Registered: 01/28/04
Posts: 1509
Loc: Colchester, England
Is anyone else a little disappointed that DCS are moving to the P51 for their next aircraft? Is this the future for DCS...WWII or is it a one off?
Personally I was hoping for Apache, F15, a Mig...anything but WWII.
Sorry for the negativity - but I am personally disappointed with this move - and I understand people will love the new direction - but I hope it's a small diversion.
I think they're more than likely using the engine as a test-bed to try other eras of combat; maybe for something later down the road if the interest is high? I doubt that they will go exclusively WWII (maybe as a side project or whole other separate sim later on)
I wouldn't get too upset about it
_________________________ "No bucks, no Buck Rogers" Case: CoolerMaster HAF-922 MoBo: ASUS M4A89GTD Pro/USB3 PSU: Corsair HX750w CPU: AMD FX-8320 @ 4GHz RAM: 2x8GB Corsair Vengeance LP DDR3 1600 GPU: Palit GTX 560 Ti 2GB Display: Asus 25.5" @ 1920x1200 OS: Win7 Pro 64bit Audio: On-board AC'97
Registered: 01/28/04
Posts: 1509
Loc: Colchester, England
Ah - ok Lion. I didn't know that. Thanks. Still no idea then what the "other" aircraft is I suppose?
I don't begrudge others their fun - but I always assumed and hoped DCS would stay with modern. I'm hopeful that is the case for my own selfish reasons.
DCS doesn't even have to stay with aircraft, let alone modern ... check out the upcoming Combined Arms add-on.
The "combined arms" add-on is actually a product of the original military trainer that they accidentally left in (later patched out.) It was to enhance their close air support training, having a human JTAC. I wouldn't take it as a sign that DCS is attempting to branch into non-air vehicles. It looks like they got permission to include it into the DCS commercial products and decided to add a little more functionality.
DCS doesn't even have to stay with aircraft, let alone modern ... check out the upcoming Combined Arms add-on.
The "combined arms" add-on is actually a product of the original military trainer that they accidentally left in (later patched out.) It was to enhance their close air support training, having a human JTAC. I wouldn't take it as a sign that DCS is attempting to branch into non-air vehicles. It looks like they got permission to include it into the DCS commercial products and decided to add a little more functionality.
About all of the information that we have on Combined Arms is that it exists and has some "very interesting and fun new features in works". We can take some guesses from the features briefly available in the A-10C beta and from what was stated in the announcement for it.
Mainly that you can control ground forces movements, that you can play as a JTAC, and control artillery.
DCS doesn't even have to stay with aircraft, let alone modern ... check out the upcoming Combined Arms add-on.
The "combined arms" add-on is actually a product of the original military trainer that they accidentally left in (later patched out.) It was to enhance their close air support training, having a human JTAC. I wouldn't take it as a sign that DCS is attempting to branch into non-air vehicles. It looks like they got permission to include it into the DCS commercial products and decided to add a little more functionality.
]
The CA feature set hasn't been announced yet - the above is speculation.
Although, I'm excited about upcoming Pony - I'd love to see a proper aerobatic aircraft with AFM. That would be marvelous. But checking teeth of a gifted horse is silly
Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1425
Loc: Alberta / BC, Canada
Oh dear... if they ever figure out a way to blend air and ground operations together in ONE sim- the way they have between helicopter / fixed wing between BS and A-10... I think I might quit my job.
I can see myself skulking around the bush with a designator- talking to guys in A-10s and coordinating attacks on targets... oh yes please.
Then again- I can see myself in the A-10 talking to a REAL person on the ground...
Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1425
Loc: Alberta / BC, Canada
Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
... and the most likely result will be fratricide
I'm proud to report that the only friendly unit I've been responsible for killing is myself as a result of what could best be described as "controlled flight into terrain."
I must admit I'm surprised DCS aren't going for something like the F22 or F35 and it's variants for the next project. Yea I know most of the data is classified etc. but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be possible to code it and make an excellent sim with the information that is known. Even though I love the P-51 unless they set the timeline from the end of WW2 and encompass Korea it seems a bit pointless.
Registered: 11/05/10
Posts: 176
Loc: Warner Robins Ga, USA
Originally Posted By: Georgio
I must admit I'm surprised DCS aren't going for something like the F22 or F35 and it's variants for the next project. Yea I know most of the data is classified etc. but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be possible to code it and make an excellent sim with the information that is known. Even though I love the P-51 unless they set the timeline from the end of WW2 and encompass Korea it seems a bit pointless.
I wouldn't pay for a F-22 or F-35 DCS module because of the limited data. Anything DCS needs, IMO, to be modeled as close to real as possible. There is no way a 22 or 35 could be modeled close to real, flight characteristics are classified, avionics are classified, etc.....
Registered: 12/22/02
Posts: 3904
Loc: Wisconsin, USA
Originally Posted By: paulrkiii
Originally Posted By: Georgio
I must admit I'm surprised DCS aren't going for something like the F22 or F35 and it's variants for the next project. Yea I know most of the data is classified etc. but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be possible to code it and make an excellent sim with the information that is known. Even though I love the P-51 unless they set the timeline from the end of WW2 and encompass Korea it seems a bit pointless.
I wouldn't pay for a F-22 or F-35 DCS module because of the limited data. Anything DCS needs, IMO, to be modeled as close to real as possible. There is no way a 22 or 35 could be modeled close to real, flight characteristics are classified, avionics are classified, etc.....
Yes I would agree with this. Personally, there are so many old aircraft DCS could go after. Someday, I hope...we see flyable Sabres, Mig 21s, Mig 23s, Phantom F-4s, F-105s. Of course I also don't want to forget F/A-18s, Mig-29s, Apache helicopter etc.
Well, if it narrows the guessing game for you, its a "popular" US fixed wing jet fighter.
Kind of narrows it down to F-15, 16, 18, hard to believe they still won't announce which one it's going to be, if not which version. Probably too far-fetched, but there are screens of F-16 cockpit around, wonder if they were doing but cancelled after BMS came out?
There were screens of other cockpits as well. Not that this matters anyway.
Originally Posted By: tagTaken2
Kind of narrows it down to F-15, 16, 18, hard to believe they still won't announce which one it's going to be, if not which version. Probably too far-fetched, but there are screens of F-16 cockpit around, wonder if they were doing but cancelled after BMS came out?
Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1425
Loc: Alberta / BC, Canada
I think the f-16 is well cooked. I'd preorder an apache, f-15c/e or maybe a... Ummmmm... Even an f-18e/f would add some excitement to naval ops. And maybe a different theater of operations would be nice. this combined arms angle is exciting...
I love speculating as much as the next person but I don't have a whole lot of concern whatever comes out.
Honestly, how many were even aware of the Ka-50 before DCS decided to do it? I think It's not about them making sims for the platforms we love, it's about them making us love the platforms they make sims for.
Registered: 01/28/04
Posts: 1509
Loc: Colchester, England
I agree with rud24 - and in truth, whilst I have my favourites that I'd like, I'd be quite stoked about a relative unknown. I just can't get excited about props.
So whatever they are working on in the jet/helicopter department, I'd be stoked about. Just wish I knew
It seems the planes they do are the one's available for inspection.
To my understanding this indeed is the main criteria when they choose what to model, i.e. all pertinent data has to be available for the plane in question in order to reproduce it accurately.
I couldn't imagine an aircraft that has seen military service that I would not find entertaining. KC-10? UH-60? P-80? F-5E? C-130? Each one has something new to offer in terms of experiencing aviation in a way that one hasn't before. There are ones better than others, namely ones with lots of functions and ones with a prevalent role on the FC/DCS combined battlefield.
P-51 sounds cool if for no other reason than I haven't seen a plane of this type in enough depth. IL-2 just doesn't cut it.
And I'm making a mental bookmark about the combined ops thing. If it's exactly as I think it will be I claim the right for an "I told you so." If it's not then you can laugh at me.
And I'm making a mental bookmark about the combined ops thing. If it's exactly as I think it will be I claim the right for an "I told you so." If it's not then you can laugh at me.
I'd like it to be what you think (I don't know what that is) but it is damn cool anyway
Very cool. Must be getting close. If I read the credits correct, looks like Matt Wagner does the manual. DCS always does first rate manuals. So well done, documented superbly, visuals are crystal clear. A good quarter of the fun with this series of sims has always been the reading of the manual.
Registered: 06/16/09
Posts: 261
Loc: Southeastern PA
Nice manual. I had already intended to buy the Mustang, thinking it would be somewhat casual and an interesting diversion. But the manual has moved my curiosity up a notch. Now I'm having thoughts of the cg moving as fuel state changes and wonder if I will be able to execute that maneuver that Robin Olds spoke of; he had some crazy name for it-I can't remember it, but it was very effective... going to have to go look that up again...
On the down side, I was disappointed to see the location. I haven't been following the development very close -- would rather have seen something else. Nice to see that it's the D though.
2/3 modules have issues when flying inverted for over 10 seconds? In the third of the available modules, I'd love to see 10s of sustained inverted flight!
_________________________
The world is going mad. Me? I'm doing fine!
P-51 module is extra and as a consequence you needn't worry about it at all. It is however bags of fun so it's up to you. As said, DCS:World is however a necessity.
_________________________ Airframe #36 159th Guards Aviation Regiment "Airspeed, Altitude, or Brains; you always need at least two."
Registered: 01/28/04
Posts: 1509
Loc: Colchester, England
Can I ask - with this "DCS world" the impression I got from the image of the Mig-21 (which looked stunning) is that you can fly any aircraft that this company make (and 3rd party devs produce) in a world with any others aircraft. So for example, if I owned P-51, I could jump on a server that may have A-10s and Mig-21s and KA-50s?
Is that the general idea? Because if it is, it is excellent news (Mircoprose hoped for something similar with Gunship!).
Again - I need to read more at DCS forums.
I am very much looking forward to that Mig-21 and whilst I'm not a propellor head and can't really get excited about props, I would love to take down a Black Shark with one :-)
Registered: 01/28/04
Posts: 1509
Loc: Colchester, England
I've just read this on the P-51 page
"Fly online with built-in server browser that supports up to 32 players in both head-to-head and cooperative gameplay. Fly online with other DCS aircraft like the Black Shark and the A-10C Warthog."
BillyRiley, you can connect to any server that has a seat for the plane you have a license for. So if you have a license for P-51, and the server has P-51 slots, you can fly there. Whether there are also slots for planes you don't have is irrelevant in the context - you'll just not be able to fly _those_ planes.
Registered: 01/28/04
Posts: 1509
Loc: Colchester, England
Knowing what I know now, it's likely I'll buy the P-51 now.
Having not kept up to date with the series or DCS forums (something I'm actively trying to remedy now) I thought it was a stand alone game. Now that you can fly it with other aircraft around - I'm pretty positive about the whole thing now.
Knowing what I know now, it's likely I'll buy the P-51 now.
Having not kept up to date with the series or DCS forums (something I'm actively trying to remedy now) I thought it was a stand alone game. Now that you can fly it with other aircraft around - I'm pretty positive about the whole thing now.
Registered: 01/28/04
Posts: 1509
Loc: Colchester, England
Yeah - reading up on it, I'm impressed and if it ever comes to fruition (I'm being cautious here because of Microprose), then I will be a very happy simmer!
I've just bought P-51 now! I'm gonna setup a mission where a P-51 is fighting a BS or A-10C - can I do that in the mission editor?
As it stands at the moment, we're one of a handful of 3rd party developers permitted to develop for DCS World. As has been stated to us, both IRIS and ED/TFC are in very early days with regards to 3rd party integration and we're both eager to see how the development process goes on both sides of the fence. We're also very enthusiastic to see developments progress..
All that being said, ED only has so much resources available to them, and they have to continue developments to DCS, do their own in-house product range and and other high priority things. In amongst that, they now have to develop an SDK (aka DCS development for dummies!) and hand hold a few choice 3rd party devs as we all work on our products.
Given all the above, it was made quite clear to our team by myself that it's pretty much a dive in the deep end and swim deal.. We have to come in and learn how things are done, how systems are coded, how flight models and audio are handled and much more. That's why we're focusing on building up as much knowledge from the community as possible.
So our thought process was thus.... Initially we thought "Great, let's do a fantastic in depth A-10C level of detail aircraft...." a few days later, we thought "Bugger, how are we going to do that when we're still learning how to put planes into DCS!"
After discussing with TFC and going over the business side of things, we're all of the opinion that it's far more beneficial to start simple and progressively increase complexity of products as a. our knowledge increases and b. ED's resources become more available.
Don't get me wrong, we're totally blown away by the support that ED/TFC are providing. We've worked with developers who've shown far less willingness to share information and assistance. We just aren't going to bite off more than we can chew..not at this stage.
So, the mindset in Team IRIS at the moment is as follows....
We develop our first aircraft for DCS which will likely be something fun yet simple. From this, we learn where we can improve, and what you as the customers want to see. Some thoughts are towards the Open Beta idea which TFC have encouraged. This allows us to provide a staggered product release over time, allowing us to get product to the customer earlier, and upgrade it as our skills and knowledge improve.
A prime example of this would be the development of a MFD system... initially, an aircraft might come with a single screen option without the possibility of changing screens, but as knowledge improves, you may see more depth to systems as upgrade patches etc.
As I said earlier, this is a learning experience for us. We know we're the new kids on the block with DCS, and whilst we're having great fun learning this platform and enjoying finally having a combat platform for our combat planes in, we're relying heavily on what you'd like to see.
If what you'd like to see fits into what we have the ability to produce, then that makes me a happy man.
Okay, we've had the green light from TFC to let you all know the products we have planned from the IRIS team over the next 3 year development cycle. (I hope they won't take that long to make! lol)
Contracts have been signed for the following products;
IRIS F-15E Strike Eagle for DCS World IRIS F-22 Raptor for DCS World IRIS F-14D Tomcat for DCS World
I will say that the F-15E is being developed with the intention of being submitted to ED as a DCS branded product (ie. DCS: F-15E Strike Eagle) and of course will be one of the longest to develop.
The F-22 will be looking at making use of the AFM for thrust vectoring and we'll be discussing this further with ED.
The F-14D is likely to be the first completed aircraft from the stable if all goes well.
We will be looking at the best way to develop these products from a business perspective over the coming weekend after a team meeting.
There MAY be another project being added to the list as a fourth product was dropped from the list at the last moment. We'll let you know when we know..
Anyway, have fun... it's nearly 1am here and I need to get away from this PC.. I'll see you all tomorrow..
Registered: 02/15/00
Posts: 35542
Loc: Space Coast, USA
Well, they certainly intend to do them.
On the other side, we now know with confidence ED is not planning on doing a DCS release of the F-14D, F-22, or F-15E (and many thought that one was likely) or they wouldn't have these guys making a competing product.
So unless Iris fumbles and ED takes over directly (like happened with Il-2's Pacific Fighters back in the day), they are NOT doing those planes themselves.
The Jedi Master
_________________________
The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
Registered: 11/24/04
Posts: 11920
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
Well, they certainly intend to do them.
On the other side, we now know with confidence ED is not planning on doing a DCS release of the F-14D, F-22, or F-15E (and many thought that one was likely) or they wouldn't have these guys making a competing product.
So unless Iris fumbles and ED takes over directly (like happened with Il-2's Pacific Fighters back in the day), they are NOT doing those planes themselves.
The Jedi Master
F-15E is being developed for ED by Iris.. so it would be released as a DCS: F-15E, and not a 3rd Pary Iris Aircraft. if all goes well.
or he means that the F-22 and F-14D will be similar to the Su-25 in DCS World, and the F-15E will be along the lines of A-10C level of detail.
Registered: 02/15/00
Posts: 35542
Loc: Space Coast, USA
No idea what that link says, as I'm not on FB and it requires that you are to see it.
Anyway, the title stuck on them is immaterial, whether it be "DCS", "DCS 3rd party", "IRIS", "Jimmy Joe Bob", or "Sid Meier's", the point is ED isn't making F-15E themselves (aside from whatever assistance/handholding they give IRIS) so it's not the DCS: Next US Fixed Wing plane that's been teased ever since A-10's release. Nor is MiG-21bis, F-22, or F-14D.
So my point is we now can eliminate some from the guessing game. The Hornet is still in the running, as is the F-16. I'd like an Apache, but they clearly said "fixed wing" so we know it's not that.
The Jedi Master
_________________________
The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
A little birdy told me..... Ok the birdy is totally inside my head and he has tea parties with Percy Pig and Iron man - but they definitely told me F-18
_________________________
Why do we love a country where everthing in it can kill us (even the women)
Registered: 06/07/11
Posts: 2030
Loc: Milwaukee, WI, USA
Yeah saw that post today. So I would say F-18 coming from ED and then followed by the 15E from IRIS/ED. It kinda makes sense as we would see the IRIS 14 and 22 before either I would assume. Then ED could release the 18 and assit IRIS with the 15E.IMO
_________________________
XBOX Live Tag/Steam/pCARS/PSN: Weaponz248 iRacing/RFactor 2: Jason Bader
"It takes forever +/- 2 weeks for the A-10 to get anywhere significant..." Ice
"Ha! If it gets him on the deck its a start!" MigBuster
"What people like and what critics praise are rarely the same thing. 'Critic' is just another one of those unnecessary, overpaid, parasitic jobs that the human race has churned out so that clever slackers won't have to actually get a real job and possibly soil their hands." Sauron
Registered: 02/15/00
Posts: 35542
Loc: Space Coast, USA
Yeah, carrier ops beyond what we had for the Su-33 would be nice.
I'd forgotten about the C model Eagle, but I'd sort of dismissed that as unlikely figuring they'd be less apt to do something already in Flaming Cliffs. The A-10A and C aren't the same after all.
The Jedi Master
_________________________
The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
While that isn't a bad assumption, outright dismissal is also not right
Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
I'd forgotten about the C model Eagle, but I'd sort of dismissed that as unlikely figuring they'd be less apt to do something already in Flaming Cliffs. The A-10A and C aren't the same after all.
OK, I know this is completely unthinkable in the negative, and likely already answered but I missed it. But given the nature of FSX and *most* associated developers NON USEABLE WEAPONS, destructible environments and so forth for their versions of combat platforms, is it clear that these 3rd party jets will be "normal" combat sim platforms; weapon and radar capable as in current DCS/ED sims and other combat flight sims? Please??
If so, any sense of whether the jets would more resemble those in LOMAC or USAF for realism, or in current DCS/Falcon series? Survey or study style?
_________________________
Eugene
CoreDuo G620 ASUS P8Z68-V PRO BFG N460 GTX Cyclone 1GD5 OC Forceware 301.42 X-Fi Xtreme Gamer WinXP Pro 2 gig RAM Saitek X52 PRO.
Eugene, I think you'll find it interesting that IRIS calls their DCS projects "IRIS Combat Simulations".
The word on fidelity is that it'll vary, and will be made evident in the name of the product. At present I believe they intend to model the F-15E to DCS standards, and the F-22 and F-14D somewhere between FC and DCS standards. In this case, only the F-15E would be branded as a DCS plane.
Obviously though, things can change - I don't have any special access, so I'm just relaying the preliminary information that has been made public by IRIS. But you are not looking at straight "ports" of FSX non-combat planes - indeed, they've stated that they're only re-using about 10-15% of the work for each of those planes they already have as FSX planes. (Different software platform demands a lot of work be done from scratch, and of course there's the combat stuff as well. )
Registered: 11/24/04
Posts: 11920
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
Give the Devs time to learn the programming.... The first few planes will prolly be less detailed in terms of study level, Iris wants the F-15E to be on the Level of Detail of A-10C's Module.
I asked about the combat capability of the new projects because many military, combat planes have been modeled in FSX but cannot engage in combat simulation. Calling a project "combat" in itself didn't make it clear to me if the modeled combat planes were adaptations for a different flight sim engine, but still incapable of engaging in combat missions right along side the DCS platforms...jets without claws and teeth, as in FSX.
_________________________
Eugene
CoreDuo G620 ASUS P8Z68-V PRO BFG N460 GTX Cyclone 1GD5 OC Forceware 301.42 X-Fi Xtreme Gamer WinXP Pro 2 gig RAM Saitek X52 PRO.
Registered: 01/08/09
Posts: 4325
Loc: Vancouver, BC
I took this quote from where you linked to Skate..
'Hey guys, we just got a DCS developer´s license, which means, we´ll create stuff for the DCS world as well...so here is the question..what RAZBAM add on you would like to see in DCS? hint..the Harrier will be in DCS (imagine a GR7 or 9 in DCS? it will happen) but not any time soon'
..to mean that the Harrier wouldn't be any time soon. I would be happy with a A7 first personally, maybe shoot down a Mig21
Oh..Harrier. These recent developments almost seem too good to be true. An F-15E and Harrier to DCS standards would be incredible. I'm cautiously optimistic..
_________________________
Subscribe to PC Pilot! - I write for them!
Registered: 11/24/04
Posts: 11920
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
Originally Posted By: FearlessFrog
I took this quote from where you linked to Skate..
'Hey guys, we just got a DCS developer´s license, which means, we´ll create stuff for the DCS world as well...so here is the question..what RAZBAM add on you would like to see in DCS? hint..the Harrier will be in DCS (imagine a GR7 or 9 in DCS? it will happen) but not any time soon'
..to mean that the Harrier wouldn't be any time soon. I would be happy with a A7 first personally, maybe shoot down a Mig21
Iris' is saying the same thing in regards to their F-15E, Estimated 1-2 years down the road.
It's reasonable to assume that the 3rd party developers are aware of what ED are putting out as the next jet and seeing as they're all steering clear of the F-18, it's not a stretch to conclude that this is likely their next release.
Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1425
Loc: Alberta / BC, Canada
This is going to be pretty awesome... DCS world is just going to be chock-ablock with aircraft with different strengths so mission designers will be challenged to keep things balanced out.
I'm having daydreams about mission packages complete with F-15s / F-18s covering for A-10s... with incoming fighters causing everyone grief...
Forward observers for fast movers / and the lingering CAS aircraft... with fighters overhead...
DCS really is developing a true multi dimensional battlefield. VERY impressive.
We know it's a US fixed-wing fighter of some popularity. Subtract announced planes that are being done by 3rd parties, and the list grows shorter.
The Jedi Master
See i was up with you until you had to throw maths in the equation... Subract announced something against something else... if a train is taveling in one direction.........
ahhh screw it, i will wait until its released to figure out what it was.
I love maths......
_________________________
Why do we love a country where everthing in it can kill us (even the women)
Any leads on new theaters, other than nevada, being developed?
Another thing I'm wondering about is how they will manage to implement the second crew member in the two seaters. Just another cockpit is one thing but I want Goose to work those systems too.
-C-
_________________________
Thermaltake Level 10GT Intel i7 2600K @4,3Ghz 2 X ASUS Radeon 6950 (6970 BIOS) 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600MHz Corsair 120GB Force Series SSD Seagate Barracuda XT 2TB ASUS P8Z68-V PRO GEN3 Corsair H70 Hydro CPU Cooler
Well it seems Coretex and "DCS:-F/A-18 Super Hornet" are legit according ED...
Originally Posted By: Wags;1483439
Core Tex Designs does indeed have a license agreement. However, they are very early in their development and have decided to jump into the very deep end. I wish them the very best and also will be curious to see how they resolve some of the technology challenges posed by this aircraft.
Huh, so ED's next jet isn't the Hornet. I was pretty sure it was..
Hmm... What then..
Edited by Zorg12 (06/15/1202:54 PM)
_________________________
I will ignore all ideas for new works and engines of war, the invention of which has reached its limits and for whose improvement I see no further hope.
— Julius Frontinus, chief military engineer to the Emperor Vespasian, cica AD 70.
Registered: 11/24/04
Posts: 11920
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
Originally Posted By: Nate
Well it seems Coretex and "DCS:-F/A-18 Super Hornet" are legit according ED...
Originally Posted By: Wags;1483439
Core Tex Designs does indeed have a license agreement. However, they are very early in their development and have decided to jump into the very deep end. I wish them the very best and also will be curious to see how they resolve some of the technology challenges posed by this aircraft.
Nate
wonder if that's the same F-18E Max File i have, from StrikeFighters2 that EricJ bought and got permission to use...
the MAX file i have is F-18E/F/G, no cockpits though, since SF2 requires them to be separate. Not that i would just import them into DCS, as i dont know what im doing in that area, with thirdwire it was 2 years worth of experiments to figure things out. and i was part of the first few mods for StrikeFightersProject1.
There are names, absent so far, that I would like to hear have been added to this very promising project. I haven't, in the past, been thrilled with Iris airplanes, although they have improved a great deal. Their F-15E for FSX is very nice. Milviz, however, is who I would like to see throw their hat into virtual ring, and do the T-38. I have their FSX T-38, and it is absolutely outstanding. An incredible cockpit. The Aerosoft F-16 is still a favorite of mine, and if I were able to use that model in the DCS world, I might just go ahead and uninstall all of my other sims. Okay, maybe not, but still...I'd love it. Imagine the Captain Sim B-52. "Outta the way, comin' through!" and just open up those bomb bay doors, and as they said in Gladiator..."Release Hell!" I realize, though, that any airplanes accepted, would have to be, at least the equal, of of the present ED models. So, hopefully, they will all look great. I find myself wishing that this project had begun years ago, because I fear it will be a long time before we see the sim develope into what I'm sure, we are all fantasizing about.
_________________________
"From our orbital vantage point, we observe an earth without borders, full of peace, beauty and magnificence, and we pray that humanity as a whole can imagine a borderless world as we see it, and strive to live as one in peace." Astronaut William C. McCool RIP, January 29, 2003 - Space Shuttle Columbia
F18c.com is showing as available ... NOT as being reserved by ED, or anyone else.
have you tried, saying like that, maybe, you know.... www.f-18c.com ?
ohhhhhhhhhhhh the magic
Quote:
f-18c.com is
Registrar: REGIONAL NETWORK INFORMATION CENTER, JSC DBA RU-CENTER Status: clientTransferProhibited
Domain options / additional information: (Click below to expand)
+ if you own this domain... + if you are trying to register/buy this domain... + if you are researching this domain... [Querying whois.verisign-grs.com] [whois.verisign-grs.com]Whois Server Version 2.0Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information. Domain Name: F-18C.COM Registrar: REGIONAL NETWORK INFORMATION CENTER, JSC DBA RU-CENTER Whois Server: whois.nic.ru Referral URL: http://www.nic.ru Name Server: No nameserver Status: clientTransferProhibited Updated Date: 19-mar-2012 Creation Date: 21-mar-2011 Expiration Date: 21-mar-2013NOTICE: The expiration date displayed in this record is the date the registrar's sponsorship of the domain name registration in the registry is currently set to expire. This date does not necessarily reflect the expiration date of the domain name registrant's agreement with the sponsoring registrar. Users may consult the sponsoring registrar's Whois database to view the registrar's reported date of expiration for this registration. [Querying whois.nic.ru] [whois.nic.ru] % By submitting a query to RU-CENTER's Whois Service % you agree to abide by the following terms of use: % http://www.nic.ru/about/servpol.html (in Russian) % http://www.nic.ru/about/en/servpol.html (in English).
Hmm..Fighter Ops must be rolling over in its grave..
they couldnt afford a grave, FighterOps had to be cremated
Naaaaaahhhh, If you visit their website, i bet they are still saying "progress is moving really well and though we haven't released any footage or updates in a very long time, fighterops is going to be the grandaddy of all sims. Please donate now for special area 51 access where you will have acces to all the updates we are not releasing"
I am so silly for abandoning their forums... Shame on me.
(edit, i actually visited their website for nostalgia purposes and sorry to hear their artist has left. Fighterops was a foregone conclusion anyway)
Edited by bogusheadbox (06/17/1204:31 AM)
_________________________
Why do we love a country where everthing in it can kill us (even the women)
Registered: 11/05/10
Posts: 176
Loc: Warner Robins Ga, USA
Wags just posted...
Quote:
There appears to be a few misunderstandings of 3rd party aircraft that have lead to some concerns. The primary one being the "watering down" of quality in the DCS brand name. A few points:
1- We are very careful about who we allow a license and we have high standards of what we will agree to publish through DCS. If a product is of low quality, it won't be integrated.
2- Except for very, very rare cases, one 3rd party choosing to do an aircraft for DCS does not preclude another 3rd party from doing the same aircraft.
3- We plan a very clear DCS branding (title) name distinction between Eagle developed DCS aircraft and those of third party. There will be no confusion of who developed the title.
Registered: 01/30/12
Posts: 1425
Loc: Alberta / BC, Canada
Okay... I've been on and off with this but I started wondering about the Phantom. We're all talking about F-18s and F-15s but if they dropped back to the P-51 perhaps the pursuit of the MiG-21 would lead to ol' smokey coming back online?
Registered: 11/24/04
Posts: 11920
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
Originally Posted By: Genbrien
Originally Posted By: Topgun505
I just did a search on betterwhois.com
F18c.com is showing as available ... NOT as being reserved by ED, or anyone else.
have you tried, saying like that, maybe, you know.... www.f-18c.com ?
ohhhhhhhhhhhh the magic
Quote:
f-18c.com is
Registrar: REGIONAL NETWORK INFORMATION CENTER, JSC DBA RU-CENTER Status: clientTransferProhibited
Domain options / additional information: (Click below to expand)
+ if you own this domain... + if you are trying to register/buy this domain... + if you are researching this domain... [Querying whois.verisign-grs.com] [whois.verisign-grs.com]Whois Server Version 2.0Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information. Domain Name: F-18C.COM Registrar: REGIONAL NETWORK INFORMATION CENTER, JSC DBA RU-CENTER Whois Server: whois.nic.ru Referral URL: http://www.nic.ru Name Server: No nameserver Status: clientTransferProhibited Updated Date: 19-mar-2012 Creation Date: 21-mar-2011 Expiration Date: 21-mar-2013NOTICE: The expiration date displayed in this record is the date the registrar's sponsorship of the domain name registration in the registry is currently set to expire. This date does not necessarily reflect the expiration date of the domain name registrant's agreement with the sponsoring registrar. Users may consult the sponsoring registrar's Whois database to view the registrar's reported date of expiration for this registration. [Querying whois.nic.ru] [whois.nic.ru] % By submitting a query to RU-CENTER's Whois Service % you agree to abide by the following terms of use: % http://www.nic.ru/about/servpol.html (in Russian) % http://www.nic.ru/about/en/servpol.html (in English).
Registered: 11/24/04
Posts: 11920
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
Originally Posted By: eno75
Okay... I've been on and off with this but I started wondering about the Phantom. We're all talking about F-18s and F-15s but if they dropped back to the P-51 perhaps the pursuit of the MiG-21 would lead to ol' smokey coming back online?
Yikes... wouldn't THAT be something?
considering every naval fixed wing aircraft we thought DCS was working on is now on the 3rd party list...
Okay... I've been on and off with this but I started wondering about the Phantom. We're all talking about F-18s and F-15s but if they dropped back to the P-51 perhaps the pursuit of the MiG-21 would lead to ol' smokey coming back online?
Yikes... wouldn't THAT be something?
considering every naval fixed wing aircraft we thought DCS was working on is now on the 3rd party list...
maybe.
It isn't - nobody though ED was going to model the E. The C is still on the table.
Registered: 11/24/04
Posts: 11920
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
RAZBAM's "List"
T-2 Buckeye A-37 Dragonfly A-7 series A-4 series A-6 series Harrier series Mirage F-1 Kfir F-100 F-102 *It´s an outsourced mesh, will need authorization before making any formal statement on it F-105 F-4 Jaguar Tornado
"It takes forever +/- 2 weeks for the A-10 to get anywhere significant..." Ice
"Ha! If it gets him on the deck its a start!" MigBuster
"What people like and what critics praise are rarely the same thing. 'Critic' is just another one of those unnecessary, overpaid, parasitic jobs that the human race has churned out so that clever slackers won't have to actually get a real job and possibly soil their hands." Sauron
1.1.2.1 Change Log for DCS World and DCS: P-51 Mustang
Missing/orange models fixed. Crash on destruction of SAM units fixed. Vanishing payloads after un-pausing game is fixed. Su-25T training link added. New music. Manual added to installer. Cockpit shake added. Crash on some missions start fixed. Multiplayer login problems fixed. Repair aircraft by player request only. Control surfaces synchronized over network. Improved P-51D cooling system. Crash after sinking IFV BMP-3 fixed. Sound cracks fixed. P-51D purchase icon added to DCS: World.
_________________________
Airplanes are now built to carry a pilot and a dog in the cockpit: the pilot's job is to feed the dog, and the dog's job is to bite the pilot if he touches anything...
Previous Topic
Index