I just tried the Mudspike TS. It says that I have insufficient security level to join.
I wish I could helpā¦Iām not sure what would cause that - pinging @EinsteinEP - he is the TS guruā¦
Hello all. Thanks for the thoughtful replies. VR is going to have to wait. As will DCS: Europe until there is sufficient multiplayer feedback. My RoF group disbanded when the game started to loose her luster. The only other TS activity I have attempted has been with SimHQ and ARMA. But I have bungled their mod process so badly and publically that I am a little embarrassed to show my face there again. I will look for you 'Spikers on TS once I achieve a sufficient security profile to may the server comfy with my presence.
I looked it up, Beach. Security levels ramp up based on time the user has amassed on TS. Some servers donāt check. SimHQ and TAW (IL2) are the only others that I have tried and they do fine. It probably isnāt a bad idea to have some floor to keep that bots away (mbot should be ok of course 
).
2 Likes
You should wait. Although as a real life pilot, youād have a special appreciation for the presence it gives. But that said, the next gen resolution (whenever that is) will make your introduction even more spectacular. Iām glad I got itā¦and I love flying with itā¦but my checkbook is open and waiting for the next gen to come along. Iāll be an early adopter for sureā¦
2 Likes
Your always welcome to join in with the 229th if you want some rewarding MP experiences. In and out of hot LZās with gunship support and dedicated F5 CAS is quite a buzz 
VR and choppers go so well together
smokinhole -
I read your post this morningā¦ about half way through the day I got the idea for a new multiplayer mission for DCS Normandy called āLost In The Weedsā with a theme from Behind Enemy Lines. One of the propeller-heads gets lost in the weeds behind enemy lines after crash landing his prop plane, and you guys must keep the enemy at bay until the whirlybird (armor column?) can pick Owen up.
Let me know if I can be of assistance.
2 Likes
I need Beachās soap box pic for greater effect, butā¦
To get where we (flightsim enthusiasts) want I donāt think can be accomplished by a single company any longer. Too much NRE for the ROI. Soā¦
I think the flightsim world needs standards. Think a common, standard API for building a terrain, a flight model, etc. that anyone could contribute to.
ED/DCS has the model now (or close to it), but itās too restrictive.
What if, there were an infrastructure to make a dynamic campaign that any flightsim company could make use of. Bet MBot would be a happy camper. That you could build aircraft models/flight models that would work with multiple companies simulations that adhere to the standard API.
Personally I hate standards, buts it kind of makes sense to give benefit to all players (big firms and indie devs alike).
Any thoughts?
1 Like
Iām guessing it is necessarily so if they want to continue to exist as an entity. They have poured a lot of time into making what it is, and arguably, one World 2.0 is with us, I would hope they could shift to additional revenue streams (maps, aicraft/helos, campaigns, and other stuff). I can completely understand why they have it closed down - a community that can do anything it wants (particularly if the tools are given to them) will grow the publicly accessible content and shrink the stuff people pay for.
Personally, it wouldnāt break my heart of the WW2 part of the game separated from the modern part. Nor does it aggravate me that they are being kept together though. Iām sort of neutral on it either way.
Thatās my point. It isnāt cost effective for a single company to make everything.
Concentrate on what you do best and let others fill in the gaps.
I want to do carrier traps - in my lifetimeā¦
I think that is happening though isnāt it? You have talented third party teams building campaigns that are probably better than what ED can manage given their time and resource restrictions. You have talented third party teams building modules that interest them and their fan bases as opposed to what ED might have access to or interest in. And I think there are third party teams that might be doing terrains (? - wasnāt Leatherneck doing something like thatā¦or hoping to?). So, generally speaking, I do think ED has allowed for some external expertise to fill in some of the content.
Iām really hoping for an explosion of content from both internal and external points once 2.0 is done and we are all on the same build. I remain optimistic that they are building a sim āoperating systemā that will hold us over for a long time to come.
And yeah - carriers, Hornets, Hormuz, and the Harrier are things that really, really, excite me in the near term. Iām not a WW2 fanā¦never have beenā¦but donāt begrudge them for getting their stuff too.
2 Likes
Agree with you completely Beach. ED/DCS is going right direction. Just too slow for me. Theyāre consumed with obligations for āprofessionalā paying customers versus us. Just thinking out-of-the-box to make things happen faster for the ānon-professionalā paying customer - us.
You need more torture - rewatch this:
Beach, youāre such a bud
I think you mightāve just answered your own dilemma 
In my humble opinion:
- Play more teamwork oriented scenarios with friends. The Mudspike Teamspeakās a great place to start!
- Pick something youāre bad at and either practice it or read a real-life manual and practice doing it the right way. If youāve actually mastered this, do it with a new plane.
- Take a break for a month or two and try another hobby. Everyone gets burned out.
So, those of us that like declaring things like āBREAK RIGHT FLARE FLARE FLARE!ā and āFOX (NUMBER)ā and āOH NO IāM GONNA C-FIT AGAIN!ā in joy over teamspeak have kicked around the idea of doing a friendly mini weapons school session, following along some of the drills in the USAF and Navy handbooks.
Simulator Air-to-Air is pretty brutal since your options are:
A) Baptism of fire.
B) Read a real-life, dense, terse military manual, go to A, then repeat B trying to figure out what went wrong.
I canāt help but think if the concepts were introduced at a more comfortable pace (by a real human on the other end) that more people would enjoy it. Seems like every time I practice against @klarsnow I get a few more tricks up my sleeveā¦
Easy there tiger, your kill ratio when we practice BFM is still only aboutā¦ 5:1 
I rambled about this in another thread but the context granted by the dynamic campaign is what keeps me coming back to Falcon BMS over and over. DCS has a great graphics and physics engine, but the experience is pretty shallow. After you spend more than a couple hours learning how to flick the right switches, you tend want challenges that require things like a complex threat environment and dedicated mission planning capabilitiesā¦
3 Likes
There are so many other words you could have ended that sentence with - I appreciate your restraintā¦! 
Keep in mind that from a technical standpoint DCS is the most complex sim available. It takes years to research and model a single aircraft and thatās"ifā the data is available to them.
I came across as a total a$$ in that post. I was rushing through it so that I could play in the snow with my daughter. (Itās really rough out there! Iām saving the shoveling for tomorrow). My point was that it is true that community is the most important thing. Unless you are dedicated to single playerāflying with friends is the whole point. But the developer has the biggest role to play. Huge, expensive sandboxes and exquisitely modeled vehicles arenāt enough. There must be some sort of underlying gameplayāfor me anyway. I will not spend cash solely on anticipation anymore. The map must either come with a killer single player element or a massive multiplayer community where at least some wonāt get a buzz mixing Gazelles with Spitfires.
4 Likes
6 Likes
You actually named three different games - Sandbox game, Singleplayer game, Massive Multiplayer game.
I think these are three separate optionsā¦ decisions, decisions, decisionsā¦