It is clear that the current situation within DCS World, its community and developers is a bit weird. It is the first time in years that, even after seeing all of these announcements made during the annual "202X and Beyond" video, I have not felt excitement for anything showcased during its run. Quite the opposite, I feel worried about the future of DCS. I should feel excited, shouldn't I? We got confirmation on the full fidelity F-15C module, a lot of teaser content on the dynamic campaign mode and more awesome video of upcoming modules like the Eurofighter, Hellcat, Super Saber, etc. These are reasons to be excited, things to look forward to, but yet, here I am. Unenthusiastic and Stoic about it all. The elephant in the room, at least to me, was the announcement of the full-fidelity F-35A module by Eagle Dynamics. This is an aircraft I never expected to be introduced to DCS in any official manner, hell, it is the butt of the joke for the modding community because of how many teams have tried making it. To say the F-35 is a challenge to tackle would be an understatement. Why start development of two new, complex modules on top of the pile of already unfinished, early access ones that are available for purchase right now? I understand that these are not being worked on by the same teams, but it does feel like they are spreading their resources a bit too thin between all of these projects. Additionally, the classified nature of this bird means that there will most likely be no official exchange of information between the USAF/Lockheed Martin and ED, even less any sort of sharing of information regarding its specific systems and the inner workings of the aircraft. The developers clarified that it will be made with publicly available information on the aircraft from trade shows and SME feedback. My main gripe with the DCS F-35A is that they are calling it a "full-fidelity" module. In the past, the term "full-fidelity" meant that the aircraft was modeled as close as possible to the real one, including most if not all of its systems modeled (ITAR allowing) within a fully realized clickable cockpit. Something like that is more than understandable for old Cold War aircraft and legacy 4th generation fighters like the F-15C. But calling this F-35A "full-fidelity" is misleading for the users. Full fidelity shouldn't just mean clickable and with systems made through OSINT. Were it to be marketed as "Clickable" or anything along those lines, I would not mind in the slightest. But it cannot be compared to aircraft like Heatblur's magnificent F-4E, or Polychop's unfortunate miracle, the OH-58D. ADDITIONAL RECENT ISSUES SURROUNDING DCS Speaking of Polychop, it is very unfortunate that most of its labor force seems to have resigned or been fired. Most details are unknown but from comments made by known developers such as Kinkku, with whom I worked with on the DCS UH-60L mod, we can infer that some of the most talented people over at the studio have left. This situation is an internal one within Polychop themselves, and does not seem to be related to anything done by ED, nor does it have relation with the other elephant in the room: the RAZBAM situation. Both ED and RAZBAM have made contradictory statements regarding the status of the ongoing debacle both entities have, and about the future of RAZBAM's modules in DCS. ED's community managers have stated that they could take over and maintain the modules even after a hypothetical departure from the developer. RAZBAM denies that claim, as seen on the screencap below. Comment made by ED's Community Manager, NineLine, on the forums. Official comment by RAZBAM on their Discord server. It has now been almost a year since this situatiuon began, and most members of the community are tired of seeing both sides contradict each other in public statements. MY HOPES So, what now? Am I going to stop playing DCS just because the water's muddy and the future is not looking as bright as it could? No, I am not. I will still play it, but I won't be the faithful supporter that I used to be. Let's see where this year takes us, who knows? Things could improve. I will just be here for the ride, and I will make sure to share my opinions on future DCS happenings here at Skyward. Fly High, Fly Safe. About the Author Santiago "Cubeboy" Cuberos Longtime aviation fanatic with particular preference towards military aviation and its history. Said interests date back to the early 2000s, leading into his livelong dive into civil and combat flight simulators. He has been involved in a few communities, but only started being active around the mid 2010s. Joined as a Spanish to English translator in 2017, he has been active as a writer and the co-founder of Skyward ever since. Twitter  | Discord : Cubeboy

A sudden interview with an unexpected programmer At Skies' Edge is a bolt from the blue flight arcade game that seemingly came out of nowhere in May 2023. After months of playing every single update and writing a few articles , I found myself with more questions than answers. Because it has a hard to track its development history, Skyward Flight Media reached out to its developer, Mackerel Sky, who turned out to be a very interesting fish. Thanks so much for accepting my interview request. Your project has been something of a mystery to me. I have a lot of questions. Thanks for reaching out for this interview! My name is Mackerel Sky. By day I am a fish, but sometimes at night I turn into something that could be vaguely construed as a programmer-like lifeform. At Skies' Edge is also a mystery to me and hopefully this interview gives me an opportunity to think about what I'm planning for the future. Mackerel Sky (self-portrait, 2023). How did you become a fan of flight games/simulators? I’ve always loved aviation and flight – as a kid I was always getting my long-suffering mother to draw me pictures of airliners, jet fighters and bombers so I guess gravitating towards flight games was an inevitability. Eventually I got my hands on a PlayStation 2 with Ace Combat 5 on it – I couldn’t understand a word of English at the time but it clicked eventually and I've been playing this stuff ever since. I stick very closely to the flight arcade end of things, as I’m only here to see cool planes going fast and exploding things. When did you start considering developing your own games? If we’re talking being involved in games generally, I guess you would have to start with Vector Thrust . I was in high school when that was being smashed out and did some of the draft writing and many, many aircraft descriptions for that game. There’s also Project Sandwall as well, but we’ll talk about that later on. I wouldn’t really count these as “developing” anything. I would say I only really started looking at gamedev towards the latter half of my university days, so I guess that would have been about 3 or 4 years ago. Around the time somebody said I wasn't going to be successful if I kept playing or being involved with videogames. I overreacted a little and started looking up tutorials a few days later. My programming experience also has paid dividends at my day job, so I guess in a small way I proved them wrong. That being said, I’m definitely more of a 2D artist than a programmer, so my first project, designed to teach myself C# was a little pixel-art platformer called Sable Hearts . It eventually grew way too big and taught me some valuable lessons in scope creep. You could say ASE is actually my second project. At Skies’ Edge has a hard to track development history. From what I could dig up, everything can be traced back to something called Project Sandwall. What was it? Project Sandwall was the working name for a flight arcade engine thing developed by another student. I signed up to do a lot of the things I did on Vector Thrust. My memory is really bad so I don't recall much - but the gist is that we tried to turn it into an actual game, got hit with the cold reality of game development (using a custom engine, no less) and eventually we both kind of lost interest in the project – other interests, jobs and priorities came up and things ended quietly. For me especially, I learned that having just a vision won't get you anywhere - you really need the skills to back it up. When Project Sandwall ended, were any of the builds saved? Any assets saved? I think I have a build of it floating around, but it needed an active server to connect to. I commissioned a few 3D ground assets that I stuck into ASE- for example, the AA gun, APC and airfield models are all leftovers from Project Sandwall. Around the same time in 2017-2018, Project Wingman was in early active development. Did you ever consider joining their team after Sandwall ended? There was not much interaction between us off the top of my head. I went straight into the complex and varied kinds of work that fish do after my degree and didn’t really have enough time to dedicate to much of anything for many years, so it never crossed my head. At Skies’ Edge had a public demo release on May 1st, 2023. That is about a six-year window between projects. What work did you do to get a new project ready? How long did it take? The gap is about 6 years, but I reckon I spent about 3 years doing nothing, and 3 years slowly learning to program and working on Sable Hearts . You could say that the itch to return to the flight action genre struck maybe February or March 2023, and I took a hiatus on the platformer to play around with some flight sim projects made publicly available. I eventually thought back to my days on Project Sandwall and decided to see if I could modify Lunetis’s OperationZero project to fix some bugs and have it function more like how I would have envisioned the final flight model and HUD to be. About a month into screwing with it, a buddy in a community I frequent was moaning about the lack of PC flight games and how new projects get announced and die quickly (like Project Sandwall, I guess). I posted some videos, making very clear that I was going to go back to Sable Hearts once I got bored, but was promptly dogpiled and very heavily encouraged to finish what would turn into v0.01a, so I got permission from Lunetis to keep using his codebase, and by May I had something I felt was presentable. ASE is firmly a flight arcade title, but it has some notable aspects of its flight model that I think make it standout compared to its contemporaries. Is there anything you are proud of with the way aircraft handle in this game? I wouldn’t say I’m particularly proud of anything flight-model wise, but I did want to try to distinguish ASE from Ace Combat and Project Wingman . Aircraft have a set ACM (Air Combat Maneuvering) speed range where they’re most agile. Instead of complex physics calculations, I use a graph that allows me to directly define maneuvering ability as a function of speed. This allows me to set areas of high and low performance very easily for different aircraft. The manual throttle system is designed to help players find and stay in ACM speeds more easily. I’m actually most satisfied by the throttle controls, which allow you to instantly jump to full or minimum power by double tapping accelerate or brake. Where aircraft are capable of supermaneuvrability, double tap and holding brake deactivates the limiter, and releasing it restores the regular flight model. I think it’s really intuitive to use in combat, and I’m planning to enhance the visual and audio feedback for these actions further down the line. Aircraft weapon loadouts are notoriously hard for flight arcade games. There is always the risk of providing too many options and too much ammunition to players, to the point it throws off gameplay. How did you settle on ASE’s method of handling weapon selection? I will be honest here and say I really haven’t done much work on this apart from getting the basic skeleton of things up and running. Currently, ASE uses a hardpoint based system where aircraft can mount any weapon in their inventory to a hardpoint strong enough to support that weapon’s weight. I have the following weight categories: Light, Medium, Heavy, Super Heavy. Hardpoints can support multiple categories of weapon weights and also can have specific weapons banned from them if they need to. Multi-lock and multi-launch is dictated by the weapon itself. Weapon selection was a topic of detailed and passionate debate during the early design stages of ASE v0.01a and v0.02a, and I still haven't decided on how I'm going to handle the final version of it. I will also need to take into consideration how the rest of the game is going to be designed, like how many units are going to be in the map and how weapons perform. This is really only a placeholder system until I figure out what I really want. I’d like a system that allows a selection of multiple weapons but is balanced enough to encourage players to select the right aircraft and loadout for the job. I appreciate that in the flavor text for aircraft and weapons, there are mentions of countries and manufacturers. Is there a possible world and lore expansion planned? ASE kind of fell out of the blue and I haven’t done any work on this at all. I briefly considered going back to what I wrote for Project Sandwall, but I took a look and it was pretty disgusting edgy teenager slop, so I pulled out some names to use and then deleted the rest. The names will also probably eventually be replaced, but I did want to show that this was eventually going to have a story. If there is anything I’ve learned over time, it’s best not to be creative until you know what your foundation is. So I’m holding off on doing any detailed planning until I know exactly how ASE will function mechanically, but I do want to create a campaign, and I have an overall vision of how the game will feel and the background of the lore/world. The tone of the story will be hopeful. My vague idea is to explore the challenges and conflicts involved in rebuilding a world that was taken to the brink of mutually assured destruction. This game used Operation Maverick / Operation Zero by Lunetis as a base. Has your recent months of game development pushed your skills farther? I guess you can say that I'm developing my skills - the vast majority of what I touch or add now is new, which is good for learning, not so good for actually making something work. As things progress, they'll also get more complex, so development may slow down as I work through what I need to do. I'm also conscious that Lunetis has done a lot of the hard work for me, which is great in that I don't have to worry about that stuff but also concerning because I wouldn't know how to reconstruct things like the flight model or mission structure from scratch. The five missions that are currently available represent what is possible with this game. But these are not something solely produced out of the project from Lunetis. The development blog for update 0.05a discusses new AI management processes and a mission manager system. Why are these two updates so important? Could this lead to larger developments in the long term? Lunetis’s Operation series were tightly scoped, highly tailored projects designed to replicate specific scenarios as closely as possible given the resources available to them. In particular, the code behind the mission manager and AI are custom written for those scenarios, where the player is the only allied unit on the map and must destroy some targets. However, ASE is not scoped as small as Operation. This has meant that the AI and mission manager need to be upgraded to be more flexible and respond to changing situations on the battlefield. Before 0.05a, I had done a bit of work to the AI and mission managers to bash them into something that could go beyond their Operation implementations, but quickly realised that this was a bandage solution that was inefficient and inflexible, so I had to step back and really smash out a framework that could give the AI enough flexibility that it could be placed in any mission and still execute its objectives correctly. Fundamentally the core of the AI hasn't changed, it's just now able to better interact with the mission manager to support a wider range of objectives, allowing me to make much more complex scenarios without having to custom-code anything specific like in Operation. Importantly, the AI and mission manager are modular and expandable, so if I need a new behaviour, I can write it up, integrate it with the framework and don't need to change anything else. The game has a handful of updates since the demo was released. Some of them have been pretty substantial. When the demo dropped, what was your original plan? Did the reception of ASE change your plan? After being told to finish v0.01a, my plan was to drop it and then go back to Sable Hearts . I was not prepared for the demo to be picked up and shared amongst a lot of people, which really picked up after Skyward FM found and posted about it. The attention definitely played a factor in convincing me to keep going and people gave me a lot of encouragement. Around the same time, Sable Hearts was quickly swept away in the never-ending flood of 2D pixel art platformers, and to be honest a platformer was not the best medium to tell the story I wanted to for that game. These two factors combined to push me to keep going on ASE, and I’ll go as far as I can since I’ve still got that guiding vision in my head. I'll admit, Sable Hearts is the story I really want to tell, and I'm keeping it in the back of my mind for when I'm skilled enough to do it justice, just as how I’ve done for Project Sandwall. …Ouroboros?! Uh-oh. Sounds like the indie dev cycle! Haha! Today, do you consider yourself a game developer or is this something you do as a pastime? I am just a fish who has been lucky enough to enjoy a particularly good work life balance, and I have a number of other work, education, and social commitments outside of ASE. Game development is just a hobby to me – something I did half out of spite and half to learn a new skill. I’m not sure if I would do it full time, and it’s part of the reason why I won’t work on the art or story until I know what ASE is capable of. I don’t want to get people’s hopes up or spend any money unless it’s ready for it. I appreciate your time in clarifying a lot of this. Personally, I find myself enjoying At Skies’ Edge quite a bit for what it is. Thank you very much for this interview. Thanks for inviting me to talk about ASE. I've been told to include some behind the scenes screenshots for this interview but they're all quite boring to look at. I've added in some previews of what's coming next in 0.06a to help spice things up. About the Writer Aaron "Ribbon-Blue" Mendoza Co-founder of Skyward Flight Media. After founding Electrosphere.info, the first English Ace Combat database, he has been involved in creating flight game-related websites, communities, and events since 2005. He explores past and present flight games and simulators with his extensive collection of game consoles and computers. Read Staff Profile .

A day one interview for this turn-based tactical air combat title On October 30th, 2024,  Scramble: Battle of Britain  released into early access. Ever since I first heard about the game, it took me a little while to sit back and fully wrap my head around the concept: turn based air combat. When you envision air combat, you think about a flurry of aircraft climbing, diving and turning endlessly in the sky. The humans flying them engaged in dizzying, spinning combat where decisions made in a moment could result in death seconds later. Imagining air combat pausing and playing seems foreign, but my time with the Steam Next Fest demo convinced me that the concept is viable and quite enticing.  Something World War II is remembered for is the massive amount of sustained air combat on all fronts. The Battle of Britain, in particular, stands out because it was the first large-scale military campaign fought only by air forces. This is the historical setting that Scramble presents its tactical dogfighting game. When thinking of Slitherine games, names like Warhammer 40k, Starship Troopers and Field of Glory: Kingdoms come to mind. Turn based or real time strategy games are arguably what they are known for, so seeing a turn based tactical dogfighting game in their catalog is very interesting but not completely unthinkable.  Shortly before the release of Scramble, Aaron Mendoza with Skyward Flight Media reached out to Slitherine for an interview with   Jon Coughlin , months after his Flight Sim Expo 2024   presentation . Thanks joining me for an interview during the early access launch rush. I appreciate you making the time. Please introduce yourself. I'm Jon Coughlin, the lead developer on Scramble. I joined Slitherine four years ago as the lead programmer for Scramble and I have been the lead developer for the past two and a half years. Scramble has a rather unusual concept for this genre of games. How did the concept for this game start?  The original Scramble prototype was developed by James Carey with the goal of making aerial dogfighting accessible to players who may not be interested in picking up a real-time flight simulation like War Thunder. "Turn-based Dogfight" was the conceptual kernel that I believe he always had in mind, but he wanted Scramble to have the action and fluidity that video games are excellent at facilitating.  There have been turn-based dogfighting games before, but almost all of them discretize flight into chunks of maneuvers: half a loop, quarter roll. Scramble has always been interested in allowing players to pilot the airplane, so we simulate flight dynamics and we ask players to control aircraft in an analog control space; the result is 3D dogfights that map pretty well onto the chaos and tactics of their real-time counterparts.  There is inspiration from lots of turn-based games: the board game Star Wars: X-Wing has a similar analog play space that helped validate the concept, and the video games Toribash and Frozen Synapse were discussion points I remember from early in the project.  The pitch that has solidified throughout development is "an authentic dogfighting experience without the situational awareness or reflex constraints of real-time flight games." We want our player stories to mimic WWII pilot memoirs, and in that sense Scramble is more focused on the essence of piloting and machinery and the themes of the Battle of Britain than the historical replication or raw performance numbers of our modeled airplanes.  Supermarine Spitfires diving onto Messerschmitt 110s. What were some of the largest hurdles to overcome during development?  It took us a long time to dial in the airplane controls. Flying airplanes can be hard, and maintaining orientation in 3D space can be hard, and in Scramble we ask you to do both but to also lock your airplane controls for the entirety of a turn: two and a half seconds. When flying an airplane in real-time, inputting a little bit of right roll will tilt your plane a little to the right. In Scramble, inputting a little bit of right roll will tilt your plane to the right for 2.3 seconds, and at the end of that time you might be upside down, so any additional control inputs you make might be inverted, and we were finding players got disoriented quickly.  We are shipping Scramble with a default control scheme called the Turn/Climb Assist; it couples pitch, roll, and yaw into two control axes: Turn and Climb. Under the hood, your Turn and Climb inputs are still being converted to pitch/roll/yaw, but this assist gets you 90% of the uncoupled control authority in a scheme that anybody can pick up and play. If you want your airplane to climb to the right you move your stick to climb/right and the coupling ensures that your airplane does what your brain expects.  The hardest technical hurdle has been the rewindable nature of Scramble. One core gameplay mechanic has always been the ability to rewind Scramble turns and matches at any moment to analyze and to see action you may have missed while the simulation executed. When we made the choice to make every gameplay feature of Scramble fully rewindable we also signed up for every gameplay feature to take 2x or 3x the development time. We have slowly built an architecture that is cutting development time of new features down, but there's a reason most video games only play forwards . Low speed reversal to firing solution. During my time with the Steam Next Fest June 2024 demo, my own mindset shifted quite a bit. While playing, I started viewing air combat more as a series of actions rather than a single event. I think the level of flight simulation in Scramble is overlooked because of the focus on the turn-based gameplay. How detailed is the flight model in game?  I think "a series of actions" actually maps directly onto the concept of the OODA loop, which I believe is still used to teach dogfighting tactics around the world. I think that every turn of Scramble is functionally a forced iteration of the OODA loop. There is no time pressure in Scramble, so if we carry that analogy forward Scramble nullifies the OODA loop discrepancy between players, but if you play Scramble with a turn-timer (probably a mechanic that will become optional for multiplayer matches) you are suddenly right back into OODA loop theory.  In terms of flight modeling depth, Scramble is a flight simulation with aerodynamics coefficients, asymmetry, multiple types of drag forces, phenomena like stall and control stiffening. Every damaged component an airframe accrues manipulates its overall flight envelope. We have subsystems like radiators and fuel tanks that feed your engines. These things can leak, explode, catch fire, and if your radiator dies your engine will become damaged as well.  Machinery is one of our design pillars. We want the airplanes to feel and behave like machines. Even the pilots behave like machines; tired pilots black out easier, blackout is dependent on the amount of blood in a pilot's head, and that blood decreases under positive G and increases under negative G.  We will be increasing the depth of our aerodynamics, damage modeling, and pilot physiology throughout Early Access, but we have a rich set of mechanics right now, and I think that everyone who picks Scramble up and invests a couple hours starts to connect with the fact that there is a solid simulation underpinning the gameplay.   Successful opening strike that cripples two Messerschmitt 109s. Would players that have experience with combat flight games/simulators find that their knowledge of tactics translates well into Scramble?  Having experience with real-time flight games should complement your tactical competence in Scramble, but I think that Scramble is a much more tactical game than almost any real-time flight sim delivers. In real-time games you can't escape the impact reflexes and coordination have on performance, and you can't escape the disorientation and quick decision-making that lead toward the study of concepts like the OODA loop.  I think a lot of real-time flight sim pilots might be surprised to find out that their tactics are actually underdeveloped. Scramble is all tactics, and I actually think that combat flight sim fans might play some Scramble and develop some better tactics and see this enhance their performance in the real-time games.  At a minimum, playing a lot of Scramble has taught me to stop chasing enemies for prolonged turns when I fly in IL-2. It's also taught me to roll way more to keep myself unpredictable, rather than trying to purely outturn an enemy on my tail. Those are obvious lessons when you read them as text, but Scramble gives you so much time to analyze your maneuvers that I think those tactical lessons sink in more than they ever will playing a real-time game.  Scramble is a dogfighting classroom. At the end of each sortie is a result screen that grades players actions with a five star system rating system. The graded categories include “Aircraft Shot Down”, “Aircraft Damaged”, "Pilots Survived" and" Bombers Deterred". Are there ways to get a high rating without shooting down every aircraft? We rely on the attrition theme to drive our scoring mechanics, so we harshly penalize the player for losing airplanes, and we brutally punish the player for losing pilots. Your top priority should be to bring your pilots and airplanes home healthy. You'll always max your score by killing everything in the sky and keeping your airplanes pristine, but you can still score very high by keeping your aircraft clean and downing a small number of enemies.  There is so much gameplay left to be implemented throughout Early Access that scoring will continue to get tweaked up to our v1.0 launch, but we will always try to reinforce the theme of attrition in our scores.  Post-sortie scoring screen example. While I do think the Instant Action, Mission and Random match modes were a good way to introduce people to the concept of the game, Squadron Leader seems to be the defining game mode. What are the dev team’s thoughts on how this game mode has turned out?  Players will notice that Squadron Leader is a separate button from Campaign, which is greyed out. Squadron Leader is not the Channel Defense Campaign feature. The campaign is still in development, and we will exit Early Access and consider Scramble: Battle of Britain v1.0 when our Channel Defense Campaign is complete, but Squadron Leader is a lightweight game mode where we are exploring the systems that will make up the building blocks of our campaign: squadron management, pilot health and wellness, permadeath, chaining missions together, pilot traits, and more. Squadron Leader (SQL) is a permadeath game mode where the player manages a set roster of 12 pilots for up to 30 days of dogfights. Each day is split into four time slots in which a section of 1-3 pilots must scramble, and the dogfights are randomly generated with aircraft type, count, and advantage; bouncing a flight of two Stukas is a great draw, and being bounced by six enemy fighters is trouble.  A lone RAF Spitfire outnumbered, attempting to escape. Every pilot in SQL is generated with a name, portrait, nationality, health and stamina, and up to three unique pilot traits.  Pilots deplete stamina throughout each dogfight and pilots with low stamina have lowered G-tolerance, which has a big impact on their survivability. Pilots maintain stamina levels between dogfights unless they are sent on leave, so flying multiple sorties in a day will quickly exhaust your pilots and make them vulnerable.  Pilots who receive damage in matches or bail out of their airplanes must spend multiple days in the infirmary, and pilots killed in a dogfight remain dead for the duration of your SQL run.  Squadron Leader pilot and section management. Pilot Traits provide positive and negative performance modifications that impact airplane control, gun effectiveness, G-tolerance, aircraft defense, frequency of subcomponent failures, and more. Some traits are passive, and some traits activate in narrow situations like while tailing an enemy or when under fire. Pilot traits dramatically change the core Scramble dogfighting experience and they quickly became our favorite way to play Scramble internally.  We are very pleased with the Squadron Leader game mode right now. This is another feature that will continue to broaden and deepen in scope throughout Early Access, but at the state of EA launch I think it's the definitive way to play Scramble: Battle of Britain; it's the game mode that most delivers on the Attrition theme I keep ranting about. Scramble does not seem to have a story driven single player, but it does not feel like it needs one with the setting of The Battle of Britain being self-explanatory. Was a traditional character driven story for the campaign considered?  The Channel Defense Campaign will put you in the role of Squadron Leader throughout the full Battle of Britain, and you will manage your pilots at a deeper level than what we have in the existing Squadron Leader game mode. The Battle of Britain will have a meta narrative flow to it, but we don't expect it to be story-driven in the sense of written narrative content. Pilots will have more life to them, and they will grow and change throughout the battle. They may get into trouble while on leave, and they will bond or feud throughout the course of the campaign. I'm going to mention pilot memoirs again here because we want the player story of the Channel Defense campaign to mimic the stories of the different famous squadrons of the RAF that you can read in books. But the stories of your squadrons will be told more through mechanics and player choice than through raw dialog.  It is great hearing more detail about The Channel Defense Campaign beyond the short description provided a few months ago. Thank you for that. The Royal Air Force pilots that players manage during their campaigns have unique character traits that can change gameplay. Do the opposing pilots also have traits players do not know about?  Luftwaffe pilots will eventually have character traits as well. At the time of Early Access launch, we only apply character traits to RAF pilots in the SQL game mode, but all of these mechanics are new and we are bringing them online and adjusting balance slowly; Early Access will see lots of new pilot traits, mechanics, balance adjustments, and expansion to the scope of dogfighting gameplay.  Damaged Messerschmitt 109 moments before pilot bail out. In Squadron Leader, I wonder if it is not wise to take on every fight the player is presented with. Does leaving an unfavorable battle without fighting have a negative impact? Leaving a dogfight healthy is always a viable tactic. Squadron Leader doesn't really penalize you harshly for making that choice right now, but soon we will build in some more SQL scoring metrics that track your points and stars per mission, so you will find the most success in the SQL game mode by maximizing enemy losses and minimizing player losses and maximizing squadron longevity. Early Access gives us the space and playerbase to balance those metrics through playtesting, which we would never have the bandwidth for as such a small development team behind the scenes.  I am sure you have read this joke online, but I’d like to ask it on record. Have you heard people describe this game as playable TacView before? Do you have any comments on that? "Playable TacView" is one of my elevator pitches to people who already enjoy DCS or IL-2. In real-time dogfighting games you have to do all sorts of post-processing to analyze your performance and tactics in hindsight. Scramble has the analysis tools built-in. You are analyzing tactics every single turn. You can analyze the tactics of a match live, while you play.  When streaming Scramble live, your natural inclination is to hop into the review phase and dissect your performance the way people have been doing in debrief videos for real-time games for decades.  Tactical Mode examples. We have an isometric diorama view that we call "Tactical Mode" that allows you to more quickly rotate and translate the dogfight airspace, and it's not coincidental that the tools are inspired by the TacView program that players are already familiar with.  Once again, thank you for taking time to give some insight into Scramble during this busy time. Congratulations on its release! Scramble: Battle of Britain is out now, available on Steam. Next week, Skyward Flight Media will be releasing an in-depth review of the early access launch version of the game. Look forward to it!  Four ship of RAF Spitfires. About the Interviewer Aaron "Ribbon-Blue" Mendoza Co-founder of Skyward Flight Media. After founding Electrosphere.info, the first English Ace Combat database, he has been involved in creating flight game-related websites, communities, and events since 2005. He explores past and present flight games and simulators with his extensive collection of game consoles and computers. Read Staff Profile .

ORIGINALLY POSTED: 07/31/2021 MINOR EDITS: 12/16/2023 In a simulator known for its 4th Generation fighters, Beyond Visual Range (BVR) combat and advanced sensors, there are only a couple of birds that stray from this. To me, one of the best ones that I have had the pleasure to enjoy for quite a while is the F-86F Sabre! This module is quite old by now, but it does not mean that it is useless. It is a module that has its own place and one that offers, alongside its rival the MiG-15, one of the unique combat experiences in the sim. FROM AN ENTIRE DIFFERENT ERA, BOTH IN AND OUT OF THE SIMULATOR Everything about the Sabre is old school, from its design to the actual module. Even the backed-in shadows in the cockpit belong to a previous era of DCS, one that did not even have the Eagle Dynamics Graphical Engine (EDGE) and all the fancy technology that we have become so used to with modern day DCS. In that regard, it is like a time capsule as to what DCS once was, and I say that with the best intent possible. Does this mean that the Sabre is not detailed or lacks that DCS quality to it all? Not in the slightest. It could just stand to benefit from a visual upgrade down the line. Cockpit design is pretty straight forward , important switches are within reach at all times, and they follow a natural flow that allows you to be mission ready in no time. It is a very, very simple bird in its operation, and there aren't really any notable quirks that make it feel unique. It is unique when it comes to comparing it to other birds of its era, though. The MiG-15 is a bit more complex in its operation, but it is still rather simple. There is no other way to describe it. That's the nature of these aircraft , since they are a product of their era. Jet propulsion was relatively new and there were not any advanced systems as we know them now, so the avionics are very straight forward. It was you, your aircraft, and the sky. Here are some of the shots of the cockpit so you can see when I say that it would benefit from a visual upgrade: THE GOLDEN ERA OF AIR COMBAT So we come to the actual point of the Sabre and the reason why I find the bird so appealing. There is no better aircraft to dogfight with in DCS, period. This is just pure, unadulterated air combat in its purest form. If what you like is the sense of losing yourself while keeping your eyes on your enemy, twisting and turning until one comes out victorious; then this module is what you should get day-one in DCS. It's just you, your guns and your enemy. These birds are surprisingly fast and incredibly agile , agile enough to out turn even some modern fighters that have flight computers and stability augmentation when its pilot fights intelligently. Just know your limits and do not engage in scenarios where you know you will be at a disadvantage, and manage your energy. When it comes to weapons, it does not have that many. It has just enough so that it could be considered a ground attack platform, and not even a very flexible one. Which is understandable, seeing as that's how aircraft design philosophy was at the time. WEAPONRY M3 MACHINE GUNS x6 These are your main weapon. Lots of ammo, but lacking in armor penetration and damage overall. They can feel rather weak, as some aircraft seem to just eat your bullets away with no significant damage taken. Thankfully, you have six of these! AIM-9B SIDEWINDER Practically worthless against anything that is maneuvering, these missiles are better used for big targets such as bombers. They are easily spoofed by flares or the sun. HVAR ROCKETS Nothing out of the ordinary here, these are your average HVARs. It can carry 12 of these! M64 AND M117 BOMBS Only two of these, but if your aim is true, you will kill whatever it is you aimed at. Guaranteed! OVERVIEW CONCLUSIONS What this module is a homage to unaltered and pure piloting. A module which can only be enjoyed if what you want is to struggle your way through a fight with very limited aid from your aircraft or instruments. Thanks to Kosmos for doing the photoshoot with me! It is a lovely module and one that I recommend to everyone out there to try at least once. If there only would be more servers which ran missions dedicated to this style of fighting, that would strengthen my recommendation even more. But for that to happen, the entire DCS community would have to shift interests, something I do not see happening. About the writer: Santiago "Cubeboy" Cuberos Longtime aviation fanatic with particular preference towards military aviation and its history. Said interests date back to the early 2000s, leading into his livelong dive into civil and combat flight simulators. He has been involved in a few communities, but only started being active around the mid 2010s. Joined as a Spanish to English translator in 2017, he has been active as a writer and content manager ever since. Twitter | Discord : Cubeboy

ORIGINALLY POSTED: 06/24/2022 Before the rise of the first-person shooter and the JRPG, flight games were king in the realm of combat games. The 90’s in particular were a golden era for the flight sim, and many names became synonymous with flight and combat simulation games, to name a few: Jane’s Combat Simulations, Microprose - and Novalogic. Perhaps best known for their foray into first-person shooters with the Delta Force series, the company was also responsible for such franchises as the Comanche (Recently revived by THQ Nordic) and the F-22 series, as well as two very similar games which, despite not technically being part of a series, can’t really be discussed separately from each other: Novalogic’s F-16 Multirole Fighter and Novalogic’s MiG-29 Fulcrum. Now, I’ll be the first to admit it’s hard for me to be impartial when talking about these two games, as I have a certain level of attachment to them. Apart from the nostalgia factor, Novalogic’s F-16 was not only my introduction to flight games, but also one of the first games I’ve ever had any contact with. One of my earliest memories is being a little kid and seeing one of my older cousins flying the blue-tinted F-16 on a computer screen, and at that moment I knew I had to try it out. I was already fascinated with aviation back then, so it would be untrue to say this game was what gave me that interest - a credit probably best given to the Ipanema cropdusters flying over the rural outskirts of Brazil - but it certainly helped fuel this interest in aviation and turn it into a lifelong passion which would ultimately guide the path I chose to take in life. It also introduced me to the F-16 and MiG-29, two aircraft which to this day rank among my very favorites and which I personally consider to be some of the most beautiful machines to ever take to the skies. As such, this article is not a game review - rather, take it for what it is, an opinion article on a retro game. OVERVIEW Before we go deeper into this pair of games and why would someone write an article about them, let’s have a brief general overview for context. As far as flight simulators go, Novalogic’s F-16 and MiG-29 sit in a bit of a weird spot. Launched concurrently in 1998, it’s hard to call them groundbreaking even for their time, considering Falcon 3.0 launched in 1991 and Microprose’s Falcon 4.0 , a game which maintains a devout following to this day, launched just two months after the duo. They are definitely not study simulators like Falcon - even game reviews of the time recommended harcdore sim fans to look elsewhere - but they are also very distinct from arcade flight games such as Ace Combat. Despite being referred to as “flight simulators” back in their day, Novalogic’s games fill an in-between spot which today we’d call a sim-lite - sacrificing realism for simplicity and ease of learning but still complex enough to give the player a taste of the aircraft’s capabilities and a good grasp of the basics. Aircraft systems such as radar and targeting pods are there, but their functionality is very simplified - for instance, the radar can always detect all targets in its field of view, and shows them all on the HUD even if the targets aren’t locked. A “shootlist” lets you cycle through all targets visible either by your radar or AWACS datalink without ever having to worry about accidentally locking a friendly. The flight model, too, is highly simplified - this is a game that is perfectly playable on keyboard alone, though dogfighting with only a keyboard is not something I would recommend. Nevertheless, the game does attempt to deliver an authentic-feeling flying experience and the player is still bound by limitations not present in arcade titles, such as blackouts and redouts, as well as weapon characteristics (even if not necessarily represented accurately) and quantity. You can select an option which allows you to fire twice as many munitions as your plane is actually carrying, but that’s the most leeway you will get in that regard. Ground targets are shown as boxes on the HUD when an air-to-ground weapon is selected - not a realistic implementation, but it makes finding targets much easier The games feature quick missions (including training missions) and several campaigns - though strangely, it is not possible to select which campaign to play. Instead, one must play through them in order, which can be very annoying if you’re yearning to play one specific campaign again. The quick missions can become repetitive after a while, but both games come with a mission editor software which players can use to create their own mission files. It is surprisingly complete in terms of functionalities, though not exactly intuitive or easy to use. The mission editor’s interface Also featured is a multiplayer mode, where players could fight each other through LAN, modem connection by telephone number, or Novalogic’s proprietary online matchmaking system, Novaworld. In fact, F-16 players could fight MiG-29 players in the same servers - because really, they’re two versions of a single game. RED AND BLUE F-16 Multirole Fighter and MiG-29 Fulcrum are, at their core, essentially the same game. Both games use the same engine, have identical gameplay mechanics and nearly identical control setups (with differences in some specific aspects of each aircraft, such as the MiG-29’s IRST, the F-16’s LANTIRN pod controls, and the F-16 having a pickle button while the MiG-29 uses the trigger both for guns and weapon release), and share the same assets. The differences go beyond which aircraft you’re flying - in that sense, they somewhat resemble the early Pokémon games somewhat, where there will be two versions with a few minor changes and a different color palette. Apart from obviously having to work with the different capabilities of each aircraft, the player is hit with a completely different ambience from the very moment they start the game up. The F-16 and the MiG-29 are not just fighter aircraft, they’re icons of the Cold War. They are similar in many ways - two lightweight fighters designed to supplement larger, more expensive types over the battlefields of Europe. They are both ubiquitous, serving with dozens of air forces across the globe - if the FN FAL was the “right arm of the free world”, F-16s are its wings; And even though the MiG-29 is not as widespread as the MiG-21, it nevertheless equipped the air forces of virtually every Warsaw Pact country. They codify the alliances they were designed to fight for. In short, they’re opposite sides of the same coin - and Novalogic lets you feel it whenever you flip that coin around. Apart from the obvious color coding, the main menu’s layout is mirrored between the two games - while in F-16 Multirole Fighter the player must look left - to the “west” - for the menu items, in MiG-29 Fulcrum one must look right - to the “east”. It’s a subtle detail, but it helps set the ambience, the feeling of being in a different environment. Going further into the menus, things like the mission briefings and loadout menu have different design languages, reminiscent of the instrument panels of the two aircraft. While the F-16’s menus are made to look more digital and computer-like, the MiG-29’s menus are touched up to have some analog elements to them, and metal panels and screws adorn the screen. Briefing and loadout selection screens. Note how the F-16 can somehow carry a double rail for AMRAAMs on stations 3 and 7 While hopping into the F-16’s training missions will land you in a semi-arid environment not unlike what you’d find somewhere like Nevada, the MiG-29’s training missions send you straight to a cold, snowy and mountainous environment based on the Kamchatka Peninsula. Novalogic’s MiG-29 has another neat trick up its sleeve - the tower, GCI, your wingman and other aircraft all have voice lines in Russian. The player may choose to switch them to English in the options, but it certainly adds that little bit of extra immersion. The first thing the player sees upon firing up the training missions. The ambience is noticeably different - note the contrast between the warm and cool color palettes I remember firing up MiG-29 Fulcrum for the first time and being almost shocked by the vivid red background of the menu. I was already used to F-16 Multirole Fighter at that point, and as a kid, you’re taught that blue means good guys and red means bad guys, so it was a surprise at first - but after flying the first mission, I fell in love with the plane. I still preferred flying the F-16, with its two multifunctional displays and much greater weapons load - but being red wasn’t so bad after all. I came to appreciate both aircraft and their different design philosophies. FEATURES AND GAMEPLAY One of the strong points of the games were their graphics - though obviously unflattering by today’s standards, in 1998 they received praise for their good looks, especially if the user had a 3D accelerator card. While I’m not sure whether the AI aircraft looked that good even for the time, the player’s aircraft certainly look beautiful in both games. The visual effects arena is less impressive, particularly the explosions, but contrail effects on the wingtips and LERX fit in well with the models. Some of the enemy AI aircraft - F-7 Airguard, F-4 Phantom, F-5E Tiger II, JAS-39 Gripen The stars of the show. The textures are quite detailed for the time. The cockpits look a bit flat, but they are three-dimensional and the player can look around, though the controls for that are a bit slow. The player will look around mostly through hat snap views and using padlock to keep visual on a close-range enemy. The cockpits are a bit simplified, but the main instruments work - most notably, the F-16’s two MFDs have clickable buttons which can be used to cycle through their pages. Standard cockpit views. One part where the game lets down is the HUD - while in the F-16 it looks like a simplified F-16 HUD, which is all well and good, in the MiG-29 it looks like they took the HUD they had made for the F-16 and “made it Russian” - that is, the aircraft symbol rolls to indicate bank instead of the pitch ladder. But the biggest issue in both games is that the HUD is not aligned with the external world in the default cockpit view. This makes it necessary to switch to HUD view for any sort of weapons employment, which can be troublesome in dogfights. Attempting to gun a Flanker. Notice how the target box is displaced from the target in this view. When zoomed into the HUD view, symbology is properly aligned. The F-16’s HUD has another trick up its sleeve - the ability to project the LANTIRN FLIR image for night navigation and attack. Though the flight models aren’t the most accurate out there, the aircraft do perform in general terms how you’d expect them to - the Viper likes being high and fast, and there’s no enemy unit out there which will out-rate you in a turn (though it feels like it retains energy too well); and the Fulcrum prefers being at medium altitude, using its high AoA authority to get missile solutions on targets at close range. The MiG-29’s flight model is capable of performing hammerheads and even Pugachev’s Cobra - a maneuver which the game’s manual acknowledges has little to no combat value, but encourages the player to try practicing anyways simply for fun. MiG-29 performing the Cobra maneuver. Enemy AI is not smart - there frankly isn’t much of a challenge if you are carrying similar weapons in a 1v1 fight. However, missiles are scary, much scarier than in DCS, for instance: though their guidance algorithm is very poor (seems to be pure pursuit), they seem to behave as if the rocket motor never runs out of fuel. Furthermore, enemy planes almost always launch within the no-escape zone - so while it’s easy to plink them with AMRAAMs or R-77s from afar before they launch, if you do get launched on, you better hope there’s some terrain to mask behind, as your countermeasures are mere suggestions. The usual outcome of having more than one missile launched against you. Of course, the best defense is to not get launched on at all, or even better, avoid detection entirely. The game does encourage the player to control their own radar emissions. Keeping your radar off will allow you to sneak behind enemy aircraft undetected and close in for a Sidewinder or R-73 shot. The MiG-29’s IRST comes in very handy here. Damage modelling is nearly non-existent for enemy aircraft, which instantly explode when hit by any missile and smoke if hit by a few gun rounds - but it is surprisingly complex for the player’s aircraft, which may suffer damage to individual subsystems, which affect the aircraft’s behavior accordingly. You might lose an engine, have a punctured fuel tank, lose radar or fire control systems, the list goes on. Close range combat usually ends with the enemy aircraft being vaporized in a large pixelated explosion. After a mission is completed, a summary displaying how many aircraft were lost on both sides, how many aircraft were shot down by the player, and weapon accuracy statistics. It’s not the best debriefing out there, but it is very concise. Mission summary. The player can also edit waypoints before a mission, through a map which displays the current programmed route and known threats. It’s a pretty neat feature which allows for a certain degree of extra planning. The player can change the location of waypoints and look at known threats before flying the mission. CAMPAIGNS The campaigns aren’t much to write home about, following loose storylines told only on the briefings. The enemy is usually (but not always) some fictional organization which is attempting to stage a coup somewhere, or has succeeded in staging a coup and is invading its neighbors. There isn’t really a plot to speak of, and the story serves merely as a conduit to the gameplay. That being said, the campaigns do have some interesting features: the most important one being that the player actually has to keep logistics in mind. During each campaign, the player’s squadron will start with a certain quantity of weapons, from drop tanks to missiles. These supplies are depleted as you use these weapons, and this is where the challenge comes in. Because frankly, nearly all of the missions are quite easy if you fully load up your jet with AMRAAMs and use them to obliterate everything in your path. But if you do that, there will be a point in later missions where you’ll run out of them and will have to resort to Sidewinders only, and if you’re not careful with those, eventually you’ll find yourself in a situation where you have to defend an airbase against a massive air attack using only your guns (ask me how I know). So the challenge of the campaign is asking yourself: Do you really need those AMRAAMS for this particular mission? Is it really worth it to try and face enemy aircraft head-on or is it better to try and figure out a way around them to the mission objective, saving precious air-to-air missiles? When air-to-air missiles are at a premium, a Q-5 Fantam isn’t a target worth spending an Archer on. Go for guns! Campaign missions are usually pretty standard - fly CAP, provide CAS, intercept bombers, attack a supply convoy, bomb a high-value target. However, every now and then something different pops up. One of the missions in the F-16’s second campaign has the player escort NASA’s Shuttle Carrier, carrying the Discovery Space Shuttle, through contested airspace. In what other game can you escort the Space Shuttle? And, because this game is a window into the 90’s, you can see the hope for a future where the “blue” forces and “red” forces are not necessarily opposed to each other. In several campaigns, US and Russian forces work together, and sometimes you’ll even see the other game’s “protagonists” helping you out - in some missions of the F-16 campaigns, you’ll be helped by MiG-29s from “300 Squadron”, the unit you play as in MiG-29 Fulcrum ; and in the MiG-29 campaign, you’ll sometimes be helped by F-16s from “Viper Squadron”, the unit you play as in F-16 Multirole Fighter. The developers’ hopes for a bright future of international cooperation do not seem to extend to France however, seeing as in both games the player will constantly fight modern French-designed aircraft such as the Mirage 2000 and Rafale, in the hands of everything from African paramilitary organizations to Russian ultranationalist groups attempting to stage a coup. In one of the MiG-29 campaign missions, the player’s unit escorts American B-1B bombers to their targets. CONCLUSION MiG-29 Fulcrum and F-16 Multirole Fighter definitely aren’t hardcore simulators, but they do give the player a taste for the unique character of the respective aircraft they feature, and an appreciation for their capabilities. The F-16 with its advanced avionics, multi-function displays and low-bleed, high-rate turns, and the MiG-29 with its mostly analog systems but great maneuvering at high angles of attack. The simplified systems and fast learning curve means that these games probably got many other newcomers such as myself hooked into the world of flight simulation. Playing them once again after all these years made me acutely aware of their flaws, but gave me an even greater appreciation for what they managed to achieve - a flight sim which could be easily picked up by non-flight simmers, even if they happened to be a child playing their first flight game. They are two games I have fond memories of, and will always remember it as what taught me to appreciate all kinds of aircraft, no matter whether they’re red or blue. About the Writer Caio D. "Hueman" Barreto An incurable aviation fanatic since childhood, fascinated by the design and history of practically anything that flies. A long-time fan of flight games, he currently studies aeronautical engineering and pursues his hobbies of drawing, writing and flight simulation on his spare time. See Staff Profile .

The event has also arranged hotel, airfare, and car rental discounts to make it easy for everyone to participate! Media Partnership Confirmed 2025! Skyward Flight Media has been confirmed as a media partner for FlightSimExpo 2025. This is our fifth year of media partnership for the expo. Our organization covered the event as online only attendees in 2021 and 2024, but attended the event in person in 2023. See all of our past content from FSExpo here . In 2025 we have one representative confirmed attending the event in person with others possibly in attendance. Press Release: Registration Open! Attendee registration is now open for FlightSimExpo 2025, held June 27-29 at the Rhode Island Convention Center in Providence. Use flightsimexpo.com/register to secure the best rates. After welcoming more than 2,400 attendees to Las Vegas earlier this year, one of the world’s largest dedicated flight simulation events is headed to New England! The convention will feature developers, non-profits, virtual airlines, air traffic control demos, seminars, product announcements, off-site activities and tours, and much more. The 2025 event kicks off with #FSExpoFriday , an afternoon of product updates and announcements from flight simulation’s biggest developers. Later that evening, all attendees are invited to a welcome reception, while FSA Captains have the option to attend the FlightSimExpo Banquet, featuring dinner and prizes. On Saturday and Sunday, attendees get access to an 85,000+ square foot exhibit hall with hands-on demos of flight simulation hardware and software. Speaker stages will feature how-to seminars and educational discussions sourced from the community. An ‘Entire Event’ registration includes all seminars, exhibit hall access on Saturday and Sunday, a free drink at Friday’s Welcome Reception, coffee and tea on Saturday and Sunday mornings, and exclusive access to post-event seminar recordings. All this starts at just $50, for the first 250 FSA Captains to register. Entire Event pricing for non-members is $80 USD, with Weekend or Online-Only options available too.   Airline, Hotel, and Car Rental Discounts Discounted hotel rooms and airfare deals from Delta, United, Southwest, and codeshare partners are available now. Make your travel plans early to take advantage of great rates. Find the details at flightsimexpo.com/travel . Sponsor and Exhibit at FlightSimExpo 2025 FlightSimExpo welcomes software developers, hardware vendors, communities, and other flight simulation organizations to participate as sponsors, exhibitors, and speakers. Details on getting involved are available at flightsimexpo.com/partner . An initial list of sponsors and exhibitors will be shared in March 2025. “We’ve made it super easy for flight sim devs of all sizes to participate in FlightSimExpo,” says co-founder Evan Reiter. “Turnkey solutions, part-time exhibit booths, and larger opportunities are all available. The community wants to meet you! Look through our 2025 Partner Overview, speak to other devs who’ve attended, or reach out to me for more information.” About FlightSimExpo. FlightSimExpo is one of the world’s largest flight simulation conventions. The event has welcomed more than 7,500 attendees to events in Las Vegas, Orlando, San Diego, and Houston since 2018. FlightSimExpo is produced by Flight Simulation Association, a community-driven organization of developers, simmers, and real-world pilots working to make it easier to get started in home flight simulation. Join the community today—free—at flightsimassociation.com for resources, learning content, webinars, and discounts on top add-ons and simulation hardware.

A little bit of eye candy for your strike missions Picture this: You boot up DCS and set out for a strike mission. Your target is a large ammo depot. You weave through air defenses as you make your way to the target, masking behind terrain and dodging AAA left and right - and when you finally get there and attack, all you get is a small explosion and the target's 3D model switching to a destroyed one. Feels a little underwhelming, right? You expected something more spectacular - a chain of explosions from the ammunition cooking off and detonating everything around that depot you just hit. Maybe you wanted to re-enact Ace Combat 5's Powder Keg where a bunch of ammo bunkers start going off in a chain reaction. Well, don't worry - today we're going to show you how to get those effects on your DCS World missions, and hopefully give you some ideas along the way. While there are certainly more elegant ways to do this with Lua scripting, our goal is to keep it as simple and straightforward as possible, so we'll be showing you a basic method that works using only DCS Mission Editor triggers. Here are a few examples of how you can set it up: Basic Example: Ammunition Depot Let's start with the basics: A static object which will trigger secondary explosions once destroyed. The first step is to place an area over your target to define where the secondary explosions will take place. For this ammunition depot, I've set up two different zones - The smaller one will get fewer, larger explosions, and the larger one will get more but smaller explosions. You can set up more of these "layers" if you want - but beware of potential performance hits. With the zones set up, we go to the Triggers window on the Mission Editor and create a new trigger. Since ammunition bunkers in DCS are pretty tough, and I want this one to detonate as soon as it is hit by a single penetrating bomb, we can set the condition for the trigger as "Unit Damaged". For the actions, we set "Explode Unit" to ensure the bunker is destroyed after that one hit - and then comes the key behind the explosion effect we want, the "Shelling Zone" action. This trigger action generates explosions on the ground, simulating an artillery barrage - however the rate of these explosions is fast enough that it makes for a pretty versatile effect. We create one "Shelling Zone" action for each zone we have created. Under its options, we choose the zone we want, the number of explosions that will take place inside the zone, and the TNT equivalent of each explosion, measured in kilograms - keep in mind the maximum for this number is 500 kilograms, so unfortunately you cannot simulate the huge single explosions which usually result from ammunition depots cooking off. Video: Basic Ammunition Depot Example Setting Up Delayed Secondaries: Ammunition-Carrying Ship We can take this concept a step further and make it so some of the explosions only trigger a certain time after the target is hit. For this example, I've set up a docked cargo ship with two large zones and several smaller zones spread out through its deck. In order to help our players with target identification and really get the point across that this is the big bad ammunition-laden ship they need to destroy, we can set up a bunch of static military vehicles on its deck by selecting our ship in the "Link Unit" field. Keep in mind that this only works for static objects - unfortunately, as much as I'd like to place MANPADS and anti-aircraft guns on cargo ships as a welcoming gift to unsuspecting players, as it currently stands we cannot place active units on ship decks. (ED, please?) In order to achieve the delay effect, we'll set up multiple triggers - in this case I chose three - each one triggering its own set of explosions. For the first one, we set the conditions as either "Unit Destroyed" or "Unit Damaged" depending on the mission creator's preference - and for its actions, in addition to "Shelling Zone" , we set a "Flag On" command to set a flag of our choosing to "true" once the target is hit. You can choose an arbitrary number for your flag, as long as it does not conflict with any other flags in your mission - in this case I chose "101". Then, for our following triggers, we set the condition to "Time Since Flag", which will trigger once a specified time (in seconds) has passed since a certain flag has been set to true. Thus, we can effectively specify a delay in relation to the activation of flag "101", and therefore in relation to our first explosion. For this example, I've set two delayed triggers for different sets of explosions - one with a 1 second delay, and the other with a 2 second delay. Video: Delayed Secondaries Example Setting Up Map Objects: Airfield Ammunition Warehouse Setting up your own targets is all well and good, but what if you want to apply this effect to map objects, such as the fuel and ammunition storage facilities present at airfields? Fortunately, the 2.7 DCS update gave us a tool to do exactly that. After right-clicking on a valid map object, such as a building, an "Assign As..." window will pop up. Clicking this window will automatically generate a zone linked to the map object's ID, which allows it to be used to track the object's status. In the Triggers window, we will now set up a trigger with the condition "Map Object is Dead" . Under the options for this condition, select the zone which has been assigned to the map object in the previous step. This will trigger this event as soon as that map object is destroyed. In order to give this a little bit of extra kick, we can set an "Explosion" action in addition to the "Shelling Zone" action. This will generate a single explosion exactly at the center of the selected zone, at an altitude set by the mission creator. It isn't as visually impressive, but it helps by being one extra layer in our effects cake. Just like with the hardened ammunition depot, I've set two circular zones around the target, each one linked to a "Shelling Zone" action - fewer but larger explosions on the inner circle, more numerous but smaller explosions on the outer circle. Video: Map Object Secondaries Example Getting the visual effect you want with this method often requires quite a bit of tweaking and playing around with the values of "TNT Equivalent" and "Shells Count". If it's looking too mushy, reducing the size of explosions and increasing their number can help. However, when adjusting these values, keep in mind that the higher the number of explosions, the higher the impact on frame rate - if you have too many explosions going off, even if they're small ones, your players will definitely feel the performance hit. Get Creative! Now that you know what you can do with a few simple triggers on the Mission Editor, the possibilities are endless! Using this method alongside other mission features, it is possible to think up a variety of mission scenarios - For instance, in a mission involving rescuing civilians from an industrial zone under insurgent attack, you could force players to be careful about potential collateral damage by making the destruction of structures such as fuel tanks and warehouses trigger a devastating chain of secondary explosions. When I make missions to play with friends, I like giving my players reason and reward for going after certain static targets. They know they'll get to look at cool explosions, so that's already an incentive - but I also like making their destruction have tangible effects on the mission. For example, maybe destroying an ammunition depot reduces the amount of artillery enemy units can throw at friendly forces, and destroying fuel storage tanks could reduce enemy aircraft spawn rates. I hope this article has given you some ideas to give your missions that little extra bit of flavor - and good laughs when your friends realize that ammo bunker they just dropped a JDAM on... That one was special. About the Writer Caio D. "Hueman" Barreto An incurable aviation fanatic since childhood, fascinated by the design and history of practically anything that flies. A long-time fan of flight games, he currently studies aeronautical engineering and pursues his hobbies of drawing, writing and flight simulation on his spare time. See Staff Profile .

Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020) proudly retains its open modding environment from its FSX predecessor, which produced excellent third-party add-ons that increased the simulator’s long shelf life. The IndiaFoxtEcho MB-339A is a stellar example of that expandability and offers, like it’s lead-in fighter trainer namesake presents, a great entry-level opportunity for high-speed acrobatic flight within the Microsoft Flight Simulator experience. DISCLAIMER: We were given a review copy of this expansion by IndiaFoxtEcho themselves, which we appreciate very much. Even then, they gave us complete creative freedom over this review and the opinions that will be written are our own. OVERVIEW The module includes two variants of the aircraft: The standard LIFT MB-339A, and the acrobatic oriented MB-339PAN—performance to the casual player might not be noticeable despite the change in fuel load and weight and balance, though the PAN does not include further liveries beyond that of only operator, the 313° Gruppo Addestramento Acrobatico , where its wing tanks have been accurately removed and replaced with a pair of smoke generators on mid-wing hardpoints. The cockpit has received an alteration, removing the gunsight and placing more emphasis with orientation on your heads-down instrumentation. MB-339A in the colors of the 61° Stormo The MB-339A is, as mentioned, a Lead-In Fighter Trainer produced by Aermacchi. The aircraft’s history is told in a quick brief within the specifications available in Hangar mode, and the loading screens will present you with quick single-sentence facts about the trainer. Delightfully well-detailed and presented with a generous selection of liveries, the MB-339 presents a picture-perfect representation of the trainer. I however unapologetically choose to fly in standard grey because I’m vanilla like that. Several of the liveries available for the trainer. DEVOTION TO DETAIL It is hard not to want to admire it in Hangar view for extended periods of time. It can’t be shown in a screenshot, but the movement of the pilot and copilot’s heads is a nice touch of detail. Sneaking a peek into the engine bay reveals a fully modeled stator—the devotion to ensure that every angle is authentic is greatly appreciated. The 4K-quality texturing does the aircraft the justice it deserves, with sharp clarity even in the densely-written caution markings prominently featured below the instructor’s seating position. Speaking of detail, you may want to sequester yourself in hangar mode for a bit anyway—getting familiar with the cockpit is a must. COCKPIT FAMILIARIZATION AND PROCEDURES I’m a simple flyer—I’m used to uncomplicated, straight forward cockpit designs in my simulators. I derive pleasure from simply hovering over a town in a DA42 or a C172. I even broke the bank and shelled out for the Deluxe edition of this game just so I could have a C172 with steam-gauges, since that is how I trained in reality. This results in my need to ID and manipulate flight systems using mouse-clicks. Yes, keybindings are always available, but it removes from the tactility and authenticity of the control. So when I want to unlock the parking brake, I search for it and click it from the cockpit, no matter what the aircraft may be, rather than just pressing a simple button. The open, user-friendly cockpits of the C172 or DA42 allow that no matter your skill level—the MB-339, not as much. The MB-339’s cockpit is a much more cramped affair, offering a mix between the simplicity of a turboprop and the complexity of a commuter jet. What’s most noticeable is how much more of a head swivel I need to identify each of my systems and ensure I can get to them. The parking brake might be open and visible just above my left knee, but the flap controls are well-hidden behind the throttle. Control density also presents a challenge—trying to manipulate those flap-controls by mouse click might instead see you unlock the canopy in mid-flight—thank goodness flight speeds in a trainer like this are manageably low. But that’s also what makes it fun for flyers like me. It sounds complicated, but it actually increases that feeling of authenticity that I want to pursue, and authentic it is. Unlike even a fair portion of the built-in modules provided by Microsoft, the MB-339 models operation of a significantly higher portion of the flight controls for the pilot. The developers of the 787 might think the de-icer isn’t important for your casual MS sim pilot, but the MB-339 generously gives me control over both the de-icer and the pitot heat. But most importantly, when I decide I want to take off from Alpha Ramp at KAPA from a dead stop, I can poke my way through the controls to go from static airframe to functioning machine in short time thanks to the legible and well-labeled English controls. Not to say that poking through controls is an easy affair. It took me a few tries to get everything started in the right order, and this is also where I found the most noticeable glitch in the sound design—should you keep the throttle at idle during power on, the aircraft will run through a foley of its engine spooling, but will then abruptly cut out. Should you start the aircraft with throttle full and parking brake engaged as designed, you likely won’t hear this cut off, since the sound of the engine operating as designed will mask the transition. Honestly, a minor gripe in an otherwise solid showing thus far. FLIGHT TEST AND FLIGHT MODELING So, with our aircraft powered on, flight systems and control surfaces tested and checked out, and engine humming along nicely, let’s go flying. To provide disclosure for my experience, my flight control system consists of a Saitek X52 Pro HOTAS (pre-Logitech buyout) and a set of Saitek Pro Rudder Pedals, tuned to my desired resistance. Taking off from 17L for a full 10,000 feet of asphalt, I’m able to reference the documentation provided with the module to tune my rotation speed with flaps set to take-off position and I’m in the air and climbing rapidly in about half the length of the runway. My sights are set on a loop around Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA and back again to KAPA, testing control response along the way. As I reach 8000 feet, the sun blinds me as I level out thanks to the non-foldable mirrors; what a frustratingly accurate detail. The roll-rate of the aircraft in its lightened fuel-state and lack of weight on its hardpoints is fast and tight, and when you’re used to flying lighter civilian aircraft it’s a refreshing echo of how it feels to jut around in an Extra 300, but at much higher speeds. The trainer is extremely stable. Trying to induce a departure is almost an exercise in futility at any speed. The MB-339 will gladly give you the room to recover yourself if you give it the altitude. Turn rates are modest, as they should be: 15 seconds in a full 360 with a loss of about 1500 feet from 11,000 starting. But the responsiveness of the aircraft cannot be understated. Low-speed flying in MB-339 feels like a dream. Once you’re in the air, your flight envelope feels limitless. It was effortless to follow major roads and highways through town at just 5800 ASL with just minor course adjustments. After some fun, we return back to our departure point—this is where things get tricky. I won’t mince words—I had major trouble landing this thing. At the relatively high required speeds and, more importantly, very short undercarriage, it wasn’t until the fourth try of hitting the deck that I successfully came to a full stop. But once you’re on the ground, the brakes are wonderfully responsive and will slow you to a manageable taxi speed within what feels less than its spec'd distance of 1500 feet. CONCLUSIONS So—why the MB339? There are a number of add-on aircraft available out there—certainly ones promising more performance, more pizzazz, more popularity. The reason is simple: download those and find out why you should have downloaded this in the first place. The MB-339 as produced by IndiaFoxtEcho is a fast, forgivable cruiser that works as the lead-in fighter trainer it is. It’s a pleasure to look at, and a pleasure to fly. It is not out of place in the MSFS environment by any means. It feels like a native add-on and flies true. My thanks to IndiaFoxtEcho for the review copy of their product and a delightful introduction to higher performance. About the Writer T.J. "Millie" Archer A Life-long realist and aviation enthusiast. Once the co-founding Administrator of the Electrosphere.info English Ace Combat Database. In the present day he is freelance, roving the internet in search of the latest aviation news and entertainment.  Read Staff Profile .

“Everyone knows Star Wars was saved in the edit.” – Every Youtuber ever. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that I am more than willing to consume anything regarding Ace Combat 04. To me, it’s still the pinnacle of the series and should qualify as one of the best games ever made. One of its greatest strengths is in its storytelling. I’ve read it described as the retelling of a novel. This is very prescient; it does in fact feel like a chaptered comic or visual novel in the way it's built. It’s unique in this regard, as later installments of the franchise build themselves like a movie, from the after-action opening credits to an adherence to a three act format. But what if you could really make that novel shine through as well? Can you make that elusive novel-to-movie transition work for the first reboot of the franchise? Well, Nassault found a way. Nassault is a supremely talented video editor and as die-hard a fan of Ace Combat and aviation as they come. Utilizing Digital Combat Simulator as the engine for cinematics, he manages to translate the fun of the game missions and turn them into bite-sized, action-packed trailers that exude world-class editing expertise. But it also exposes his action as a world-class director and a pretty decent pilot. His videos constrain themselves to making the action feel real and within the time limit constraint of the mission’s soundtrack. He flies the planes themselves to get the action just right. He can make the simple flipping of a switch dramatic, and it’s in service of the story. Imminent Threat compacts the 8-10 minute mission into a realistic runway strike by Mobius 1 and his comrades by using standoff munitions as a way to condense the main objective. He does well to cut out anything superfluous, and uses in-game voice lines to great effect, demonstrating the strength of the game’s script. He keeps within the limitations of the game engine and convincingly portrays the destruction of the ramp at Rigley Air Base. “The hardest part about making this video was learning to fly the Phantom” (sic) – Nassault’s top YouTube comment for Imminent Threat. … But what about the substation?! This is not to dismiss his enormous backlog which has built this highlight. From his excellent interpretations of Ace Combat Zero to his dabbling in VTOL VR , he puts his best foot forward each time and uses tried-and-true methods to portray the story being told. Sitting Duck exemplifies this marvelously. Starting with the overlaid merging of the title attract screen with the iconic blue F-4 flown by Mobius One. The use of DCS also performs a great interpretation of that iconic first mission, with believable beyond-visual range engagements against the Bear bombers. The in-game audio works almost ideally as well, being snappy while following the plot-relevant details to the letter. The ace-focused dogfight is exciting and engaging and doesn’t overexert itself; the entire thing wraps up nicely. With the release of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 I’ve been on a bit of an eager kick for its bugs to be ironed out, and wouldn’t you know it, he’s got something to pay honor to that legacy as well. His Evolution of Microsoft Flight Simulator video could put Asobo and Microsoft’s marketing groups to task. With expert cuts between the primitive colored lines of the original and the still outstanding graphics of the 2020 release. It even implements a little humor in between the grandeur on display, with the CAS yelling about an imminent collision. Nassault can claim over 100 and a dozen videos dating back over 16 years. His steady buildup to the excellence you see today is exposed from day one, even if he may have been constrained with the technology of the time. Though he has dipped out of creating content from time to time, he always bounces back stronger than ever. You can catch his work on his website or check his YouTube channel . Writer T.J. "Millie" Archer T.J. "Millie" Archer is a life-long realist and aviation enthusiast. Once the co-founding Administrator of the Electrosphere.info English Ace Combat Database. In the present day, he is freelance, roving the internet in search of the latest aviation news and entertainment. [ Read Profile ]

Two games from the Macross series let stubborn fighter jocks fly fixed-wing fighters against futuristic transforming robots. F-14 Tomcats entering battle (Macross Zero). Macross is a long-running anime series that features robots that can transform into fixed-wing fighters. Whether you know them from the original show in 1982, the overseas adaptation known as Robotech, or the recent stint of official Macross movies appearing in theaters in 2022, it is hard to deny the appeal of a futuristic as a robot that transforms into a high-speed fighter jet. A somewhat well known scene from Macross Zero, a prequel OVA to the original series, shows F-14 Tomcats in a close-range dogfight with MiG-29 Fulcrums. This decently done scene leads to the F-14s being decimated by one of the first operational models of the transforming robots, formally known as "variable fighters." The entire opening of Macross Zero was designed to show how variable fighters could easily defeat even high-performance fixed-wing fighters. The point was to show how this new technology being used by humanity makes what we believe are our most advanced machines obsolete. But let the record show that one of the Tomcats almost got a gun kill on one fancy variable fighter! Among Macross fans, that is a point that is regularly brought up when talking about that scene. It is this train of thought that led me to write this article. Two Macross games from the PlayStation Portable allow fixed-wing fighter jocks to keep stubbornly flying their atmospheric fighters. Macross Ultimate Frontier (2009) and Macross Triangle Frontier (2011) are games that compile single-player campaigns based on the various Macross OVAs, TV shows, and movies with original missions and online multiplayer functionality. Their inclusion also brings some of the vehicles seen in Macross Zero, like the F-14 Tomcat (Type-14) and MiG-29 Fulcrum (Type 29). It's important to note that these are "atmospheric" fighters, i.e., they need some atmosphere to operate in. Any mission set in space will not let players select these aircraft. Still, oddly enough, it is possible to fly missions that happen inside massive spaceships - the technicality being that they do have an atmosphere. The inability to use these aircraft in space missions means a pure play-through of each single-player campaign with earthbound fixed-wing fighters is impossible. You won't be engaging in space combat with your F-14 - this isn't Airforce Delta Strike - but you could turn and burn in a MiG-29 on a planet halfway across the Milky Way Galaxy in the year 2059. Flying inside a space cruiser. What could go wrong? Players will be fighting against variable fighters with energy defense systems, alien bioweapons with laser cannons on their backs, and even a semi-mythical weapon left behind by the creators of the human race. That's a lot for a humble twin-engined jet fighter to deal with. Now, of course, none of the Macross games are flight simulators. You could say they barely qualify as a flight arcade since the games are built around the premise that players will be transforming their vehicles between multiple configurations. Hovering like a helicopter while firing a cannon or being in a humanoid form while taking cover behind terrain is two-thirds of the gameplay. MiG-29 flying past four alien mechs. Players can enable Real Flight Controls to get a more traditional heads-up display and flight controls you'd expect from a flight arcade title. Still, the game is clearly designed to utilize the capabilities of variable fighters Macross has staked its identity on. The only way a fixed-wing fighter-focused playthrough could be done is by modifying their performance with in-game tuning points. An emphasis on aircraft top speed, acceleration, missile striking distance, and missile power is needed to get through the middle levels of each campaign. When enemies can instantly come to a stop by transforming, then fire at a player's jet while remaining inside its turn radius, players will quickly learn that hit-and-run slashing attacks will be their greatest asset. I discussed this in much more detail in an article about Real Flight Controls in Macross Games , see that for more information. MiG-29 investigating a space ship. The F-14s and MiG-29s have no energy weapons, energy shielding, the ability to destroy missiles in flight, or anything similar to the future technology they are up against. Missile barrages, cannons, chaff, flares, and high speed are their primary weapons. Though a "special move" called the V-Formation can be activated, it's nothing more than calling in two NPC wingmen to increase firepower by having all three aircraft attack the same target. Formation of F-14s evading a Macross-class warship. Frankly, bringing fighter jets from pre-alien space war Earth to battle neck snappingly fast aliens somewhere across the galaxy can be as frustrating as you think it would be. Patiently dashing in and gradually chipping away at enemies and investing every hardware tuning point you get can feel like a deep grind. But on the other hand, you can't help but chuckle whenever you find victory in these absurd situations. About the Writer Aaron "Ribbon-Blue" Mendoza Co-founder of Skyward Flight Media. After founding Electrosphere.info, the first English Ace Combat database, he has been involved in creating flight game-related websites, communities, and events since 2005. He explores past and present flight games and simulators with his extensive collection of game consoles and computers. Read Staff Profile .