Blown away by the whole DCS World package

[JediMaster 451]

Yes, but the A-10C doesn't even HAVE a radar!

 

I just know a DCS: F-15E would be a ball-breaker with radar usage.

[+SkateZilla 49]

The whole problem with DCS is 1-the dynamic campaign 2-the terrain. There is a nevada coming, but Georgia is not only plain and old but is useless for some of the planes being released

 

Once Nevada is Finish, it will be its own Module, and 3rd Party Terrain Modules will Follow.

 

In a few months, we'll have more terrain than MS Flight.

[+streakeagle 871]

Yes, but the A-10C doesn't even HAVE a radar!

 

I just know a DCS: F-15E would be a ball-breaker with radar usage.

 

Was the Jane's F-15E or F/A-18E any less well modeled than the DCS A-10C in terms of avionics?

 

SF2's simplicity means under the skin is it little different than Jane's Fighters Anthology or Jane's USAF, just better modeled 3d cockpits. An updated Jane's Fighters Anthology is exactly the market SFP1 appeared to be targeting... but without the mission editor, crippled multiplayer, and as of SF2 no multiplayer. Jane's FA had some whacked stock flight models (UFO F-16). The 714th libs and other free downloads damn near made it a decent sim. Primarily the dated repulsive graphics are what makes it inferior to Jane's USAF and the SF series. The simpler flight modeling was actually easier to tune to match real world performance charts because it was based on performance charts rather than NASA quality aerodynamic equations. The framework for SF2 favors a LOMAC/FC level game with good cockpits, moderately detailed avionics, and even better physics. But that simply is not the niche TK wants to target even though the pendulum has been swinging that way for much of SFP1's development.

 

I have the flight manuals for most major US aircraft and some for USSR (including the MiG-21bis in both English and Russian language). I look forward to becoming proficient in all of them. I was never the market TK was aiming for. SFP1 was the only game in town beyond the abandoned Jane's games. DCS is almost dead on what I want and hopefully will be exactly what I want within a few years of expansion. People said it couldn't be done, but DCS is both a study sim and a survey sim. The total cost is high, but that is the price you pay to have it all. Will the market bear the price? I think FSX answers that question.

[JediMaster 451]

I was surprised to see MadCatz enter the FSX addon market!

 

http://combatpilotseries.com/aircraft/

 

Actually, on reading it I think MC is doing what Fighter Ops was supposed to (YEARS ago) except it will be totally online, subscription-based.

 

Ah, I've got it. This is trying to be the iRacing of flight sims. iRacing based on rfactor, Combat Pilot using FSX.

Edited July 25, 2012 by JediMaster

[+SkateZilla 49]

As I have the Warthog stick... my stick mapping is exactly as it should be. It is quite a load to remember all of the combinations possible with SOI/short/long modifiers to button functions. I printed out the manual pages 86-93 to help out. But there are key functions I use all the time that are nearly 100% instinctive. However, I still end up pushing a button wanting the function of another SOI and screw things up.

 

In the instant action missions, the steerpoint automatically advances to the next waypoint as I am passing over the current one. This breaks my laser designation, too. I am having trouble figuring out how to disable the auto next waypoint and/or preventing the TGP from following the shift in waypoint. I personally prefer cycling the waypoint manually when I am using waypoints for the SPI.

 

i just keep steer pointing it back when that happens.

 

i dont know what the "Default" mapping is for a CH System, but the Fire AGM and Cannon buttons are mapped correctly,

 

i dont think anything else button wise is mapped.

 

i might map the slew to the mini stick on the CH throttle. that way im not trying to press buttons on the keyboard all the time.

Edited July 26, 2012 by SkateZilla

[FastCargo 412]

In a few months, we'll have more terrain than MS Flight.

 

That's not saying much.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-07-26-microsoft-shuts-down-microsoft-flight-development

 

FC

[JediMaster 451]

MS has proven, yet again, that despite having tons of money and resources they can still screw it up grandly on a regular basis.

 

Absolutely NO ONE praised the announcement of Flight, the direction it was going, how it was done, nobody. At best some agreed with the stated goal of "widening the appeal", but I think we can all agree they failed in that big time. They didn't appeal to anyone who disliked MSFS and at the same time they not only alienated but at time actively rejected the MSFS base. Staggers the mind.

[+SkateZilla 49]

MS has proven, yet again, that despite having tons of money and resources they can still screw it up grandly on a regular basis.

 

Absolutely NO ONE praised the announcement of Flight, the direction it was going, how it was done, nobody. At best some agreed with the stated goal of "widening the appeal", but I think we can all agree they failed in that big time. They didn't appeal to anyone who disliked MSFS and at the same time they not only alienated but at time actively rejected the MSFS base. Staggers the mind.

 

wait till you see Windows 8... your gonna be sick.

[FastCargo 412]

I was chatting with Lothar (in the OFF forums) about Windows 8, and although his concerns about the Metro interface seem to be valid, Windows 8 still seems to run legacy programs just fine in the desktop like you see in Windows 7, XP, etc. So that begs the question...what's to prevent anyone from writing programs that just work in the desktop, and avoid the whole Metro interface?

 

FC

[JediMaster 451]

My guess? Windows 8 SP1.