new post from Wags
LINK

E3 2017@June 13-15

cant wait

I assume that's referring to an F18 grip add-on (or possibly new throttle unit) for the Warthog base perhaps.....and given that Eagle Dynamics is involved in the F18 software and therefore long delays, early access rip-off, bugs and no intention to ever complete that module I'm much more interested in the hardware upgrade.

Wow, so much lies in one post!!

E3 2017 is set for June 13-15... that's just a little over two weeks from today. See the state Normandy is in? And weren't they halting work on the Hornet until AFTER Normandy comes out? So what state of development is the F-18 really at?

Will this be something people can play with and have a fiddle around? Or will it just be some videos "showcasing" the F-18? The post isn't really clear but even if it were, well, so many lies are present anyway...

the DCS: F/A-18C Hornet will set a new benchmark
Benchmark for what? So far, they've only been setting benchmarks for things NOT to do, for how to NOT manage a project, and for how to NOT handle their customers
the next level of combat aviation simulation
It's only "next level" if your current level is really low. To be fair, it doesn't say that there are other sims where their level far exceeds DCS...
Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks and ships possible
"We are having loads of trouble achieving that dream, despite 10+ years of development..."
The free download includes a vast mission area of the Caucasus region and Black Sea that encompasses much of Georgia
Which has been available since... LOMAC? 15-18 years ago?
the famous WWII North American TF-51D fighter
Ah yes... a combat flight simulator offering a free aircraft with the "combat" part removed from the aircraft
the most powerful mission planner ever designed
Pffft!! Hahahahaha....
full network play
Is this still really a "feature" at this day and age?? Might as well have listed "program installation via command prompt"
permitting you to plan and play highly sophisticated missions
After hours and hours and hours of work to fly a mission that lasts one hour. Also, how do you like watching a movie where you've written the script, cast the actors, designed the scenes, did the camera work, done the editing, done the promotion, and still expect to be wowed once you watch it for the 1,000,000th time, only this time it's in the cinema?
DCS World is massively extensible
Just don't expect everything to play nice with each other
DCS is a true "sandbox" simulation that is also designed to cover multiple time periods of interest such as WWII, Vietnam, Gulf War and others
This is evidence of ED living in the future... did they get David_OC to write this spiel for them?
As examples of products progressing to completion for DCS, "Normandy 1944" is in final phase of development and "Persian Gulf" is close behind
Hahahahahaha!! Normandy is in final phase of development indeed!! Hahahahahaha!! "Close behind" may also mean 8-10 years from now
fundamentally a deep, authentic and realistic simulation game

The only next step is the real thing
Nope, sorry. Try again.

I am interested in the new theater and hope there will be some historically relevant missions, campaigns, MP scenarios ie not both sides with F-15s and Bf-109s flying on the same map...

Also interested in the carrier ops. Carrier ops is pretty complex - ie recovery patterns, marshal stacks, push times, foul deck, wave offs, bolters etc... will be interesting how they do this considering how poorly ATC works at the moment...

Looking forward to the 12 years pre-alpha period.
I am sure I will play ArmA3 and Falcon BMS those 12 years.

My point exactly

New theatre, do you mean Persian Gulf? If so, let's put this a little into context. Nevada existed in DCS A10C during Beta 2? Or Beta 3 period? Anyway, late 2010. We got it again as Alpha on December 2015. Currently, it is still in "Early Access"... let's call it Beta. 7 years after it was first seen, it's still not finished. Have we even seen Persian Gulf yet? I'll leave you to your conclusions.

Funny how I came across this newsletter in my digging around.... this is dated December 2014.


THREE years later and a map module is still in "Early Access".... a **MAP**
Good luck with Normandy.



You think we can move into BMS VR by that time?

Guys try to see the positive side. By the time the F-18 is released, I'll be rich enough to buy a real F-18, which will be considered a vintage warbird by then, and fly it at airshow all over the country. Pretty neat huh?

I will remind you that by that time, I'll be your bestest best buddy in the whole wide world as well, so naturally you'll pick me to be in the #2 seat.

Lols Ice, great points made

I was going to say about Hormuz

Remember 3 years ago when they said it was almost ready ..............

Translates to yesterday in ED-speak. So they are still correct. It's almost ready.

Ice,

Tried to send you a private message but, your box is full

Should have space now....

No Sir,

"- Ice is over their Private Topic limit.

Return to the previous page or use search if you are looking for something specific."

Definitely have space now, deleted more PMs...

Jesus, I completely forgot about that Hormuz map... i'm getting old really fast...

F/A-18C Hornet Teaser video music by Btd
https://soundcloud.com/btd/teaser-for-dcs-fa-18c-hornet

Is there a video DLC that pairs with that audio teaser?

More or less ;-)

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3156465&postcount=2605

Why do I even bother...? You guys have made up your mind anyway. I guess I'm just bored :-)

Perhaps you wouldn't be bored at all if DCS offered a full combat experience to play with XD

Glad to oblige. And FYI, I've not made up my mind.... do you have any facts that you can put up against what I've shown?


A benchmark for simulation... obviously. What does project management have to do with this? Or customer care for that matter... I'm not into all that. I'd like me some bad-ass sim please... thank you ED!
When you say benchmark, it's like "setting a bar" or a "point of reference" where other simulations may be compared. We agree on that definition, right? Now I am under the assumption that when you "set a new benchmark," you are essentially setting a higher standard, a gold standard against what others will be compared to in the future. Sure, you can make ANYTHING a benchmark and if you set the bar very low, then it's easy to "pass the test" but I'm sure this isn't what they (ED) meant when they said "set a new benchmark." So a "new benchmark" can only be either the best... or the worst. My point is ED have been setting the benchmark for the negative, not the positive.

Also, it's easy enough to brag "we will do this" but ED has a proven track record of stumbling right out of the starting gate, so before you thank ED, maybe wait and see how things turn out first, huh?


Care to explain? The "dynamic campaign-" sillyness aside. There is no 'better' sim out there.
Hahahahahahahahaha..... Who needs to do homework again? Hahahahahahahhahaha!!

Dammit, where's my asthma inhaler!??!


"We're juggling 10 projects all at the same time with limited resources... Things will take a while".
"We're juggling 10 projects at the same time with limited resources..."
Well, who the fk told you to juggle 10 freakin' projects at the same time? Weren't you taught to swallow your food before taking in the next mouthful? Weren't you taught to chew your food well before swallowing? The fact that you're choking now because you've shovelled in all that food, well, that's all your own doing now, isn't it?


The Caucasus will get an overhaul and be closer to Nevada with regards to lighting and mesh density. It still suits me just fine. I prefer this option as opposed to creating an all new terrain that will take a long time to develop.
OMG... so you'll fly a map that's been here for almost 2 decades provided it's got new lighting and mesh density as opposed to getting a new map? Good luck with that.

Oh, and some other "inferior" sim maybe probably definitely has 4 maps with more in the works. I'm pretty sure of this fact. Maybe. I dunno. Let me go do my homework first. Oh, wait, there is no better sim out there. Right, right... right? Maybe.

To be fair, I guess you are choosing the right option though. God knows how long ED will take to make a new map...


Bull and it is a freebie to boot. Did you actually fly the damn thing? Last time I tried it the guns fired just fine. I got shot down multiple times by a ME-109. I see plenty of combat.
Oh is it? The TF-51D has guns enabled?


The mission editor is very sophisticated but it does require a lot of work to create _elaborate_ mission. People with limited attention span such as yourself might have difficulty using it though. I'll give you that. It really is better than anything available to date. The scripting is faaaar ahead of Falcons' (can you even script a mission in that game?).
Limited attention span indeed!! Faaaar ahead of Falcons indeed!! I'm sure you've made missions for BOTH sims and can definitely school me on this aspect, huh? Do impart your wisdom!

Hahahahahaha... dammit, I need my inhaler again!!

Oh, and while we're at it... you know that "inferior" sim that maybe probably possibly does not exist? New maps are sometimes always maybe released WITHOUT having to patch the core game. The maps may also possibly contain campaigns, maybe theoretically, and again, WITHOUT having to patch the core game. Maybe. That's definitely an inferior sim right there, right? Hmmm... let me do my homework....


You're really looking to #%&*$# about everything in the press release, aren't you. Have fun with that.
Er, no. I just like pointing out the lies and countering them with FACTS. So far, you've not really provided any. Just sniping and snide remarks about my CHARACTER on a thread that talks about EAGLE DYNAMICS and DCS.


Which just goes to show you that you have no idea what you're talking about. You can create randomness if that's what you'd like. Do your homework, Ice.
And it just goes to show you don't know how to read. Where did I talk about randomness, you silly little boy? Read the post again, I've no crayons to hand to draw you a picture.


Yep, bugs are present as with any piece of software. I guess you shelved all the other sims as well then...?
Again, nowhere did I say what you're countering. Sure, bugs are present in every piece of software. The point is ED has more than it's fair share. It's like a greedy little boy, shovelling food into it's maw, only this time, "food" is "bugs." Like asking people to install a bit of software via command prompt because the INSTALLER itself is bugged. Hahahahahhahahah.... OMG, you are right! I am having fun!!


Yes, it won't be done next week but I do believe it'll get a final release sooner rather than later. ED does have experience building terrain and building subsequent iterations with incremental improvements will need shorter development time than Nevada ver1. Thats just logic.
Did you just discover DCS? Your account says you've signed up to this forum in 1999, but have you just started playing DCS? Do you know when Nevada was first seen? Do you know when Nevada was re-released? Do you know what state Nevada is in now? Have you played Normandy? How close do you think Nevada is to completion? How close do you think Normandy is to completion? So how "close behind" do you think the next map is?

"Later rather than sooner" is a more appropriate term. You can "believe" all you want but the facts of ED's track record just took a big fat dump on your "believe." Funny how FACTS and EVIDENCE does that to silly little "believes," huh?

Do your homework next time before stepping up to the plate; I don't like clubbing baby seals.




Good day to you sir

Man, one time I right-clicked in Falcon's editor. It was the coolest 1998 technology ever. Anyway if DCS wants praise for their future accomplishments they can wait for the future to get them.

Hehehe... never did understand why people insist on giving ED credit for what they are GOING TO DO and at the same time ignore the blunders they HAVE ALREADY DONE.

Future results are 100% bug free and work exactly how you'd think they will.

Blah blah bla... I've been playing combat sims when you were still in diapers (guessing your age by the childish insults you're making). I've been playing DCS and other sims like Falcon from the beginning. Nevada is perfectly playable. They're tweaking things here and there but it doesn't detract from the gameplay. I have not played Normandy yet but that is still in early access so you really shouldn't bring that into the discussion. ED have been perfectly honest about that so you can only blame yourself if you thought you purchased a polished product. However, from other users' experiences, I gather it is mostly lighting that is 'off' and spotty performance at times... all of which ED admitted to that they are still working on. What is your point, Ice? Just trolling to create +*^%#storm?

Ice .. mate you really have to chill ..... for a game and developers you profess to hate so much and do not play .. you are the most prolific poster here and all of it negative ... if you like the game then play it ... if you don't like or have a problem with the company then move on .. play something you do enjoy

Ice.....Chill?

pretty sure Ice is chilled

Translation: "I'll just ignore these bits because I don't have a counter for them as I've spoken my mouth off before checking if what I'm saying made any sense. The truth is inconvenient for the bogus point I was trying to make, so I'll just skip that section."


Nah, I was just trying to make it easier for you to understand.


Sure doesn't sound like it, with the lies you were spouting.


Hahahaha... "tweaking." Sure.


I wasn't the one who brought it into the discussion. Read the post again. Maybe you need new glasses.


Hahahahahahahaha!!! You really should think before you post something. What was that about doing homework again? Oh my goodness....


Polished product indeed!! Hahahahaha!!!


Sigh.... like I said, I really don't have the time and patience to draw you a picture. Thanks for playing though! Interesting how you just zero in on that itty bitty section after I just ripped you a couple of new ones. Where's your FACTS again? Oh, right, I forgot... "Blah blah bla" indeed!!
Come back when you've done your homework.



Good day to you sir!

Where did I say I "hate" ED or DCS? Being critical of something isn't "hate." Pointing out lies and advertising BS isn't "hate."

As for being on the negative side of things, I've explained this before and don't really want to put a wall of text here. Suffice to say I've chosen to play this role... if you want a place where everybody is chummy and sings kumbaya, if you want a place were back-slapping and high fives go all around and ignore and suppress lies, bugs, and criticism, I'm sure there's a perfect place for you somewhere else on the internet.

Thank you for your concern regarding my free time... I assure you it is in no danger at all... heck, for all you know, I may even enjoy doing this! Maybe. Definitely. I think. Possibly.




It's all in the name, isn't it?

[/quote]
heck, for all you know, I may even enjoy doing this! Maybe. Definitely. I think. Possibly.

[/quote]


And there is the answer ....

Really? That may or may not be true.... my motivations are unknown, I am an enigma. It's not like I've ever talked about them on these forums... maybe. Perhaps. Possibly. Could be. Nobody really knows. Maybe if someone were to do some homework....

After all, more outrageous and unsubstantiated claims have been made in this thread alone....

So Why bother to "Play the negative role" that you have chosen (possibly for your own personal enjoyment) if you have nothing invested in the game, because you don't play it, unless you just like the arguments ... but isn't that the definition of trolling

Ah, but who said I have nothing invested in the game?

I guess I'm late to the party; what's the "SA" in "Eagle Dynamics SA" stand for? That's something I haven't seen before.

At a guess most likely the Swiss equivalent of GmbH, Ltd.or Inc. ?

Nate

Pretty much.

SA = Sue Ann

So I guess a dynamic campaign is out...

:-|

If it offered a dynamic campaign like Falcon 4.0/BMS, I'd own every single DCS module.

I don't think it was ever "in" in the first place. ED was like "Oh, the DC option won in our polls. Meh. Like that's ever going to make us any money. After all, look at what happened to MicroProse after Falcon 4.0!!"

So Eagle Dynamics SA is a Swiss branch of the company? Or a completely different entity? That's a bit confusing, I mean why have a separate name in Switzerland if it's the same company? Sorry if it's a silly thing to ask, just curious.

Also while I'm at it, what's the "unique CFD engine" the announcement talks about?

If you havent tried "Mbot dynamic campaign engine", it works quite nice.
It's still not a falcon4 dynamic campaign clone but some sort of DC mechanism(tracking war event, resource management, automatic mission generation) is implemented and it works.
So far, I have flown 7 A-10C sorties without CTD/error.


Im huge Falcon4 fan but I really dont know if DC is everything that keep us entertained.
as I and squadron do enjoy TE flghts in Falcon4 BMS no problem, the real boredom of DCS could be coming from "lack of modern US multirole fighter jet".


of course having falcon4 DC in DCS is way to go but it's not likely to happen in near future.

btw according to people in ED forum, F/A-18C can now be set as "Client" in mission editor which usually means release is gettin really close.

W O W!! Nice find!!

I've built a lot of missions for our group in the past and you've been able to do that since 1.2 but you can't get in the pit so it's meaningless.

I think that they added it to the mission builder for internal testing because I started seeing that when we first started getting news about the F/A-18C back several years ago.

waiting to see how they'll handle the F-18 + carrier ops
THEN
I might buy it/them

Only module that got me interested on a long time but seeing how they run thing recently I'll wait a bit

Nah. Dynamic campaign is literally everything. Once you live and breathe Falcon BMS's online dynamic campaign over a real living month, there's no going back. What's the point in flying pre-generated missions that you can memorize, ever again? I don't see any. The visceral thrill of flying in a Falcon theater where you must be on your toes at all time is amazing.

I see no point in memorizing the complexities of a jet, no matter the make in a sim that refuses to honor that knowledge with a campaign worthy replay like Falcon's.

Besides, I can fly the F/18C in Falcon BMS.

DCS needs to get with the program; it is costing them sales by not doing the right thing.

I am wondering how truly dynamic the campaign in Falcon 4 is. Surely after a few runs you will know what each typical scenario will be? Say you have to bomb a bridge. You'll know which few locations the bridges will spawn at? The areas where the air defense may spawn? The same canned voice overs with nothing unique for a unique mission?

I'm wondering because I've never played it.

The Falcon simulation was actually built as a campaign engine with different F-16 variants to begin with so comparing that to a dissimilar module based simulation isn't really fair in my opinion. And besides, there are actually groups and individuals like Buddyspike and Mbot that have been working on multiplayer campaign environments that are similar to the original Microprose concept. It still has a way to go but if you add the combined arms and multi-role modules it will be far beyond what Microprose ever envisioned when it finally happens.

And you can not fly the F/A-18 anything in BMS. You are simply using the same Block whatever F-16 with a different skin and slightly modified flight models. So saying that you can fly other air frames inside BMS is a really nonsense talking point.

The original F4 campaign was really remarkable for it's time and it kind of still is. You can move the ground units around and if you are aggressive and know how to work the PAK's efficiently you can create an almost new campaign every time. And say if you move the Northeast Battalion to the West or vice versa, the AI reacts to that, so you can do the exact same campaign over and over again and it will play out a little differently each time you do it. Also, if you know how to set up proper flights, you can learn to win the scenario very quickly even if you are cornered and outnumbered. I know from first hand experience because I ran a squadron and the became part of a big Falcon squadron years ago.

But the graphics are or at least were very outdated in some versions, the terrain was very 2D and the ground units looked like paper dolls. BMS started out as a mod that was installed alongside the original EXE. Some versions still had a lot of the original F4 bugs. Falcon AF was a complete rewrite of the code from Lead Pursuit because they purchased the code from Microprose, rewrote it and was exceptional for MP. BMS was still very glitchy in MP, or at least it was the last few time I played it, because it still used from what I understood to be the same but updated network coding. I saw the same problems with clients disconnecting and blowing up just like the original F4 was the last time I tried it.

Nope. Falcon 4's campaign is truly fluid and ever changing. No campaign run is ever the same. Every time you hop in the pit you have no idea what to expect when approaching the FLOT. Granted, mission planning is key, but due to the ever changing fog of war, you can't be quite sure what you'll be up against due to how units move and are re-allocated between sorties.

Now, there is some degree of similarity with starting forces, but that's about it. The beauty of Falcon's campaign engine is it runs in both 2D mode and 3D mode, and they integrate with one another, and if played on a persistent online server, someone can act as AWAC in the 2D sim and guide folks in the 3D sim.

It is hard to describe, you simply need to experience it. It is hands down the greatest campaign engine ever created for a flight sim, with EECH's being second.

Is it perfect? No. That's why the community has spent so many years improving it even further, and adding multiple theaters to the sim (I don't know how many there are now, but I do know the Israeli and Balkans theaters are fantastic). But it is the best that we have.

It is scary as hell flying out over the flot unaware of what you might face, and is the ultimate test of a pilot's aptitude, because so much is happening so quickly, it literally simulates information overload to perfection.

Have you played Falcon BMS 4.33? I beg to differ. The graphics are outstanding, especially considering what it is, and the replayability is unmatched in the jet sim genre.

Yes I have. I loaded it back awhile ago (original 4.33 release only and not latest version) to just see what all the buzz was about. It was still the same flat boring graphics that it was years ago. I agree that the realism is excellent though but it's still the same Falcon 4.0 that I remember. Red Viper, Open Falcon, Free Falcon, BMS, these are all just different iterations of the same idea and some of the same people from what I understand. They were all mods for F4 that added some features and did some tweaking to what code they could but you still had to use the original disc to install it. It still had a lot of the same bugs that it always did. So don't make it out to be some sort of "latest and greatest" simulation thingy.

Fly it if you like, that's your choice. But I know for a fact that when the F/A-18C comes out for DCS, a huge number of people from BMS will abandon it for DCS World. A lot of people I knew from years ago went to F4 when Janes died out because they were craving the multi role. And they'll jump on carrier ops when it's out and leave BMS in the dust. And I personally have absolutely no desire to go back to that.

At least the airports have working ATC, the AI are usually no rolly polly that can't fly sh!t, the campaign engine generates mission for me or i can handle my
own squadron, move the ground units if i want to, fly in different theatres and have the feeling of being an armchair pilot in a big, big war.
Designing MP missions in the campaign for 4 - 16 pilots takes less than one hour ...

Can't imagine how many hours it would take me to create one of my campaign missions in DCS ... just to see my system come to a stop with that
many units. But you are correct, the graphics are great - i mean, once they fix the MSAA dilemma with deferred shading.
But it is still "early access alpha", so no haste, take your time.

While I agree with you there, there is still some value of scripted, repeatable missions --- training.

Once you've got a good level of skill and want to fly with the "training wheels" off, that's when a DC comes in. Sure, scripted missions can still work if it has enough randomness and triggers scripted in, but that's really too much work for something that can come "automatically" with a DC.



You have the ENTIRE Korea map. You play as a fighter pilot for the South Korean side. There's about 20 airbases to choose from in South Korea. Let's say you fly the same campaign 20 times, each time from a different airbase. Do you really think you'll be bombing the same bridge 20x over? Do you really think you'll be flying over the same air defenses? In one campaign run, the AI aircraft might manage to take out a bunch of SAM radars and open up a clear corridor into enemy territory. In another campaign run, it might be YOUR FLIGHT that is tasked to take out those SAM radars. In another campaign run, the AI flight may be jumped by an enemy flight and fail to tak eout the SAM radars.

To be fair, some people who've been playing for ages have a general idea of how a campaign would play out.... just have a read of the latest posts in the Falcon sub-forum here. However, even with that knowledge, you'll still be flying different flights even if it is for the same goal. For instance, in one campaign run, you may be flying as the STRIKE package of a multi-flight group. You can save the campaign before you fly that mission, then fly the mission again, but this time as SEAD package. Fly the mission again but this time as the ESCORT flight.

Take those concepts and realize that the standard Korean map has three campaigns. Then there are other maps each with at least one or two campaigns each.... Better yet, give Falcon a try.



Can we stop living in the far future please? Have you seen the state of Combined Arms? How many multi-role modules do we have now? How long do you think before "it" finally happens?


Hahahahahahahahaha.... I dare you to go to the BMS forums and make this point again and see how long you last. The avionics may be tweaked/modded F-16, sure, but explain to me how the F/A-18 in BMS is an "F-16 with a different skin"?


Yeah, we really don't play BMS because of the graphics.... most of the time, we're too busy maintaining SA and blowing stuff up while trying to keep ourselves from getting blown up. You know, proper COMBAT stuff...


Wrong. Anyone who has installed BMS 4.33 will know why this is wrong.


Ah yes. The glitchy MP code only allows 32+ players in a virtual squadron's open flight night. The glitchy MP code also means things like Falcon Online cannot possibly be success stories. Your statement above just shows that you KNOW NOTHING about MP in Falcon BMS.


**cough!**Israel Theatre**cough!**
**cough!**Polak Tiles**cough!**
Sorry, you were saying something about flat boring graphics? You may be confusing a COMBAT flight simulator and a pretty wallpaper generator featuring combat aircraft....


Hahahahaha!!! And DCS is just basically Flanker 2.0 or LOMAC. What kind of messed up logic are you trying here?
Full 6DoF clickable cockpit? Yeah, nothing has been done to the code. Buddy lasing? Sure, yeah, it's still F4.
As for having to use the original disc, again, you're doing a great impression of Jon Snow here...

Please do state some of the bugs "that always existed" that the appropriate bug spray may be applied.


That remains to be seen. Some people will try out the F/A-18C, sure. As to how many will stay after the initial honeymoon period is over, well, that remains to be seen. Again, can we please stop living in the far future?


See, the thing is, what use is carrier ops in the current sterile world of DCS? Sure, it'll be fun doing carrier traps in modern graphics. Sure, it'll be great learning the F/A-18's systems.... but without a living theatre to play in... what happens when you want the training wheels to come off?

Don't get me wrong... I'm one of those that will most likely be re-installing DCS the moment I can fly the F-14 or the F-18 and I know I will be having fun with those airframes. I'm quite confident that unless ED has been pranking us for the last 5+ years, BMS has nothing to worry about with "being left in the dust." Simply put, even with just one aircraft in BMS and outdated graphics, DCS has a LOT of catching up to do.

Unless you like pretty wallpaper screenshots, then DCS wins hands down.

Not a chance I am wading in to this one, you know which side of that fence I am on anyway.

But this is an instant classic Ice. Made me lolz

Funny how everything has to turn into a word war shouting match with you.

Bottom line is that BMS is still a mod no matter how you look at it. A fancy one at that but still a mod. And I wasn't actually saying that it's bad, just different. I haven't seen any of the other theaters. I was only comparing it with the Korea one. And yes, I have installed it recently. The F/A-18 is the F-16-52 cockpit avionics and it looks like crap compared to every module in DCS including the Hawk. I'll take the high fidelity DCS stuff over the old Falcon stuff any day. And that's coming from someone that actually ran a Falcon group regularly and loved the dynamic campaign. It's not just worth it to me to deal with such an old sim. And if you haven't tried Buddyspike Blue Flag, I suggest you try it. It's all PVP and will make you soil your shorts. So, AI campaigns are cool, but flying against real people in a much more realistic combat theater, albeit slightly limited in some ways, is where it's at for me now.

Glad you found the humor in it!
And yeah, I know which side of the galaxy you're on, nevermind which side of the fence! Hahaha!!

There's no Hornet in that game either

Got a Viper though.

I'm not sure I like that version though. I still prefer the Earth-bound one

You obviously haven't played BMS 4.33. That 3 is a remarkable difference in terrain graphics, trees everywhere and many other idiosyncratic nuances. Umm, and the core part of the sim? You're being VERY disingenuous. The BMS flight model was rewritten from the ground up using actual F-16 simulator data and is incredibly advanced, and no longer relies on "computation tables" which you see in 99% of other flight sims. You should read up on the detailed explanation of what they did on BMS' site. There are remarkable differences between BMS and the previous iterations, and .33 takes it even further.

It isn't a mod for F4. It is a complete re-working of the F4 code. It IS the latest and greatest simulation "thingy."

And no, we won't move to DCS. I have DCS A-10C and Black Shark 1 and 2, and they're quite boring once you realize the world you're flying in is static.

Well, then I stand corrected if that's the case. I know that the BMS people had been trying to get their hands on the F4 code for a long time. Up to some point it's just been a mod. If that's the case and they were actually able to do that and rewrite it then more power to them. Just so I'm clear on this though, the version I have that I downloaded and ran recently is 4.33. And it did require the original disc so that's why I assumed it was no different from previous versions.

After I installed it and flew around Korea, it looked exactly the same as it did in the original Microprose version with the exception of trees here and there. So I don't know where you're getting the different graphics you're referring to. Also, I did try the carrier ops. I was able to land but when I taxied I blew up and went through the deck. The avionics looked exactly the same as the F-16 so if you're seeing something different I'd like to know why. But the bottom line is it looked the same to me and still had the same bugs. So I tossed it back in the trash can. And I did have the add on Korea and Israel theaters.

Maybe someone could post some screen shots. I'd be interested in seeing them.

Never mind, I found some screen shots. Looks like "High Tiles" with some scattered trees. Also, I'd like to point out that I had problems with the airports vanishing. This is an old F4 bug. So obviously the BMS guys still have a ways to go before they clean up the old messes. I'll stay away from it.

WHO IS SHOUTING??!!?!?!!
Hehehe...


You say that like it's a bad thing. Like the dated graphics. So what if it's a mod? I've never argued that it wasn't. And it doesn't require the EXE nor does it require a full Falcon 4.0 install. These "requirements" have been in place for TOTALLY different reasons.... oh, and I'm not shouting, it's all caps for emphasis.


Jon Snow.


Hardcoded limitation, just as the 2D menu is at a much lower resolution (1024x786 IIRC?) but the 3D world can handle higher resolutions (5896x1080 in my case). Don't confuse avionics with flight modelling though.


Again, BMS does not compete in the graphics department. It's a COMBAT flight simulator, not a wallpaper and screenshot generator.


And the reasons for it not being worth it are??? Aside from being an "old" sim...


And if you haven't tried Falcon Online, I suggest you try it. It's all PVP and will make you soil your shorts. So, AI campaigns are cool and you can totally do that in Falcon, but flying against real people in a much more realistic combat theatre is also totally possible in BMS, is where it's at for me now.

And you know what the FUN part is? Online PvP in a MULTI-ROLE aircraft!!

Dude, you need to lay down and take a nap.

"You stand corrected", I think is what you mean.


Just because it requires the original disc, you jumped to all sorts of conclusions. Just because you ran 4.33 and installed using the original disc, you thought you know everything there is to know about 4.33. Nice.


Oh, totally agree with you there. I provided some screenshots below and cannot see the difference at all!!







I think you've shown us really how reliable you're "it looked the same to me" statements are. Can you cite one bug that existed in F4.0 that is still there now?


You just said you didn't see any other theaters.... but now you say you have Israel theatres too? Which one is it?


See above! See if you can spot the differences too and tell me which one is Falcon 4.0 original Microprose and which one is the mod? I bet you can't tell them apart!!


Which airports are vanishing? If it's an old F4 bug, I'm sure you can tell me straight away which airport it is and how to replicate this bug.


And so it begins.... attacking ME instead of countering the CONTENT of the posts...

Your posts are annoying. It's a constant barrage of quote mania. You need to chill out, take a deep breath and just learn to have a regular meaningful conversation instead of banging a gong all the time. I'm out of this conversation completely. This is supposed to be about DCS anyhow. Had it with the BS.

I can't attest to the authenticity of the BMS F-18. I love the Viper, and have spent an overwhelming majority of my seat time in it.

Does this look like vanilla Falcon 4.0?



vs. vanilla:

Because it sure as hell doesn't to me. I have flown almost every single iteration of the sim, starting with the original SuperPak and Freefalcon and yes, the original BMS from way back when. There's no comparison with the original, vanilla version and what we have now.

{edited] I have no issues with giving DCS credit where it is due (graphics, training scenarios, DCS A10C, good for beginners, and so on) but mis-informed statements and [edited] deserve to be exposed to sunlight and shown for what they really are.


You need to get your eyes tested and get new glasses. You also need to grow a thick skin and learn to respond to direct responses to your posts. And as with most Pro-ED supporters, you need to learn to be honest with yourself and with the flight simming community.


Someone else asked about BMS and you responded to it and we responded to you.... and now you cry about it? You had the choice of responding or not... and now you throw your toys out of the pram? Hypocritical of you to tell me to "chill out", isn't it?


For those that have open minds, here's an interesting thread on the FMs in BMS. If you still think that the other aircraft is just a "re-skinned F-16" in terms of flight model, please post your argument on that thread so that the developers can respond to you directly and you can get the correct answer DIRECTLY from them.

Really? Coz I can't see the difference between original Microprose Falcon 4.0 and BMS 4.33.3 as shown in the screenshots above.... can you?

Also, in the top picture, you can clearly see the airport but it's not there in the second picture... this is the long-known Falcon bug of airports vanishing!!

BMS can trace its origins far, far back to the days eFalcon 1.09 ... which was based on the original Falcon 4.0 1.07 source code. The Realism Patches and Free Falcon (up to a point in time) have always been mods, e.g. tweaks of the original data files but using the 1.08 executable. However, eFalcon 1.09 and all variations thereof through to BMS 4.33 are newly compiled executables from source code. In that regard BMS 4.33 is a more than just a mod. But no, it's not a 100% completely new game, some of the original code still remains.

But BMS 4.33 has vastly different graphics capabilities. Those trees aren't planted there by hand, that's auto-generating terrain features, something the old Falcon 4.0 could not do. Look at the sky, clouds? Didn't have those either back then. Changing weather patterns, complete with rain and low hanging clouds and thunderstorms. That's definitely something new as well and not something you can "hack into the game with Notepad". Also the HDR lightning and shadow casting int he cockpit, the water glare and both cloud and object reflections, those are new too and again, something that requires significant programming to achieve.

If your Falcon 4.0 installation looks exactly like the original Microprose version, are you sure you installed the right game?

I get that BMS is not even close to be a top notch in graphics among flight simulators but not only it is not that bad (lol saying that nothing has changed since AF is a little too much) but also it should not be about observe the scenery (this is not xplane or p3d), it is about situation awareness and engagement....in other words IT IS ABOUT WAR. This is exactly why DCS sucks and probably will for many years to come. DCS has an amazing flight model simulator (although its flight model has some flaws too) but everything related to WAR sucks...weapons sucks, damage model sucks, the combat environment sucks, the ground forces collaboration sucks, the AI sucks.......well everything that is important to the war zone simulation sucks in this game.

DCS is just a result of modern games trending, which i don't like. Players these days ask for eyecandy features and/or more accessible gameplay and that's exactly what most today developers aim to! They just ignore AI improvements (which get counterbalanced with artificial difficulties), increase gaming factors/effect (grinding, artificial difficulties, etc...), fast game matches (eg. elaborated game sessions takes too much time so let's make a scenario where the airbase is just 4 min from the war front....this is so realistic) and focus on eyecandy features forgetting everything else....let's not forget that gamers are even proud to either pay high prices or pay for split contents, DLC, that most of times adds nothing

I'll be honest with you, i would 10 times definitely pick a game with Falcon 4: AF graphics but still 3d cockpit and BMS changes rather than an airframe simulator like DCS that has little longevity due to no real time dynamic campaign, which for me most of time get translated to repetition and no combat zone feeling. Obviously i love if the game has a more realistic graphics, but gameplay come first and, in case of a war game, war feeling come second right after the gameplay.

Heck, if you don't notice anything else, how can you miss a full 6DoF cockpit with all gauges, switches, knobs, and buttons working? In AF, the pilot had to switch between the 2D pit for cockpit work and the 3D pit to maintain SA... and in the 3D pit, only a select few gauges were working.


Major sucky-sucky in many levels...


One of our first MP flights in BMS 4.32 and our 3-ship was on egress and we had contacts on our scope coming hot. We panicked, afraid we were getting jumped. AWACS must've been down as we couldn't get him on the horn to ID the contacts for us. There must've been a "buddy spike" call but in the ruckus, we all missed that. Moments later, our TGP shows us the familiar shape of F-15s... they were on their way home and their flight path took them about less than half a mile from us. The first thing one of the guys says is "You don't get that in DCS!"

He was wrong. He is wrong. Sure, you can get that in DCS. However, the main difference is that you'd have to script in all of those things. Having an AI flight jump your flight, having AI friendlies RTB as you egress, you'd have to script all of that. In a DC, it is simply there because of the nature of the DC.

I've always said that one of my initial worries when playing BMS was whether I could cope with the lower graphics. The cockpit shadows in 4.32 were.... bad. The graphics in BMS when coming from DCS leaves a LOT to be desired! However, once the immersion kicks in.... well....

For someone who rants on in a post about the thread being about DCS yet finishes the rant with "Had it with the" Black Shark"??? your point is invalid my friend. You need to upgrade to BS2 found Here
You will it enjoy BS2 more than BS mate

Thats the point. It´s like a strategic game with a flight sim on top of it. It´s designed from ground up for this purpose.

Despite the original LOMAC was announced to have some sort of a DC (the feature was canceled later), AFAIK DCS is not build with that feature in mind. Over the years reading the DCS forum, I got the impression that they are happy with the mission and campaign structur they have. I doubt we will ever see a built-in-DC in DCS. Mbot`s campaigns are great and show what is possible with LUA programming for DCS, though it will never be so immersive. So I happily take DCS as it is and continue dreaming.

Didn't have anything to do with Black Shark. Was using initials for something else.

And Ice, I really don't give a crap about you or any of your opinions or posts for that matter. Like I said, you attack everyone all the time with your ridiculous quote wars and it's just an annoyance. From now on I'll just ignore you.

Even if they weren't, I doubt they have any manpower left over to re-do anything they need/want to do with the core system. Getting 2.5 out of the gate seems like a monumental task as it is.


I don't really give a crap about you either, [edited]. You can't even respond properly to being called out and now that you're exposed, you're reduced to personal insults and complaining how I respond to posts. Maybe next time you post your opinions, try to have an ounce of evidence to back it up and grow a pair.

I don't "attack everyone all the time," just when someone spouts BS (and no, not the helicopter module) and thinks they can get away with it. Lovely how these types of people tend to go scrambling back into the shadows once their lies gets called out.


Got a couple notifications about this thread. Everyone needs to cool down. Try not to bring baggage from other threads/posts in here. Badgering and insulting other members is not acceptable, so don't do it. Please try to be civil. Everyone.

I get all the criticism of ED and DCS, but in the end I'm just happy that we still have a developer that's making combat flight sims. As far as modern aircraft sims the cupboards a little bare. Are they perfect no, but at least they're still developing for a hardcore (and hard to please audience). Personally I'll take what I can get, but to each their own.

I agree with you...with one caveat. When I pay for a module in advance (early access or whatever you want to call it) I expect the developer to finish it and not drop it like a hot stone and move onto the next airframe/campaign/asset pack. It's not like the extended duration of the alpha/beta/early access comes into it any more, you get the impression there is no intent to actually finish and polish anything.

The same reason why I (and a lot of other people) have stopped buying their early-access products. This, in most cases actually mean we won't be buying ANYTHING again as everything is now categorised into this early-access group and never completed.

There's being thankful for a product and then there's just blindly buying something and supporting a developer that is clearly taking the p1ss.

I really really hope you will reconsider this stance in the future.
Of course you are entitled your opinion, but I sure hope it will change over time.

I'm pretty sure he missed it, like he did everything that didn't conform to his world-view.



And that is how they are thriving... with people who will happy accept whatever scraps fall off ED's table. There's absolutely no need to hold them accountable for anything, especially not after you've handed them your money. After all, if ED goes out of business, there's absolutely nothing left and flight simulation on the PC will cease to exist.



I happily pre-purchased the deluxe edition of Steel Division Normandy but I did so because I was familiar with the developers and I've greatly enjoyed games from them in the past --- Cities Skylines, Tyranny, Magicka, and so on.
I will not purchase anything for ED because I'm also familiar with the developers and despite enjoying games from them in the past --- DCS A10C, DCS BS2 --- their more current track record invites more concern rather than confidence.

There's making an informed decision and there's just throwing money away and hoping for the best despite evidence to the contrary.

Scroll to end.

Cheers OG!

so....

E3's been on for 2 days
any sign of that F-18 yet?

Yeah, just what I was going to ask... anyone gone to E3 and had a go at the F-18?

Thrustmaster will attend the E3 2017 event from June 13 to June 15. https://www.thrustmaster.com/en_UK/news/thrustmaster-will-attend-e3-2017-event-june-13-june-15
ED is on Thrustmaster booth, so they likely will show the F-18 from the 13th on.

Show floor does not open until Tuesday, so we have to wait until then. Only the big players like EA, Microsoft, Ubisoft, etc are having preconference shows, as far as I know.

cheers,

--T

Whoops! Jumped the gun there... for some reason, I thought it was happening last weekend. So, anyong going to E3?

I'd go there.....just to flame the ED testers for not reporting the installer for Normandy which they should have tested rather than show boating around in the F-18. Sucks living in Australia, Might even have a crack at Wags for his "official response" after I put Sobek's name forth on becoming a community manager. If anyone is attending, I am more than happy to send you a message that can be handed over on my behalf. Maybe SkateZilla could pass on the message for me? Surely Skate as an ED tester who is responsible for reporting back to ED on 'bugs' would surely want to report the bugs list I've been saving over the last few years or so.

Is there a memory stick large enough to contain that much data though?

You'd need to pass on a 6TB 3.5" drive.................probably a bit much to ask in all honesty.

Fake news!!

I saw the Hornet grip. It was static and enclosed in glass. Sweeeet. May just be a prototype but sweet no less.

https://www.facebook.com/VirtualTbirds/videos/10155413278264287/

DCS Hornet is in the video somewhere but I wasn't paying attention. OK, I'm over my fanboy moment.

--T

I have to disagree there. I've had it happen in my own missions by chance. It's not very hard to do in DCS mission editor, which I feel is vastly underrated. I would say the main difference is the amount of effort it takes. Falcon obviously creates the whole scenario for you. To recreate this in DCS, you basically need to create missions within missions, ie create an AI strike force that has nothing to do with the player's mission. Sometimes, the two groups will run into each other. And then to prevent that from getting repetitive, you make many of these missions and give them random spawns. Eventually it becomes nearly indistinguishable from a DC, except that you've been working on the mission for weeks instead of just hitting play.

Falcon's DC is a huge asset, but I've never felt it to be necessary. If there is something I really want from Falcon in DCS, it's the AI. I can certainly see why people want a DC though. Making comparable missions in DCS is hours of work.


I've only played Falcon AF. The graphics are fine in my opinion. In fact I think I've found myself more impressed with them than DCS, but that's because I've flown the DCS map so much that I know it better than my own neighborhood. I agree that visuals only go so far.

HERE is the one with more time spent on the Hornet grip. Very nice and I hope it comes out soon!! I also hope they will sell a "grip-only" version for those who already have a WH setup.

Not much as far as the Hornet video goes... I somehow expected a more "action" test sequence, not just a free flight with no other aircraft. Heck if it flew formation with another Hornet, that would've been so much more cooler. I was also expecting to see carrier ops... again, just because HORNET. Nevertheless, I'm keeping my fingers crossed! Whoohooo!!



"by chance" whereas it's almost a given in Falcon. Like I said, you can probably script in so many things in Falcon that it looks and feels like a DC... but by that point, you're basically a flight simulator mission maker rather than a flight simulator pilot.


One word --- replayability.


Give BMS a try... if you think AF is "fine" in the graphics department, try the default Korea map.... then download and install and fly the Israel map and the Balkans map. Tell us how it goes

So..... Thrustmaster is only doing Stick mod for F/A-18 or what?

btw from chitchat thread, Early Access is indeed getting closer.
However some feature like JHMCS will be implemented after EA release(dev confirmed).

Well, the F-18 throttle isn't too different from the current WH throttle and I don't see why they'd need to re-design the stick base... Less R&D and prototyping, faster out the door, less development costs, more profit... and the added advantage of keeping the drooling/rabid fanboys at bay!

Speaking of early access, any word about carrier ops??

Carrier Ops demo looks like it's going to be a day 2 thing (got that from a Youtube video post where they noted Wag's said to come back tomorrow).

so 3-4 years then....

that missing rotary radar control, specially considered that there is an axis unused, is/was outrageous. I was really hoping for an F-18 throttle.... what is the point of the stick only when there are way better joystick out there.

Thanks for the link Ice. I too hope for a grip-only option. Would've liked to have seen more Hornet action, as well, but it's still early. Years ago, when I attended IITSEC in Orlando, Wags demoed a whole lot more of the A-10 using CH Products' A-10 HOTAS (whicn was never released commercially). Maybe he'll show some of the Hornet's features in the coming days. I noticed none of the cockpits were equipped with the Hornet grip, which causes me to speculate that it is not quite ready for consumption. I'm guessing more than "two weeks" before we can enjoy both products.

--T

Agree the rotary for the radar control would be great, in the mean time I'll continue to use the WH's slider (not the same but does the job)

Apparently from the pictures TM did add an extra rotary switch that actually doesn't exist in the real grip....the reason is quite obvious.....They did realize that an F18 is not an A-10 so rapid radar control ( without asking the pilot to take the hands off the controls) is a must since it's a fighter. Since they just ignored that switch on the original Warthog (yeah i get it, they wanted to keep it original) now that decision is slashing back to them.
I need to see how commands are distributed between stick and throttle to better understand that if the result is amazing, good or awful. One thing i know for sure is that the F-18 was originally designed to have the radar control on the throttle. I hope that TM design decision does not contrast with Boeing original decision, thus having situation where you should proceed with multiple controls input but they are all done with the same hand just because of TM.

LINK

not sure if this is the same as the Facebook page video posted earlier

It seems they are going to showoff some carrier things tommorow

As for throttle like other said, it is lacking radar antenna elevation rotary the only point that prevents me from buying it so Im kind of disappointed aobut not having 18C throttle..

I'm flying the F-16 on an A-10 throttle... I'm not that bothered about the loss of a rotary. Having said that, the WH throttle has more buttons than the Viper's throttle but it looks like the Hornet would need all the WH throttle buttons and then more! Will need to see how things pan out, but would not mind having to buy a Hornet throttle later on if one becomes available. Then again, it'll depend on how long the DCS module can hold my interest.

Each of my modules landed at aboot 2 weeks except the A-10C which kept going some 4 weeks maybe.
Was it worth it?
Can't say "hell yeah" sadly, far from.
DCS is, by far, the most expensive sim I ever payed for per played hour.
Flew BMS the other night and my Swedish wingman and I noticed, that first in a lifetime, we have a fully featured SAAB37 in a simulator and we still go BMS for the evening.
Without pointing out specific reasons we both realized this was the worst grade DCS ever could get from Swedish customers.

Edit: With above in my back pocket I will not buy DCS Hornet day 1. Not even close.

Like I said, I did have a lot of fun with DCS A10C and even with the A10A in FC3 before that. Even though I am very critical of ED after BS2, the A10C is an excellent module and only suffers because of the "world" it is flying in. I've got my fingers crossed for the Hornet and the Tomcat, and even if it's just to learn the systems of these aircraft, I would most probably be buying both modules on Day 1... or close enough to Day 1

I've said it again and again, DCS is more of an airframe simulator than a combat flight simulator.... and the Hornet and Tomcat are two airframes I don't mind spending time on..... provided ED (and Heatblur) manages to do these modules properly. Give me A10C-level fidelity and carrier ops and I won't mind the sterile "world" for a good while.

+1 what Ice said

I've spent a lot of time trying to make FSX/P3D my Carrier Ops sim. F4/FA18/F14 and since i went to VR only its been rough. DCS + Carrier Ops (if they way it runs NTTR and Normandy on my 5 year old system ill be happy.

I am also very critical when the topic is about ED but i have to agree with Ice if you take DCS as a frame simulator to mainly learn all the system.

Turncoat, you'll be moderating the ED message boards next!

Hahaha!! Don't worry, I can still see the bigger picture. Plus, once I start flying in DCS again, that'll get rid of those people who say "How can you say that if you've not flown DCS for years??

I,m really surprised that by now, there is next to none videos about it....

Yeah, someone make with a video already. Today was supposed to be carrier ops. Wasn't expecting much - I've only seen two basically done vids posted on Facebook, but something's better than nothing.

Carrier-ops!

https://www.facebook.com/VirtualTbirds/videos/10155417365479287

That wire tho!!!! I can't believe I got excited about an animated wire.

--T

Hmmm... no "meatball" and I can't tell if there's an LSO implemented. Also was expecting a more "busy" flight deck. But minor stuff.... I love how the camera moved from in-pit to an external view to show you the wire animation. Always loved checking which wire I got in Jane's F/A-18, so glad they put that in here as well! Amazing how a simple wire animation can add so much!

I wonder how they're controlling the flaps/gear/hook in the demo though? Maybe just mapped it to a WH throttle switch? One of the base switches perhaps? I find it funny that they've got 2 Cougar MFDs.... mounted under the monitor way out of reach of anything or anyone.

Didnt know Matt was in a wheelchair

As it happens, childish comments about Matt's disability (made on another site) is what got PocketSized banned from ED's forum.

I hope to see some HD video of the Hornet and the carrier. The boat in the video seems like default ship from the game but I may be mistaken due to low quality of the video.

I'm pretty excited about the Hornet though, probably will be day 1 purche for me aswell.

Also didn't knew about Matt condition, I remember him from Jane's F/A-18 times, sad to hear about his disability.

Cool video. Looks like Rory is throwing that stick around a bit.... I wanted to see her have a go though...

Looks good. Takes me back to my first siming days with Graph Sim's Hornet 2.0. Will wait to see about theater availability and campaign availability before I buy though...

it was a genuine comment. Was curius if it was recent(like broken legs) or something else

It's nice to finally put a face to a name. I didn't know he was in a wheelchair; anyone knows what happened? Like Genbrien says, is this recent or has he been like this for a while? Just curious.

I know it's been a while - I recall seeing an interview in LOMAC days with him in one. Not sure if it's a condition he was born with though - I just know it's been a while.

Man, I guess I'm going to have to watch the interview now to see what details are to be gleaned.

Is it just me or is there anyone else wanting to strangle that woman?!??!

"How exciting..." *look of utter boredom on her face*
"We made it... we finally made it..." Um, no, not yet. VR is still in it's infancy....
Matt talks about the A-10 and no change in expression in her face at all
"So what console does Thrustmaster work best with?" MUST... RESIST... URGE.... TO.... SMASH!!!!...

My respect for Matt just skyrocketed for not facepalming at that moment. I thought "reporters" were supposed to be familiar with the subject matter or at least do some research first so they can ask "intelligent" questions? I have a feeling the interview would've gone 1,000x better if Rory did the interview and the woman did the flying. Then again, when she interviewed Rory.... he pulled back on the throttle and his stomach sank?

Do we have an interview from an actual flight simmer trying out the F-18 Hornet?

Why does Matt keep saying "2-3 years"?? Wasn't the Hornet in development for LONGER than that?

Hahaha yes I just bursted when I heard that.
She had no idea what they were talking about.

It would be nice if TM joysticks would work on consoles despite their primary purpose for PCs. That usually depends on the console companies including drivers for it to all systems as a global patch and in the case of Microsoft I don't know if they support DirectX (not XInput) at all.

"2-3 years" that's a standard statement. Since they first mentioned it, it's been at least 7 years. Another good one, "Champing at the bit for this [DCS-F-18]." Yeah, how about, "Dying every time we chase our tails down a rabbit hole and putting a completely different (and dull) module in front of this project"? Also mentioned that modelling air-to-ground radar was a new technology they'd had to master. I remember denying this at least seven years ago. God, he's such a bad front man for a company.

Anything about the map, or carrier marshal AI, or hi-res AG radar mapping? Nope. Here our plane, there's a carrier, land. Wow.

And what game on the console would a TM HOTAS work with? Ace Combat? At the very least, Elite Dangerous, but is there anything else?


Should've concentrated 110% of their resources on the Hornet after A10C or BS2.

Also feel sorry for him when he talks about "how long it takes"... sure, there's many steps to the process but previous steps don't have to be completed before the next step starts... there should be a good amount of overlap. Talking about A-G radar like it's a "whole new technology." It is a "monumental amount of work," true... all the more reason not to be spreading resources around, huh?

At least we know now that the Hornet is flyable, though it would be great to hear from people more familiar with flight sims to get a better feel on the aircraft. We also know a carrier exists with good trap-wire animation. Are there other videos showing other stuff like weapons? Ground radar? Startup? I feel like this is more like a showcase for TM than it is for DCS. I hope they'll come up with more in-depth videos of the Hornet and its systems in the coming weeks.

Since the booth belongs to TM, that makes sense.