firmek

Overall, The WWII period in DCS is: 1. Normandy Map Not only the map itself but also ground, land and probably naval units. 2. Modules: Already available: - Fw 190 D-9 - Bf 109 K-4 - P-51D Released in 2016 - Spitfire LF Mk. IX - P-40F Kitty hawk Probably released relatively soon: - Spitfire Mk XIV - F-4U Corsair And more planned in the future. Just roughly with new Normandy map there are going to be 5 airplanes at the start and possibly 7 soon afterwards. Considering full fidelity modules (not counting FC3) and excluding trainers, from other periods there are 6 planes and 4 helicopters. Those in total are from 1'st, 2'nd, 3'd and 4'th gen while the Caucasus and current availability of AI units is mostly tailored towards 1980+ scenarios. The overall package of modules, map, AI units from the same era has much bigger value than each of the components separately. Thinking about it is quite interesting as comparing to the other periods, the WWII in DCS will be the most complete one and will provide the most consistent experience.

Simply no, for many reasons: - already mentioned lack of data - close to zero possibility confronting the model with the real life plane - opening yet another work-stream, it's better to focus on providing complete scenarios - units, maps and then aircrafts - there are other much more interesting periods that are sparsely addressed - WWII, 1'st, 2'nd, 3'd gen - small customer base - niche in a niche - small community base, not enough momentum to keep people creating content like missions, campaigns, setting up servers and having players populating them - can get boring in relatively short amount of time - other titles already on the market

Running DCS in 3440x1440 on a single 34’’ display is demanding enough for GTX 1070. Two would require a heavy compromise on the DCS video quality settings - my bet would be somewhere between low-med.

"I wish" ..that is the F-18 that you can see... :D... But seriously, this thread just can't become more relaxed and off-topic :). My suggestion would be to change its title to "hype train on steroids - post your pictures", "relation between number of wishes and modules speed development", "digital flying combat fairies simulator" or something like that :)

Not to take it to seriously :) but first reason might be expectarion for different setup to get some frash air so to say, the second is the release of BF1 :)

Agree, the sole purpose for curves, saturation etc.. is to give everyone possibility to fine tune the controls to their personal preferences.:thumbup: Elaborating however for a second on the controls curvatures as also cyclic “trimming”. Let’s say that we're using a curve that adjusts precision at the beginning of the stick travel (and thus decreases it at the end). When the joystick is in neutral position, applying force will result in a gentle, relatively slow movement of the "real" cyclic. Just as an illustration – the joystick is deflected by 4° while the "real" cyclick only by 1°. Now if the joystick is close to its maximum deflection the situation is becoming opposite. Even its slight movement will result in a rapid, much faster controls response. As an example, deflecting joystick by 4° will result in 16° deflection of the helicopter cyclic. This could be also visualized in other way. At the beginning of the movement the perceived experience is as operating longer stick than the joystick is in reality. In more or less the half of the deflection distance the controls length are the same. Further on, the perceived joystick movement starts to be like it would be shorter than it is in reality. Obviously those effects are stronger the higher the curvature setting is. “Trimming” helps to mitigate the problem as we’re starting with joystick in neutral position (and from the beginning of the curve) but still the conclusion is that the speed of joystick input is not consistent with the reaction speed of the controls and is the function of the amount of deflection. Personally I don’t like the curvature it as it makes exercising the muscle memory extremely difficult. Conceptually the curves can be compared to the mouse acceleration that is just a no go for every conscious FPS player. Going through the initial pain and frustration of learning the “linear”, one-to-one controls IMO brings more benefits in longer time perspective. To be clear, I’m not being religious here. Just trying to help to understand the curves as those have positives but also come with some cost. It is up to everyone’s personal preferences what can be accepted.:thumbup:

I'm bit guessing here but the higher resolution might not be the root of the problem. It should be actually opposite, with higher resolution the details should be more visible. What might be causing the problem is the field of view (aka zoom) being different due to the aspect ratio being changed - screen proportions from 16:10 o 16:9. I've recently changed the monitors from FullHD to wide screen. The result was opposite - everything was extreamly zoomed in and I had to extend the FOV to get back to my previous, "natural " setting.

Interesting. I know that the RWR blind spots are big enough to be always considered for instance with MiG-21bis forcing its pilot to apply special so to say tricks to cover the gaps. Is however the specific size of the A-10C RWR and missile warning system blind spot known? Is it big enough so that the pilot should be worried about it?

Not exactly. Increasing the length of the stick physically increases the range that the hand can travel which in other words so to say increases the control resolution and decrease the sensitivity. Curvatures can't do that for you. Instead they are used to change the sensitivity/resolution at specific sections of the whole control distance. Still however since the distance itself didn't change when setting the curve to increase the sensitivity/resolution at the beginning of the stick travel, an reverse effect of decreased sensitivity/resolution will appear at the end of the stick travel.

I was asking the same question myself and arrived to the conclusion that I could not find any reasons for other than all, 6 guns setting. There must have been a real reason for it - otherwise I assume no one would build a selector. My bet would be conserving the ammo. Though the issue is that effectiveness of .50 caliber rounds in DCS is rather poor. Even the damage dealt (or rather not) by all of 6 guns firing simultaneously can be at best considered not consistent.

For this reason to a good compromise with a higher sales potential might be a heavy lifter but not necessary the biggest one, still one that could be equipped with more weapons than just the door gunners. Something close to the current Mi-8 or Huey but just heavier. If I'm not wrong such example could be Battlehawk or Puma. Some other maybe? As far as CH-53 is just iconic and I would personally buy it even for double price of a standard module, we need to be careful what we're wishing for. The last think that we should wish is a developer investing in a module that would not bring the cost back. This would create case after which we could potentially say god bay to any other helicopter modules for long time.

Well... once Hornet is released all of my other modules will go for some time to hangars (to get a good maintenance) :D

Considering BF the higher chances are that Huey and Gazelle are assigned to Blue side especially that last BF editions were following NATO vs. Soviet setup. On the other hand I would say that Mi-8 has higher potential in BF than Huey: - it's noticeably faster: less time to setup defenses, get to FARP/AB with troops, etc.... Mi-8 speed really makes a difference. - takes more armament. You still don't have much chance to take out a FARP (not mentioning AB) on your own. AA will just tear you to pieces. But if AA is down you can actually help with destroying trucks, buildings or bunkers. I had a situations that CAS flight was out of ammo having to go back to rearm while only few, undefended targets were left. Thanks to Mi-8 being able to take out those last targets/buildings we've managed to capture the base. - it can carry more weight. Huey with full armament (4x minigun + 2x rocket pods) + troops + AA crate can barely take off. Even if you manage to do that its speed is substantially decreased as also you can forget to fly over mountains. Mi-8 does not suffer so much, I'm pretty much flying it always fully loaded (4x rocket pods, 2x gun pods) while with Huey you need to drop some of the armament if you want to take the cargo. Overall I find Mi-8 much more efficient in BF than Huey. The issue though is that if you're playing on Blue you're not guaranteed to get it.

Yes it is expensive. No, you don't need 1080. With 1070 it runs just fine but I bet other cards can also manage it.

Well, the stock A1-0C campaign is not a total disaster, there are other that are much worse but at the same time it's rather repetitive. On the other hand it can be considered as a good point to learn after going through the training missions. There are however 2 really good DLC campaigns. Plus a lot of user missions/campaigns as also a lot to find on multiplayer servers. Overall due to it's history A10 comes probably with the most content in DCS. Note that A10-C comes with ~600 pages manual and requires investing substantial amount of time to learn the systems. There are however a lot of great youtube tutorials as also much in depth materials that can be interesting for someone expressing further interest in the plane, tactics, procedures than what is stated in the manual.

Get A10 if you dont have it. Keep flying Huey untill you get borred with helicopters and feal like trying something else for a change. After flying A10 and when wanting to get back to helicopters get Mi-8. One thing to consider is that rotor in Huey and Mi8 turn in opposite direction. In result "rudder" and cyclick have to be countered in opposite side which makes switching betwen those helicopters confusing at the begining.

:D In next week, 5783 episode: "The Community expectations hype train sky-rockets after few weeks without updates. Someone writes: "Since ED has closed their doors for such a long time, it must be the 2.5 release that they are cooking"". Stay tuned.

Mi-24 is already under development, Cobra if I recall correctly also or at least planned. Nothing about AH-64. Though probably there would be more more incentive and a chance for wider interest if the transport heli capaple of equipping some armamemnt rather than one that can take it provided that it is loaded into its cargo bay :) Pretty much like Huey or Hip today.

I would say that monitors for photography, DTP etc.. are tailored towards different characteristics than gaming monitors. In result you would pay additionally for not so needed features like as best as possible color reproduction while miss some other esential - short responce time, limited ghosting, higher refresh rate, adaptive sync technology.

He has it in his DNA :). His grand grand father was nick-named "banana" :) But seriously, due to unique, 2-rotor design Chinook would most probably require additional physics modeling. Other, conventional helicopters are probably less challenging to develop. Something that should be considered. Even with all of the positive feedback about interest in heavy lifters, transport helicopters are still not the main stream modules.

Guys... I could imagine that in few posts we'll see a request for DCS Silent Hunter DLC :)

Thank you!!! For all of the hard work to bring a new concept and second for all of the work done so far as also now to menage transition to a new server. Well, it's rather clear from the message that it's the next BF.

Great teaser. But viggen cockpit and its radar screen... :music_whistling:

Fully agree. The module has to bring much more to the table than just aesthetics and nice 3D model.

As much I would love to see the CH-53 or UH-60, EC725/H225M (but not so much CH-47 or any other successor of Piasecki's flying banana) the question is what would be their application in DCS. Today missions are designed in away that Mi-8 capability to lift higher weights and take more soldiers on board does not matter compared to Huey. To justify the heavy lifters, first there should be a content and backbone in DCS that would allow to benefit from their increased size and provide applications which would bring more tasks than only flying the module.