OT: A-10C

[empeck]

Sorry for off topic, but this is something I have to share :D

As you may noticed I'm a huge fan of LockOn and DCS series. Eagle Dynamics just released their first producer note about upcoming DCS: A-10C Warthog simulation. This is going to be a game for those who like to click on those small buttons everywhere in the cockpit ;) ED already done military A-10C simulation, now they are making an entertainment product.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D-_kpBE1OY
Watch in HD!

And interview with Matt Wagner from ED:

http://www.gamingshogun.com/Article/7060/DCS__A-10C_Producer_Interview_-_Exclusive_Screenshots.html

Bjoern - yes, they are working on dynamic campaign. It won't be ready in this iteration, but campaign structure will be more advanced, and you will be able to make random events in custom designed missions, or even a complete random generated mission.

http://www.gamingshogun.com/ImageRepo/P/GS-101.jpg

[michael davies]

This is something I am really looking forward too !, the information in their product will be very helpfull for a project I'm working on, if only to show what FSx cannot reproduce !.

[stiz]

great, another plane that i cant start up! :icon_lol:

[empeck]

great, another plane that i cant start up! :icon_lol:

In DCS there is a shortcut for automatic engine and systems startup ;)

[stiz]

ture, but wheres the fun in that :icon_lol:

[BOOM]

I've been looking forward to this for a long,long time!!:salute: Can't wait for the release!! Hopfully in 2010.

[Bjoern]

Bjoern - yes, they are working on dynamic campaign. It won't be ready in this iteration, but campaign structure will be more advanced, and you will be able to make random events in custom designed missions, or even a complete random generated mission.

That's nice news and a good start, but I'll wait for the real dynamic campaign! Maybe they'll put it into something like "DCS: MiG-27". ;)

[ryanbatc]

Looks nice!

[kilo delta]

Maybe they'll put it into something like "DCS: MiG-27". ;)

Please God ...no! I can see it now...45 mins trying to decipher the Cyrillic placards, another 45 mins starting it .................only for the pesky thing to go U/S at the end of that ordeal!:d

[Mithrin]

Oh yeah, will get this for sure! I think I'll save my money and skip LOMAC 2 and wait for this instead!

[Bone]

That's nice news and a good start, but I'll wait for the real dynamic campaign! Maybe they'll put it into something like "DCS: MiG-27". ;)

If they would do "DCS: F-16 Viper", then you could chose to do Air-to-Air or Air-to Ground missions. Whereas with the A-10 you're limited to A-to-G, and with the MiG-27 you're limited to A-A.

[Quixoticish]

If they would do "DCS: F-16 Viper", then you could chose to do Air-to-Air or Air-to Ground missions. Whereas with the A-10 you're limited to A-to-G, and with the MiG-27 you're limited to A-A.

The Mig-27 is a ground attack aircraft.

[centuryseries]

If they would do "DCS: F-16 Viper", then you could chose to do Air-to-Air or Air-to Ground missions. Whereas with the A-10 you're limited to A-to-G, and with the MiG-27 you're limited to A-A.

F-16s, A-10s, F-18s have been overdone over the years what about them making something slightly less popular and boring like a decent F-15E simulation, or F-14, or Harrier - all have been overlooked for many years now. A good Harrier would be awesome in lomac.

I loved the Flanker series, I like Lomac, but can't help but wish for some of the overlooked types that would be just as popular.

[MenendezDiego]

A-10's and F-18's have not been overdone in my opinion.

An aircraft is not overdone until it has been made to the calibre that DCS has shown.

People can try and make poor renditions of the A-10 (ARMA), but overdone? It's not even out yet lol

Diego

[Lewis-A2A]

A-10's and F-18's have not been overdone in my opinion.

An aircraft is not overdone until it has been made to the calibre that DCS has shown.

People can try and make poor renditions of the A-10 (ARMA), but overdone? It's not even out yet lol

Diego

Agreed 100%, until its modelled correctly for those that want the realism in a true simulation it hasnt been overdone. Infact isnt Lomac the only real choice when it comes to the A10 in a combat environment?

[MenendezDiego]

Agreed 100%, until its modelled correctly for those that want the realism in a true simulation it hasnt been overdone. Infact isnt Lomac the only real choice when it comes to the A10 in a combat environment?

Indeed LOMAC is the only 'real' choice.

As far as ballistics go, it's the best. As far as systems go, it could use some work.

[Bone]

The Mig-27 is a ground attack aircraft.

Maybe I should brush up on my Migs, thanks. Obviously, Russian models aren't my forte.

[Bjoern]

Please God ...no! I can see it now...45 mins trying to decipher the Cyrillic placards, another 45 mins starting it .................only for the pesky thing to go U/S at the end of that ordeal!:d

It's not like no one ever invented tooltips! ;P




If they would do "DCS: F-16 Viper", then you could chose to do Air-to-Air or Air-to Ground missions.

I'll wait for that new WIP Falcon 4 mod instead. Let's hope it'll run on 7.


Whereas with the A-10 you're limited to A-to-G, and with the MiG-27 you're limited to A-A.

Know your Floggers!




F-14

As much as I find the F-14 overpopular, as curious I am about TK's (Strike Fighters 1+2) next simulation of which, until now, only screenshots of an F-14 were to be seen...

[kilo delta]

It's not like no one ever invented tooltips! ;P



Wha???...Cyrillic tooltips too????...you're a sadist! :) :d

[BOOM]

Hahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CheckSix]

A-10's and F-18's have not been overdone in my opinion.

An aircraft is not overdone until it has been made to the calibre that DCS has shown.

People can try and make poor renditions of the A-10 (ARMA), but overdone? It's not even out yet lol

Diego

People demand perfection, be it in their real lives or their virtual: Perfection does not exist.

With such things a line needs to be drawn in the sand by the likes of such powerful developers such as DCS, where for entertainment purposes I am not talkign about their "contracts", they must say: "thats it folks, on to pastures new". Otherwise A-10 (for arguments sakes) will replace another rendition of an A-10, then another, then another.... Nothing new will be forth comming, it gets stale, gets boring. Create the sim as hifi as it can be made at the time. Release it, then move on to a new aircraft subject. In however many years time the technology is there to update the original release then by all means... Of course a simple fix to this, something that LOMAC etc has never done, release an SDK where people can add in aircraft, systems, scenery etc and in doing guaranteeing the survival and longevity of your product much like Microsoft has. Forgive me for scoffing whilst I typed that as I know it will never happen.

The US and Russia are the major market for such sims, that is well known and as such devs need to target their wares at that market so it is not surprising we see repeated simulations of US and Russian aircraft. Ever since the heady days of Microprose and Digital intergration et al we have seen this marketing strategy. A case note would be DI's EXCELLENT Panavia Tornado GR1 simulation of the early 90's. Superb sim. The systems modelled etc, for the day... Fantastic.
You will not find a more satisfying aircraft anywhere in the world to simulate systems than the Tonka. A marriage of steam and digital linked to just about any mission profile imaginable, much like the F-14 but much more advanced.

I am all for the A-10, love it, I grew up with these monsters lazily motoring over my head at tree top height as a kid during the 80's and then the Super Jolly Greens out of RAF Woodbridge so as such I admit that I am excited over this pending release but I would like to see something a little different on the horizon, a Harrier GR7 / 9, perhaps an F-14 (lots of room for mission profiles) or Tornado GR / IDS / ECR and if not then at least an F-15E sim. But alas I fear we will have a long wait.

Three cheers for DCS and the A-10C sim!

P.S. Apologies for the long post.

[Lewis-A2A]

People demand perfection, be it in their real lives or their virtual: Perfection does not exist.

With such things a line needs to be drawn in the sand by the likes of such powerful developers such as DCS, where for entertainment purposes I am not talkign about their "contracts", they must say: "thats it folks, on to pastures new". Otherwise A-10 (for arguments sakes) will replace another rendition of an A-10, then another, then another.... Nothing new will be forth comming, it gets stale, gets boring. Create the sim as hifi as it can be made at the time. Release it, then move on to a new aircraft subject. In however many years time the technology is there to update the original release then by all means... Of course a simple fix to this, something that LOMAC etc has never done, release an SDK where people can add in aircraft, systems, scenery etc and in doing guaranteeing the survival and longevity of your product much like Microsoft has. Forgive me for scoffing whilst I typed that as I know it will never happen.

The US and Russia are the major market for such sims, that is well known and as such devs need to target their wares at that market so it is not surprising we see repeated simulations of US and Russian aircraft. Ever since the heady days of Microprose and Digital intergration et al we have seen this marketing strategy. A case note would be DI's EXCELLENT Panavia Tornado GR1 simulation of the early 90's. Superb sim. The systems modelled etc, for the day... Fantastic.
You will not find a more satisfying aircraft anywhere in the world to simulate systems than the Tonka. A marriage of steam and digital linked to just about any mission profile imaginable, much like the F-14 but much more advanced.

I am all for the A-10, love it, I grew up with these monsters lazily motoring over my head at tree top height as a kid during the 80's and then the Super Jolly Greens out of RAF Woodbridge so as such I admit that I am excited over this pending release but I would like to see something a little different on the horizon, a Harrier GR7 / 9, perhaps an F-14 (lots of room for mission profiles) or Tornado GR / IDS / ECR and if not then at least an F-15E sim. But alas I fear we will have a long wait.

Three cheers for DCS and the A-10C sim!

P.S. Apologies for the long post.


Without being too harsh to your post, you kinda pointed out exactly what DCS is doing, they have done flankers, f-15's etc, Lomac, flaming cliffs for Russian Iron, Black Shark study sim the first true DCS sim and have now moved to the A10 study sim before the already announced Apache study sim.

There is no real repeats here, its all new its all different.

The Tornado is also included in sims such as Lomac and with mod is flyable.

[CheckSix]

In hindsight I shouldn't have written that post as I thought it might be warped out of all reason.

Simple fact is: US aircraft and Russian aircraft have seen many, many incarnations down the long road of various sims leading to LOMAC at the expense of others. This is due to marketing following the market. Accepted.

AI aircraft made flyable thanks to MODs do not cut the mustard in terms of system modelling, flight dynamics and external visuals by a long chalk, that is a very weak argument. We are talking aircraft and systems simulation as the center piece here, not the inclusion of some AI objects.

DCS have done a fine job, I am not knocking them at all. The fact remains we are not seeing much in the way of choice. It's the same aircraft over and over when there are other aircraft and a lot of aircraft that have been simulated in older incarnations that are waiting to be simulated / reincarnated that would appeal to the masses.

Please remember my posts are only personal opinions NOT attacks.

[Bjoern]

Wha???...Cyrillic tooltips too????...you're a sadist! :) :d

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o183/t3h_3vil/Smileys/wahn.gif





In however many years time the technology is there to update the original release then by all means... Of course a simple fix to this, something that LOMAC etc has never done, release an SDK where people can add in aircraft, systems, scenery etc and in doing guaranteeing the survival and longevity of your product much like Microsoft has. Forgive me for scoffing whilst I typed that as I know it will never happen.


Or just throw the source code out.
Someone will pick it up and do stuff to it eventually.

See EECH, IL-2, Freespace 2, Falcon 4...all are old, but still being worked on by those who know best what's needed and what's not - the fans.

[CheckSix]

Absolutely Bjoern. :applause:

[empeck]

Source code is nice to have, updates to EECH and Falcon 4 too. But I don't think it's the best way to develop a simulator. FreeFalcon is not stable enough to play. Most stable version is the one that was made as commercial game - Falcon 4: AF. EECH is working nice, but engine is still Dx7 and noone seems to know how to rewrite it. FlightGears source is open from the beginning, and it still lacks many features from FS and XPlane.

LockOn/DCS engine is regularly updated, now with new lighting and Dx9, normalmaps, HDR, etc. New flyables are being added. I can't understand why you guys are complaining at these games.

ED said few times they'd like to open their engines architecture, it will take time, but I believe they still want to do it. Open architecture like CFS/FS/XPlane/etc? I'd love to. Open source? Nice to have, but I don't think it's more useful than full time employees.

[CheckSix]

No one is complaining at the games per se... I don't see that here at all. Rather mentioning the lack of variety of aircraft simulated. Regards to the flyables; What? Where? AI aircraft made flyable? Eh? Confused sorry and all... O.o

[ryanbatc]

What we really need is a Jane's ATF or Jne's USAF completely rebuilt from ground up

:)

Anyone else remember the days of Jane's combat sims? :wiggle:

[empeck]

No one is complaining at the games per se... I don't see that here at all. Rather mentioning the lack of variety of aircraft simulated. Regards to the flyables; What? Where? AI aircraft made flyable? Eh? Confused sorry and all... O.o

I was saying about aircrafts ED is making. A-10C is made flyable, and next are planned.

[centuryseries]

Didn't mean to start this off - yeah I'm glad they making an A-10 in high detail, I'm not complaining about the detail, I'm just airing my opinion over the choice of subject matter. I've been simming since the C64, and over the years I've seen Gunship with the Apache, I've seen A-10 Attack for the Macintosh, I've seen the A-10 with Janes, the A-10 with Lomac and now A-10C with DCS (Lomac). Just bored of the constant theme of using a simulator proven to be popular aircraft type.

As far as F-15s go, yeah an F-15C but we need a Strike Eagle, or at least a high speed bomber of that type - I'd even settle for an A-7 or Jaguar, anything that breaks the mould and is detailed.

Again not knocking DCS, I'd just love to see someone produce something that isn't a historically popular choice.

A wish you might call it.

[Tweek]

The Tornado is also included in sims such as Lomac and with mod is flyable.

But then it flies like an overpowered Su-27. Most of the flyable mods in Lock On are useless, as the flight dynamics can't be edited.

DCS should branch out into aircraft that weren't covered in Lock On, if you ask me. The Black Shark was obviously a decent choice, as there were no flyable helicopters before. The Apache is a natural progression from that, being the American equivalent. As has been said, I'd much rather see something that hasn't done before, or at least, not recently. The Harrier would be a very good choice. Appeals to European and American markets (UK, Italy, Spain, USA), and I'm sure being able to hover would be a novelty for even the most casual simmer (of which there is a lot in LOMAC/DCS, I might add).

I don't have a burning desire to learn how to start the engines of an A-10, so I doubt I'll get the DCS version, unless there's some huge engine improvements or something. Would rather have a choice of six, still fairly highly detailed aircraft in one sim, and a slightly dumbed down A-10. Though there's still a shedload of things to learn about, even in Lock On.

[JIMJAM]

I have learned to accept whatever flight sims are released have to offer, when they are released and what if any support they have. Cannot really be choosy. Looking back all the way to Lomac its been a painfully slow evolution. Its been,what 9 years or so and a most of that I have heard of rumors of the A-10 version so I cannot say I jump with excitement. I will buy it as I have all of their products to show my support and I will also expect to curse out loud and get my blood pressure worked up when I spend 99% of my time setting of the controls and 2 hours figuring out how to take the parking brakes off. As always I tell myself to wait a month or so until the initial bugs get worked out before buying but I waited for 6 months before buying Blackshark. That plan did not work so well either. Maybe a decade to work out a game engine's issues is being to optimistic?

[CheckSix]

I was saying about aircrafts ED is making. A-10C is made flyable, and next are planned.


I think we all got the idea that the A-10C is flyable ;) What aircraft is ED making? What are planned, please excuse my ignorance. If There are other aircraft to follow the A-10C such as a Harrier, Jaguar, Tornado, F117, F-15E, F-14, A-7, any of the Mirage, perhaps a Typhoon (oooooh)... Dare I go back further and mention F-4, F-105, H.S. Buccaneer, A-6 Intruder, Avro Vulcan et al? Well reading from the online press's Q&A session it didnt look too promising that we would be getting much of a choice and certainly none of the older aircraft. So forgive me as coming across a little argumentative but there are a LOT of simmers that have a valid opinion and are getting bored with the same old, same old. It's wonderful to have such high realism, it truly is and even better to have it in an A-10, yes we all love the A-10 but it is due time for a change.

Centuryseries, dont forget Sierra's A-10 Silent Thunder & Silent Thunder II, A-10 Cuba by Activision. ;)

[Lewis-A2A]

Guys just remember that the A10 is only the second in the series, a bit early to be moaning about which aircraft are featured in the next studysim.

Also worth noting that the DCS thing like the ARMA/OPFOR engine is now used in a military copacity so I can almost guarentee that what they model for the military will no doubt have higher priority than what they would like to model for th eentertainment market.

Also the Strike fighters series of sims is always worth a look as although its a relaxed simulation (though still on par with default FSX aircraft,fm's,systems) it a whole bunch of fun, and there are hundreds of new aircraft for that. I remeber it being the first sim in which I flew some of the post war RN jets n a combat environment. Great fun.

[peter12213]

I just installed Lomac for the first time and last night and I'm very impressed, I love the cockpits, one problem I'm having is I can't seem to use my mouse to click the cockpit switches, everytme I try to use it it acts as my head and just slew s round the cockpit! Any ideas from fellow LOMAC users?

[MenendezDiego]

Cockpits are not clickable :(

[MenendezDiego]

You are missing the main point dude....DCS was contracted by the USAF, ANG, and AFR to make the A-10C simulation....after getting permission to make a slimmed down version (taking out all the classified stuff) this is what we got.

They didn't just decide, "Hey, let's make an A-10C for the fun of it. Screw F-15E's, F-4's? Pfft! An Avro? Yea right!" They had the framework done, that is why they chose the A-10C.

You also need to understand the business side of things. How many people do you think would really buy an Avro Vulcan sim? I know I would, and many others, but the demographic for DCS isn't just us dedicated flight simmers who don't mind 6 hour missions, 97% spent en-route and rtb. Now how many people would buy the A-10C sim.....how about anyone and everyone.

I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see an A-7 sim, or an F-15E sim. I would LOVE that! But the fact remains that they had the groundwork already done, and the demographic to pour it out to.

Diego

[michael davies]

You are missing the main point dude....DCS was contracted by the USAF, ANG, and AFR to make the A-10C simulation....after getting permission to make a slimmed down version (taking out all the classified stuff) this is what we got.

They didn't just decide, "Hey, let's make an A-10C for the fun of it. Screw F-15E's, F-4's? Pfft! An Avro? Yea right!" They had the framework done, that is why they chose the A-10C.

You also need to understand the business side of things. How many people do you think would really buy an Avro Vulcan sim? I know I would, and many others, but the demographic for DCS isn't just us dedicated flight simmers who don't mind 6 hour missions, 97% spent en-route and rtb. Now how many people would buy the A-10C sim.....how about anyone and everyone.

I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see an A-7 sim, or an F-15E sim. I would LOVE that! But the fact remains that they had the groundwork already done, and the demographic to pour it out to.

Diego

Figure also that people generally like to 'shoot' things and there isnt any better platform to do just that :), the A-10 is everyones fantasy in shoot them up games LOL, better than an Apache or Black shark (too slow and hard to fly), there are few other fixed wing aircraft that suit that genere.

[CheckSix]

I am not missing the point; I got that (DCS, Contracts, USAF, existing sim base etc) right from the off as it was described quite plainly in the article and I also mentioned previously the marketing issues. So no points missed at all.

To repeat myself: My posts are not a knock against DCS, as once again I mentioend previously! They are merely a voice to say "Hey, can't we have something else as a subject matter", not as a direct DCS put down, not to dampen on what already is and what will be an excellent sim without doubt but a mere shout out to the industry as a whole (inc DCS) to say... Guys, we would like to be given a little choice, show us what it would be like to fly an F-4 simulated to the hilt. I mean Strike Fighters got soooo close but only so far.

No where has any one said to DCS or such like "Thou shalt do... Thou shalt not!" Rather folk are expressing a request of preference for alternative models for the future, asking, not demanding.

As I have NO idea of what aircraft are to be modelled in the future I am far from critizing, but I am putting a couple of suggestions that I would hope may get even passing consideration. Is that allowed or no, am I being waaaay out of line?

Please do not think that I am raining on DCS - If you honestly feel that I am then I would beg you to reread my posts, slowly.

It appears I have hijacked the thread some what and taken it away from its true path so I will desist and leave it at this, many thanks for the debate Gents - Great to see the different opinions & personalities coming out.

P.S. I wouldn't immediately buy an Avro Vulcan sim, aircraft is not my bag :)

P.P.S. Michael, that is an accurate statement and I couldn't agree more. :applause:

[peter12213]

Cockpits are not clickable :(

Ahh thats a shame but its too much fun for that to be a problem, I only installed it last night and I'm slowly going through the training modes to try and learna all the new key combo's for weapons and radar settings. One question though can anyone point me to the upgrades for Lomac, I read somewhere you can get free patches that corrects some minor issues. I would also like to say that if anyone is reading this and doesn't have any of the Lomac series DCS or whatever then honestly please do, you will not regret it!

[CheckSix]

if anyone is reading this and doesn't have any of the Lomac series DCS or whatever then honestly please do, you will not regret it!


Amen!

[stiz]

also in an interview that was posted not long ago over at simhq they said that they'll only do aircraft they have full access to, which is needed to model the systems in the detail their after :engel016:

[jmig]

Gentlemen, I would like to commend each of you on a well discussed thread that did not get sucked into the black hole of argumentative writing. Each of you spoke your thoughts with empathy and consideration for the other posters.

Well done!!

I also found it to be an informative thread.

[peter12213]

To be honest I have had LOMAC sitting on my DVD pile for over a year and never bothered trying it, if it wasn't for this thread I never would have probably, so I just want to say thanks for that anyway, it's kinda like a bit of a sad thank you because while I'm stuck here at work all I'm thinking about is getting back home to Lomac lol, however I have been skyving and going on the lomac website and saw flaming cliffs two, so I was wondering is that a free addon for the game??

[Lewis-A2A]

Checksix all they announced I believe for DCS, was the Apache, A10 and of course Blackshark, which wasnt complete by time of announcement of the three.

Oh oh, completly forgot, remember that DCS and the Engines developers are only one developer in the combat arena, as well as Strike fighter you also have the thunderworks boys working on a Falklands sim.

[empeck]

however I have been skyving and going on the lomac website and saw flaming cliffs two, so I was wondering is that a free addon for the game??

No, it's a payware addon. It is basically LockOn: Flaming Cliffs on DCS engine. You need original LockOn to install LO:FC2. LO:FC1 is not needed. It's online compatible with DCS: Black Shark.

Lewis - you've forgot about XSI and Lead Pursuit. They are probably working on something ;)

[Lewis-A2A]

yes empeck but I'm sure that is more US iron were as the thunder chaps has the US iron + the RAF stock.

[peter12213]

What I really want is a Su 17/22 Fitter for the original Lomac, anyone know where to get one?

[centuryseries]

You are missing the main point dude....DCS was contracted by the USAF, ANG, and AFR to make the A-10C simulation....after getting permission to make a slimmed down version (taking out all the classified stuff) this is what we got.

They didn't just decide, "Hey, let's make an A-10C for the fun of it. Screw F-15E's, F-4's? Pfft! An Avro? Yea right!" They had the framework done, that is why they chose the A-10C.

You also need to understand the business side of things. How many people do you think would really buy an Avro Vulcan sim? I know I would, and many others, but the demographic for DCS isn't just us dedicated flight simmers who don't mind 6 hour missions, 97% spent en-route and rtb. Now how many people would buy the A-10C sim.....how about anyone and everyone.

I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see an A-7 sim, or an F-15E sim. I would LOVE that! But the fact remains that they had the groundwork already done, and the demographic to pour it out to.

Diego

"Dude" while I didn't know they had a contract with the USAF for the A-10C, I completely understand the pressures of the market place being a payware modeller for FSX and working in a retail enviroment outside of this lark. It is just an opinion, as I said before - a wish for something different. Its obvious why they chose the A-10 - apart from the fact it's half way there in the original Lomac, its also a proven popular aircraft amongst us lot.

It's a shame that other than the Falklands Harrier sim thats coming one day that these producers don't take a gamble anymore, like they did with Megafortress, F-117, and even the Blackshark. Frankly, my personal preference is not Russian aircraft, but I bought Flanker and was impressed by the fact that they had decided to stick their necks out by fielding a Russian type orientated simulator in the western world.

You probably know that they very nearly decided on an F/A-18 - I remember seeing screenshots of a highly detailed F/A-18 model, the shell we see in Blackshark and Lock-on Gold. Even that would have quenched my need for a fast mud mover.

Variety would be good. A-7 or Phantom would be a great choice! But I know that no-one has the balls to take that sort of risk.

[Bjoern]

Source code is nice to have, updates to EECH and Falcon 4 too. But I don't think it's the best way to develop a simulator. FreeFalcon is not stable enough to play. Most stable version is the one that was made as commercial game - Falcon 4: AF.

AF was developed by full-time employees for a commercial purpose and not by fans in their free time, hence the differences in stability.
Although the current iteration of FF is apparently quite stable in Win XP environments.


EECH is working nice, but engine is still Dx7 and noone seems to know how to rewrite it.EECH is basically a one-man show. I wouldn't expect from Arneh to undertake any significant modifications to the game engine since it's very, very a time-consuming process. If the sim had been more popular from the start there would be many more people working on it and the engine would be at least DX9 compatible by now.


FlightGears source is open from the beginning, and it still lacks many features from FS and XPlane.Actually, it doesn't it just puts the focus elsewhere and leaves other things rather basic.
Which, of course isn't the best thing for me as a terrain, AI and ATC fanboy but well, they're the developers...
And Flightgear has come a pretty long way. It looks fairly good now, but it's UI and method of assigning controls are still very user-unfriendly.


LockOn/DCS engine is regularly updated, now with new lighting and Dx9, normalmaps, HDR, etc. New flyables are being added. I can't understand why you guys are complaining at these games.NO DYNAMIC CAMPAIGN! :icon_lol:


Open source? Nice to have, but I don't think it's more useful than full time employees.The only thing between full time employees and spare time developers is that the full timers get things done much faster since it's basically their source for income.
The advantage of open source is that you can take roads not previously traveled and experiment a bit without fearing that your project won't generate any money.




What we really need is a Jane's ATF or Jne's USAF completely rebuilt from ground up

:)

No offense, but can we please stop with the "We need..." stuff?
It's like we was one giant hivemind that loves the same sims, same aircraft and same aspects of a sim...which simply isn't true.
Please? :)




(though still on par with default FSX aircraft,fm's,systems)

FMs? Maybe.
Systems? No! Any default aircraft in FSX's portfolio is tenfold more complex than SF(2)'s aircraft.

But as you said, that's one pillar of the fun you get with Thirdwire's sims. Jump in, release the brakes and roar skyward to make your country proud without worrying about flameouts, unreliable engines, birdstrikes, that unpolished spot on your aircraft that could decrease speed by 0.0000001%, the worn out hydraulics tubes in your plane that could rupture or not, etc...




Lewis - you've forgot about XSI and Lead Pursuit. They are probably working on something ;)

Falcon 5. *Crosses fingers*




What I really want is a Su 17/22 Fitter for the original Lomac, anyone know where to get one?

I don't think that's possible.
There's some for Strike Fighters though.

[Lewis-A2A]

Falcon 5, on that note I just read that the Free Falcon 5.5 is still going strong with a nice stable latest release accompanyed with screenshots of a jaguar chuffing out flares to escape a sam.

[empeck]

AF was developed by full-time employees for a commercial purpose and not by fans in their free time, hence the differences in stability.

That's exactly my point.


Although the current iteration of FF is apparently quite stable in Win XP environments.

XP environments ;) I can't finish even one mission without crashes or video artifacts.


EECH is basically a one-man show. I wouldn't expect from Arneh to undertake any significant modifications to the game engine since it's very, very a time-consuming process. If the sim had been more popular from the start there would be many more people working on it and the engine would be at least DX9 compatible by now.

I know that. Doesn't matter how much he will upgrade avionics of Apache it will be still the same EECH with more and more outdated graphics and no clickable cockpit.


NO DYNAMIC CAMPAIGN! :icon_lol:

Dynamic campaign would be nice feature, but I prefer nice graphics, ATC, clickable cockpits, advanced avionics and systems, accurate weapons and custom crafted missions. :)


The only thing between full time employees and spare time developers is that the full timers get things done much faster since it's basically their source for income.
The advantage of open source is that you can take roads not previously traveled and experiment a bit without fearing that your project won't generate any money.

There is one problem with open source software. Most of team members have their own, different vision of the project. That's why I don't see any future in most of these projects.

These one looks interesting though:

http://cms.simtechnologies.de/screenshots.html


Falcon 5. *Crosses fingers*

Me too.

[Bjoern]

That's exactly my point.

I was just saying...*Shrugs*


XP environments ;) I can't finish even one mission without crashes or video artifacts.

But other people can, so it doesn't necessarily make the software faulty.


I know that. Doesn't matter how much he will upgrade avionics of Apache it will be still the same EECH with more and more outdated graphics and no clickable cockpit.

But with a dynamic campaign and the RAH-66 which are my main reasons why I like it.


Dynamic campaign would be nice feature, but I prefer nice graphics, ATC, clickable cockpits, advanced avionics and systems, accurate weapons and custom crafted missions. :)

I don't need the avionics, I want a well depicted, dynamic, interactive environment.


There is one problem with open source software. Most of team members have their own, different vision of the project. That's why I don't see any future in most of these projects.


The problem also persists in commercial software developed by more than one person.
But thankfully there's stuff like communication. After all, everyone willing to contribute shares one common goal in the end. ;)


These one looks interesting though:

http://cms.simtechnologies.de/screenshots.html

That sounds cool, but I have my doubts about some of their goals.
Good luck to them though.

The modularity s interesting.
If the engine is open it *might* be useful for enhancements that turn this sim not only into a flight sim, but into a full blown battlefield one.

I've always dreamed of a battlefield simulation that could account for players in ground, naval and aerial warfare roles, fighting (online) in conjunction with thousands of AI units on a grand (theater) scale...

[stiz]

:engel016:

aSIGzDMJ-ik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSIGzDMJ-ik

[empeck]

Looks good!

[peter12213]

thats going tp be the best combat flight sim in the world when its out I believe, I havent even touched fsx this week at all because of lomac, i'm completely addicted to it and really crap at it too because i'm still learning everything and thats what I love about that game, the weapon systems management just blows fsx out of the water! But it doesn't even come close graphics wise which is its major downfall!

[empeck]

Short inteview:

http://www.simhq.com/_air13/air_456a.html

High resolution screenshots:

http://www.simhq.com/warthog/warthog_downloads.html

http://www.simhq.com/warthog/images/wallpaper5_1920.jpg

[centuryseries]

So we get an F-15E (nice to see the Lakenheath aircraft represented), we get KC-135s to refuel from as well as KC-10s, and a shiny new A-10C to fly - I'm in heaven!!

[heywooood]

I am also a big fan of ED and will be buying the A-10 for DCS....I love Lomac and BS and this is the next item in that line. That = purchase for me.

But it is yet another land based (if you will) combat flightsim


Now - What I think is missing from flight sims - and we have WWI in RoF (and OFF yet) WWII in Maddox Games il2 full iterations and WoP from Gaijin, we have the WoV strikefighters compilations which are dated but Ok - and we have Lomac et al and DCS/BS

what I would like to see and I hope someone is paying attention - is a dedicated Pacific US-centric Carrier based simulation series...Starting with the WWII (and prewar) including extremely high fidelity ships and carriers through the Korean conflict and Vietnam - to modern day including but not limited to aircraft, tactics, campaigns, maps/regions etc...

Obviously all Soviet, British (where applicable) and Japanese equipment would also have to be modeled and usable


So far - there has been no more than a nod to the Carrier based aerial warfare of the 20th century from Il2 and Lomac (one an addon pack and the other mostly 3rd party mods) so isnt it about time that one came along that was created for and dedicated to Naval Aviation with ships and planes and terrain and seas and weather all modeled in the same high fidelity?

anyways I think it is

[krazycolin]

well, I'm going to buy it.... and I'm making an A-10....

[empeck]

I am also a big fan of ED and will be buying the A-10 for DCS....I love Lomac and BS and this is the next item in that line. That = purchase for me.

But it is yet another land based (if you will) combat flightsim


Now - What I think is missing from flight sims - and we have WWI in RoF (and OFF yet) WWII in Maddox Games il2 full iterations and WoP from Gaijin, we have the WoV strikefighters compilations which are dated but Ok - and we have Lomac et al and DCS/BS

what I would like to see and I hope someone is paying attention - is a dedicated Pacific US-centric Carrier based simulation series...Starting with the WWII (and prewar) including extremely high fidelity ships and carriers through the Korean conflict and Vietnam - to modern day including but not limited to aircraft, tactics, campaigns, maps/regions etc...

Obviously all Soviet, British (where applicable) and Japanese equipment would also have to be modeled and usable


So far - there has been no more than a nod to the Carrier based aerial warfare of the 20th century from Il2 and Lomac (one an addon pack and the other mostly 3rd party mods) so isnt it about time that one came along that was created for and dedicated to Naval Aviation with ships and planes and terrain and seas and weather all modeled in the same high fidelity?

anyways I think it is

I'd love to see dedicated high fidelity carrier ops simulator, both WW2 and modern.

[centuryseries]

So far - there has been no more than a nod to the Carrier based aerial warfare of the 20th century from Il2 and Lomac (one an addon pack and the other mostly 3rd party mods) so isnt it about time that one came along that was created for and dedicated to Naval Aviation with ships and planes and terrain and seas and weather all modeled in the same high fidelity?

anyways I think it is

Frankly I love the carrier Flankers in Flaming Cliffs 2 and the original Lockon - brute force and a ski jump is much more exciting than a steam shotput!

[empeck]

New trailer by Glowing Amraam:

WUu4SV3GjVw

And A-10C startup:

CV35B-vfT4U

_MDnglKtcSA

Looks stunning!

[flaviossa]

Wow :applause:
Where can i put my credit card number? Impressive!
If the simulator engine is so fluid as the engine running in black shark it will be perfect.

[BOOM]

WOW!!! What a fantastic promo! It's got to be getting close!!

[peter12213]

WOw can't wait to try this, love the idea of showing what switches you have to press by highlighting them, what a cool idea!

[Rattler]

Very Nice, Great Job!!:salute::salute::salute:

[jim]

WARTHOG; THE ANSWER TO AN INFANTRYMANS PRAYER.

[Akatsuki]

For those interested you can pre-pay for DCS: A-10C Warthog and get access to the Beta software and beta forum now for 59.99$!
I will surely get it by this week's end and report back.:salute:

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/