Klaiber

Yeah, pretty close. Have the wings fold in like a U-Wing from Rogue One. And you have a car.

A friend sent this to me. Thought it was very cool. Sort of like the Spinner car from Blade Runner. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohig71bwRUE

Yes, almost exclusively German. Would that be a problem with numbers?

Honestly, as a Geschwader, we really want to get involved in InWar. I think the only problems in the past have been scheduling. I./JG 1 and III./JG 1 are European (specifically Czech and Slovakian). So it's easier for them to participate. I'll talk to their GruppenKommandeure: Baron and Hroznys. II./JG 1 is interested too. But being North American, it may be a bit harder for them to get active. We'll work on it.

I was until you asked. I./JG 1 (who is also Jasta 6) is listed at the bottom of your rules page. They're gruppenkommandeur is Baron. Thanks for the information!

Hi BvM, thanks for the invite! I./JG 1 is already involved, and really loves the tournament. Quick question for you - is InWar dead-is-dead? If not, what are the rules regarding pilot death? I looked at the Rules section of the website, but I didn't see it directly discussed. Thanks!

https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_mac Enjoy! It's pretty amusing.

Very cool Hotlead! Looking forward to watching some of your streams!

Great pictures! Regarding the roundels, I found this website which at least mentioned it: http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2000/06/stuff_eng_profile_frenchww1.htm So, it seems like the transferred Nieuports retained many of their French markings while in British service. Specifically why this happened, I'm not sure.

Cool!

Once the whole Starforce thing gets resolved with the MiG-21bis, I'd be happy to fly a few sorties with you.

I'd be up for DCS WW2. Tuesday works for me. I'll be unavailable Wednesday.

Around 5:20 to 5:40, crap gets real. Talk about terrifying. When you see the rounds impact all around you, that's when you're glad it's a simulation. And your bail out at the end (9:55+)... also freaking terrifying.

I've found that Eagle Dynamics to be very trustworthy. Yes, it may take them a long time to deliver on their promise (i.e. if they say 2 weeks, assume 5 months). But... they've always provided exactly what they said they would. And they've actually gone above and beyond to maintain that trust with their customers. I think the best example is what happened with DCS WW2. Originally, DCS WW2 was a project managed by Ilya Shevchenko (Luthier from RRG Studios and Maddox games). He started a kickstarter, and made promises. These promises fell through and the money donated to kickstarter was used and depleted. Nothing illicit. But it's safe to say the project got away from them, and things fell apart. Rather than let the project die, Eagle Dynamics stepped in and promised to finish what RRG started, even though they weren't obligated to do so. DCS Normandy and all of the WW2 aircraft in DCS are the result of that act by ED. For me, this shows a dedication to follow through on promises, even if those promises were made by their partners. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=126824 As I've mentioned before, DCS in terms of graphics is highly adaptable. You can run it on low-end computers and have it look okay. However, you can also run it on high-end computers with Ultra settings, and have it look amazing. Especially if you're flying 2.0 on the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR) map. Basically, 1.5 is the old terrain engine on the old Caucasus map. However, 1.5 does have the new rendering engine [Eagle Dynamics Graphics Engine (EDGE) featuring DirectX 11] on top of it. So it looks good. Just not great. Meanwhile, 2.0 is the new terrain engine on the brand new Nevada map, with EDGE and DX11 on top of it. And 2.0 is what the Normandy map will be released on as well. It looks amazing when you crank the graphic settings. When Eagle Dynamics is able to update the Caucasus map (over the next year), they'll port it over to 2.0, elevate the production number to DCS 2.5, and eliminate 1.5. I have a GTX 1080 card. So, this is basically what DCS looks like to me (keeping in mind that this is not my rig and that you have compression from being uploaded to youtube): DCS 1.5 Caucasus: DCS 2.0 Nevada: Regarding the term "high fidelity", I'm not specifically sure what you mean. However, DCS' modules are designed to be as correct as possible. All of them, with the exception of "Flaming Cliffs 3" (which is not as sophisticated as individual aircraft modules) have fully clickable cockpits, authentically functioning systems, and a fidelity to accuracy. This is true with the Flight Models as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Combat_Simulator#Aerodynamic_flight_models If you fly Flaming Cliffs 3 or the free modules, they may not be 100%. However, if you fly the pay modules, you can be assured that there is an attempt to make them as realistic as your computer will allow. Regarding the smoke cloud from that aircraft in Barton's video, it's a graphical bug, probably due to server instability or lag. DCS isn't perfect though. The modules are expensive. The modules are time consuming to learn (especially if they're modern aircraft). And multiplayer can sometimes be fragile (though it's been massively improved over the last 2 years). Additionally, as far as WW2 goes, we're not going to have player-flown bombers. At least not for a very long time. So that's a limitation that people should be aware of. However, as I said above, it's probably going to be the most historically accurate WW2 experience on the market. Not sure if that helps.

Thanks for your thoughts Pfeil. I'm definitely not an expert on these things, but I do have opinions. This is something that I'd happily be proven wrong about, so I look forward to more discussions on this issue.

That's bizarre.

It doesn't get spoken about a lot because I think that the average virtual pilot is unaware that it's an issue. Don't get me wrong, FIF functions very well. But, a lot of FIF is done by hand. We manually review the stats, manually check that there are no rules violation, and then use the honor system and self-monitoring within squadrons in order to ensure fair play. Yes, objectives are often picked at random within the mission. But, their initial placement is not randomized. That's again done by hand. Thus, Butzzell often has to recuse himself from any type of team leadership position. Ideally, ROF (and therefore BoX) would have a death kick, for example. Or at least, have the ability to bar people from jumping on the wrong team or taking the wrong load out. But as far as I know this just isn't possible. And this says nothing about the way objects are tracked in ROF / BoX. In CloD or DCS, for example, an object is completely trackable, from it's initial placement all the way to its destruction. This means that you can track it's fuel, it's supply levels, it's location, how it moves, when it moves, if it moves, etc. And you can trigger statistical events based on those things. That opens up doors for tournament creation. To be fair, perhaps RoF and BoX are more robust than I give them credit for. However, the underlying issue is the same. You don't see very many dead-is-dead events in BoX because they're so difficult to coordinate within the current confines of what's possible.

The same co-worker who loves Nightwish also got me into Faun.

I like them. Never heard of them before, though. They remind me of White Zombie meets Lords of Acid.

My co-worker got me into Nightwish. We were actually supposed to see them last year. Had tickets and everything, but couldn't get into the concert hall (even though we paid to) because the venue oversold the show, and there wasn't enough space inside for all the people who showed up. I wish I was kidding.

Very cool! I like some death metal, specifically the music and the arrangements. But have a hard time with the cookie monster vocals. Amon Amarth are actually coming to my city in a few weeks. I had considered going, just to see them. But I don't really know any of their songs. And as I said, it's not my thing usually. I'm more into stoner and doom and some drone. I was actually just telling Trev and Brit about Om, for example:

I'm also listening to a lot of Chuck Berry (RIP) and Free: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH5wbYP5xkQ

I thought I'd revive this thread. Here are some things I'm currently listening to:

Good video. I think you misspoke at 1:20. You say 1946 was supposed to be the successor to 1946. Personally, my biggest problem with BoS is ROF. Yes, I love ROF. And Butzzell has been able to make ROF sing for Flanders In Flames. But ROF's back-end coding and mission building parameters are anemic. Even by 2009 standards. 1946 was more robust. And unfortunately, 777 basically used ROF's structure and back-end to jump start BoS. 1C needed a profitable game in less than 2 years. CloD was abandoned in October 2012. BoS was released in October 2014. You can't make a sim that fast without basing it on something. But compare BoS' back-end to what's possible with the mission builders in CloD and DCS, and you'll see what I mean. BoS is at a HUGE disadvantaged when compared to other WW2 sims because it's an updated ROF structure in a WW2 shell. There can never be a complex Ghost Skies-like tournament for BoS. It's just not technically possible. And that's a huge disadvantage for BoS, because it means that hardcore squadrons (like JG1) are less likely to commit to BoS for the long haul. That doesn't mean we don't enjoy flying it. It just means that the majority of us will always be waiting for something else. And I don't think they can improve BoS's back-end, which is why they've moved into the same pattern as they did with ROF. From here on out, it'll just be new maps and new aircraft, with minor adjustments to the game and it's functionality. I think the problem is so imbedded in the sim that they'd have to rewrite the entire thing to fix it, which isn't possible. That's my 10 cents though.

DCS 2.0.5 on the Nevada map is beautiful. And the Normandy map will be on 2.0 as well. As Barton said, it's just the Caucasus Map which needs some help. When it's brought up to 2.0 standards, they'll switch over to a combined platform - DCS 2.5 Regarding graphics, DCS is also highly adaptable. The lowest machines can run it, and the highest too. So, you'll often notice a lot of variation regarding picture quality.