Different RCS for different angles is imho better solution, it requires much less computation power and things that are not bound to geometry are easier to simulate, like seeing compresor blades from various angles.

The great thing about backward compatibility is that you can have both ;) I imagine that adding suport for an old data format is one of the more trivial tasks of developing a new graphical engine from scratch ;)

That's the wrong question to ask as a developer. The right question to ask is what is more beneficial for the sim, finding a way to make black sea map work in the IG, or creating a new map instead? It's not just only one old map, its every mission and campaign currently available for DCS World. If Black Sea map is dumped then on the day new is IG released you would have basically nothing to play. There is no way a new map would roll out with high quality (Black Shark Deployment lvl) campaigns, high quality MP missions, and high quality SP mission, for every module available for DCS World.

You don't need the old graphic engine to support the black sea map. The black sea map cannot be dumped at this point, because it contains all playable missions. A fancy new IG is useless without playable content. EDGE will roll-out with Nevada, which is a nice supplementary map to have, but cannot be the only playable region. Additional maps will most likely come after Nevada but before that, and before they have enough community create content, Black Sea cannot be dumped.

I have hard time believing that the new IG will not work with the Black Sea map. As stated Wags, the map isn't going anywhere so the only other way for them achieve that would be to have two rendering engines and that is an insine PITA to maintain and has a huge bunch of consequences. I cannot image any sane programmer agreeing to that solution. Every new funtionality you add to the new engine has the capability to break the old one. You wan to add displacement map layer to textures? Cool, what about the old engine? You want to add fuel air bombs, or napalm with appropriate effects? Cool, what about the old engine? What I think is most likely is that the new IG will support the old map format (the map really doens't care if it's rendered in dx9 or dx11), but it will look the same in the new IG, because for it to take advantage of the new IG features it would have to be redone in the new map format.

What about DCS: AT-AT ? :)

Glad you like it. :) And a nice workaround :) I've direct MP support in the works, I just haven't got the time in the last two weeks to finnish it :-/ That was the reason I started this. The next thing I'm tired with is flying constantly around noon. ;)

It will be refunded to the supportes.

Then it makes sense, thanks for the clarification :) edit: Makes even more sense after reading this http://www.geo.uzh.ch/~fpaul/sar_theory.html :)

But if you're the emmiter, then you have no way of seeing the shadow, because your view is blocked by the object causing the shadow. If you can see the shadow that means, there is a clear view between you and the shadowed surface, so there no reason why EM waves emmited by you shouldn't reach that surface.

I'm not a WW2 guy (even though the DCS P-51D is so much fun to fly :) ), but these are great news. DCS World is realy flourishing :)

Well, there has to be the first aircraft ;) Some systems will not be modeled and some system will be approximated, the same way it's in the DCS A-10C, BMS, or any other sim. And you'll not have a clue which ones are approximated unless you work on the actual airframe. The same as with A-10C. I know most folks believe that the DCS A-10C is a carbon copy of an actual A-10C minus some systems (IFF). But in reality there are system people use one a dialy basis that are modeled 'wrong' or use features not present in the suite modeled. Does that spoil your sim experience? Personaly I don't get the obsession with 'it has to be 100% copy, or it's junk'.

And I kinda wist they wont, because I think we have been stuck in the 80s for far too long.

Even if it is rendered through the new IG (which imho it will), then the new IG will not make the map prettier. For that they would have to redo the map in the new map format (the one used by nevada), taking advatages of the new IG capabilities, which is a lot of work. What we will get (if it will be rendered through the new IG) is all the other things that new IG will improve - lighting, partice effects..etc

And this where you are simply wrong. Once again, a 3rd party dev will do what they choose to do. ED saying to Bezcl "We don't want the Mig-21, it doesn't fit in our current era" would not transform into Bezcl automaticaly developing a 4th gen aircraft. Not to mention the community backslash from such restriction.. People looking forward for that plane (and there are a lot) would be pissed with such decision. One thing all thriving 3rd parties platforms (FSX, ArmA, Oblivion, SimCity 4) have in common is little to none dev interference. Yes there are few 3rd part devs for DCS World, because DCS World opened to 3rd party dev only recently. The aim now should be to attract more capabable 3rd party devs to the platform, and you don't achieve this by imposing restrictions.

Nice, I like those colors :)

Data definition (what map you fly) is separated from rendering pipeline you use (dx9, dx11). You can render the old Georgian map in DX11, there is nothing preventing that. What's more, it will most likely have better performance, because Dx11 is more efficient API. From a programming standpoint I doubt they will keep the old rendering engine. Managing two separate engines is a nightmare. It is much more easier, and makes much more sense, to add support for the old terrain format into the new engine (the same way the current engine can handle both lom and edm model formats). The terrain will still look the same, because the underlaying data haven't changed.

Ed has no word in what 3rd party is going to develop. If 3rd party wants to develop A but ED wants B, then 'all' they can do is ban A. They cannot force the dev to develop B. So the result of stoping this 'fragmentation' would not be more 4th gen aircrafts, or more 80s assets. Because you cannot force 3rd parties to develop them if they don't want to. a)ED has more resources (man-power, access to sme, $) than most 3rd party dev (my wild guess would be than all 3rd party devs). b)And they did great job because they got tons information via cooperation with Kamov and developing a A-10C avionics desktop trainer for National Guard. If 3rd party dev wants similar lvl of fidelity they need similiar kind of information and access to SME. I.e. Beczls has contant to several people from Hungarian airforce that flew the Fishbed as well as big collection of various manuals. His skills (which are unquestionable) wouldn't be worth a dime if he did not have that kind of information. The team is capable of many things, but they need information and sme. If you have a studio with people that focused (as part of hobby, or job) on airframe A for several years, then they will have hard time do a DCS lvl simulation of airframe B. Getting all the information and access to SME is one of the hardest things (if not the hardest) of DCS lvl simulation development.

The problem is that 3rd party devs are free entities. You cannot force them to develop something they a) don't want to b) don't feel confident enough to do. Just because Belsimtek did a great Uh-1 sim doesn't mean they are cappable of doing a great Ah-64 Sim. Beczls Mig-21 looks great, does that mean he is able to do a DCS level Tornado, or any other 4th gen airframe? And If not, then he shouldn't be allowed to develop for DCS World, because of your 'fragmentation'? ;) It has to work the other way around, if DCS World proves its capability as a base platform for an era then more developer focusing on that era(currently developing for other platforms) will come to DCS.

The first thing you have to realize is that not releasing p-51 or Huey (which isn't even done by ED) would not yield another 4th gen aircraft. We would have what we have now, minus the p-51 and Uh-1. It's not fragmentation, it's expansion. DCS World is a great platform for different eras, not just late 80s (where even the A-10C doesn't have a place). But you have to start somewhere and take it step by step. Developing a full ww2/70s/21th package at once is just not feasible.

sexy beast :) looking forward to the new model :)

Start DCS Wold, click mission editor. Done, you're creating a new mission.

That mission is badly designed, more closely, its design is wrongly interpreted to the user. The F-16s will only engeage when you get close to the border. Circle around Nalchik and no F-16 will take of. You can see that area in mission planner named 'US Sramble' or somethins similar. But, be prepared that the following mission are even worse. 4xF-15C vs 4xSu-27, is a slaughter, because the R-27ER has hard time hitting anything and your wingman have serious issue with keeping the offensive and managing fuel (this fuel problem was present even in FC 2, I wonder when ED will tweak the AI afterburner usage). AWACS flying without escort and getting shot down before I even manage to get airborne is just cherry on top of the cake. I end up editing most of the missions from that campaign to give the red side atleast a fighting chanse.

While the radar technology may improve the underlaying physics are unchangeable. SW can only process what the antenne is able receive, and what the antenne is able to receive is based solely on the radar equation. The only thing you can do on your part is to increase the power output of the radar, but that would yield the same result - stealth plane detectable at lower ranges than a non-stealth plane. SW upgrade yields the same - stealth plane detectable at lower ranges than a non-stealth plane. It is physically impossible to have the much lower RCS plane detectable at similar ranges than a higher RCS plane. Russia and China investing into stealth just proves the technology validity.