winz

Install to a separate folder. BS2 has it's own activation key.

@Namenlos Ein Beautifull photos, too bad the Su-25 is not in bigger resolution, would love to have it as a wallpaper :)

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/rifleman?region=us So, soldier armed with any kind of rifle

M-16 is an assault rifle. As general public tends to believe wikipedia a lot, using it might be good start to convice your classmates. The first line in Machine gun wikipage - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun is "Not to be confused with Assault rifle."

If an ED project hits a hard-block when developing some of the promised feature (this might have happened with the core concept in the beginning). Do you want ED to. a)Spent ton of time on resolving the block, blowing dead-lines, and possibly making the project a failure money-wise. b)or to sack/change the feature to implementable one? Because you cannot foresee all the blocks you'll encounter when developing any product. Even the richest of companies, i.e. Blizzard, state that nothing is promised and every feature is a subject to change.

? Weird pool I already payed for A-10C, and will pay for FC 3.0, P-51D, and MJF...and any other module ED throws ours way :)

Well, it make sense, sims tend to have longer lifespan than mainstream games so it's beneficial for the player to be able to take advantage of the HW that will come in 2-3 years after the sim release. Without the need to dig deep into config files to tune non documented variables. One other reason might be is that sims tend to be hit harder with HW limitations. Draw distance vs scene complexity is allways a compromise in sims. In a mainstream game a developer has full control about the complexity of the enviroment, not to mention that he has full control about what the player is able to see at any given time. In sims, the IRL is what you aim for. You want the scene to be as complex as IRL, with the same drawing distance as IRL. The problem is that even if the engine is theoretically capable of generating complex sceneries with high visibility range it is unable to do so because of HW limits. Why should sims have setting options that current HW cannot handle? Because settings should reflect the capabilities of the engine, not of the current HW. The sandbox nature of most sims also got it's costs. In mainstream games you, as a developer, are creating a very narrative experience, so you can fine tune the enviroments and use lots of optimalization trick the get the best visual experience on the given hw. You can't do that in sandbox game, because you, as a developer, have no control about how many units will the player use in the mission editor. How many triggers will he use, how complex scripts will he create. I remember (but don't quote me on that :) ) Marek Spanel, or some other BI Studio representative stating, that their games are not supposed to run on max settings on the hw that is present when they are released, because the engine is capable of more then the current HW is allowing them, and they want to take advantage of the HW advance in the years after the release. And this has been true for all BI games since Operation Flashpoint.

Not rly. Computers are great at procedural, tedious, repeating tasks where humans tend to loose concetration. But they are bad at 'seeing' and reasoning. Drawing a bigger picture is still something computers can't do. They can't identify target on their own, they cannot plan attack on their own. Every move they do has to be approved by a human operator and sometimes the delay/complications caused by moving the pilot out of the cockipt might not be acceptable.

TBH, EULA has very vague legal value, especially here, because it is written in english, which is not an official language, so saying somthing as simple as 'I didn't understant what was in it' invalidates it before the court. Also clicking on 'I agree' checkbox is not considered signing in our legal system. Not to mention EULAs where parts are in direct conflict with local law. (not EDs case)

I think this part is aimed mainly on people who would take some parts from ED product (i.e. models, sound effects) and sold them on their own, or as a part of another product. As ED has no problem with payed user-made content I don't see them having problem with YT partnership, as it is a good way to promote a product.

Because the Arma 2 maps have much higher fidelity then DCS (for obvious reasons). So some objects present in Arma 2 will not be present in DCS. And how do you know it doesn't occur in VBS+SB, is there a video demonstration.? There are tons of problems that would have to be addresed. Just to name a that quickly come in my mind. - all entitnies from DCS would have to be present in Arma 2 and vice versa. - weapons damage - the mk82 in arma 2 has different blast radius then the DCS one, so which one do you use? - Which AI do you use? The infantry AI in Arma 2 is better then in DCS, but on the other hand the proper SAMs are non-existant in Arma world, so these have to handled by DCS - Different lock rates - the locking process in Arma 2 is very basic, right-click/TAB to lock and Fire. There is no radar support, so naturally there is huge difference between an DCS AI Tunguska and an Arma 2 player Tunguska. - Missile tracking - which one do you use? Or Worse - bullets ballistics - which one? - You need to have support in both games for forcing the entities to do, what the other game does. So when a player in Arma 2 fires a missile you can force a unit in DCS to fire it's missile. You then need to pair both missiles and force one missile to mimic the other. When a tank in Arma 2 target a DCS plane you need to force the DCS tank to lock the same DCS plane, and I need to get a LWS warning. VBS+Steal beasts is obviously aimed at the military market, which is totaly different from the 'civ' market. They can overlook/workaround some problems if the core functionality is there and mostly they can afford to fund such project. Supporting something like this would require lot of time from both BI and ED, would delay both Arma 3 and our 'Next Gen Fighter' with minimal chance of return.

1)Total map area matters for performance, why do think Zargabad is a separate map? Load Utes check FPS, load Chernarus, check FPS, load Zagrabad, check FPS.. You don't know anything about what makes a game engine thick, or about the process involved in sorting what should be drawn and what not, so stop making wild assumption about things you know nothing about. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean the engine doesn't have to handle it. 2)You don't have to see father then 15km when you're a JTAC , but you kinda would like to see father when you are a tunguska gunner. Not to mention something like Sa-8.

I'm missing an 'Meh, I don't care' option.

I had no problem spotting and even identifying the silhouette of both Mi-24 and Mi-8 when they were watching over a NATO meeting we had here. The distance to the convention center was 4km. The same with planes, I had no problems identifying a Mig-29, and Eurofighter when we were stuck in a traffic jam on our to an airshow, and that was +6km from the airshow. Just my experience. Eyes are naturally sensitive to movement.

The deployment campaign is in russian with english subtitles. Operation Medvedev is in english.

We also have lots of disadvantages. Scenery sterility, graphical engine limitations, monitors limits (finite size of pixel, limited brightness) non-existing communication with other units, unrealistic mission scenarios.... just to name a few. Don't get me wrong, object are hard to spot IRL, be the pilot can use methods we can't - secondary indications like tracks, beeing talked on by other unit, reflection from metal hull, natural eye ability to catch moving object, even if small...

And that's why you see tons of high quality, high fidelity addons for MSFS, all beeing produced by individuals and sold for only a fraction of the price you have to pay for a DCS product. [/irony]

This is pure awesomeness!

Not really, because trimming is something that you just do all the time when flying...well anything, not only a helo. It becames so automatic, that you no longer think about it. You also trim mid-turn for the AP to hold your turn-rate/bank angle. I can keep a perfect coordinated turn while looking out for that pesky ZSU that attacked me. IRL the forces involved controling the stick might come into play asweel.

I don't get the panic. IMHO Tars, Helios are free by choice of their developers, and not because something legaly prohibits them for charging you money. Hell, Helios was a payware as far as I remember, Tacview requires payment for full functionality. Nobody is taking this choice away. And to that guy saying that someone could take free A and free B and make a new payware product that will do both A+B, well, newsflash, you can do it now, nothing is stopping you. I'm glad that ED is going to provide some SECURE and RELIABLE way to pay for payware addons. People go check the VERGEEV Group campaign thread (http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=56239) how many people had problems with payment, and that campaign was well worth the few bucks and I would pay for a campaign of that quality every day.

Perfect! :)

They should be english as well.

ED wouldn't dare not to make AT-802U! That would be a very very bad marketing decision. I, and the whole crop dusters community, would be very very dissapointed :D

I can imagine flood of tears: ED, Y U NO MAKE F-16, it has a huge community! ED, Y U NO MAKE F-18, Naval ops would be great! ED, Y U NO MAKE F-15E, We want 2-seater experience!

No. First of all, indicator dissapearing catches my attention a stop me doing on whatever I was focusing on. Second, indicators dissapearing on its own automatically imply to me that something is broken and I have to do a damage check. Btw, I'm still eager to know where this overclutter is in the A-10 hud, because I personally find it pretty clean and simple.