All Activity

Just checked back: only crash log from that day was corrupted

Don't get me wrong I keep coming back to campaigns. I don't play multiplayer, and single missions don't satisfy that "I am a real combat pilot" feeling. But here are some of my criticisms-with some solutions that I think are feasible. I know there are a bunch of solutions that really boil down to "put more time and energy into the game" but sheeeesh I have spent more time learning this game than I spent with my kids (who are all in jail and addicted to various drugs due to my parental negligence-kidding they're pretty badass) 1. I don't know what the other pilots/FAC/AWAC are saying-I have figured out the F-18 generally, but when I drop into a campaign, and the FAC, AWACs are telling me stuff I don't get it- I LOVE the succinctness and specificity of military parlance-but many times (I'm talking to you Arctic Thunder) I don't understand what I am being tasked to do-esp if I have to fly off pre-planned flightplan-SOLUTION-put a dumb downed Text message next to the message texts with simple language; 2. I spend A LOT of time getting to the interesting part of the mission, screw it up then die. Then have to reload and (at minimum) watch the whole boring part at 3 x speed -which seems to take longer than just manually flying it. I absolutely want that "boring" part-it adds so much to the game and is fun ONCE (maybe twice) but I'm that terrible of a pilot and it can take 5-6 times to complete. Solution-Quick Save-Once per mission you should be able to do a Quick Save-then after failing the mission the game should give you an option to start at that point. 3. I LOVE DCS-and I love campaigns and will always buy and play them-but the fun is mitigated sometimes by the above.

This is why I favore historic modules. The latests MiG or Su might get you arrested but if something's been retired for decades This is the first time I saw anyone comment on the laws in Romania. Is there anyone else flying an upgraded MIG-21 we might be able to get doccuments for? Also what is known about hte MiG-21-93? Frankly I'd rather see more AI assets

Which is why I said "for everyone's general fund of knowledge", the intent being to give anyone not familiar with with topic an understanding of the significance of the manual and how an aviator's life revolves around it starting from Day 1 of training.

Assuming that means ED is doing the rafale and not a 3rd party? Would love to see razbam come back and tackle the rafale with their previous Dassault, French ADA connections, and their knowledge in the delta wing. The M2000 is the best flying aircraft to this day in DCS in my opinion.

I would have made the starting date summer 1943- just so WWII doesn't get ignored. Having said that I think the ED should have focused on building ecosystems around the modules. As I ahve said the past an eco system would be a map, at least two contemporary flyable modules, and the proper assets. I'm not giving up hope for a resolution with Razbam but I would like to see someone line up the Floggers, Fitters, and Fencer and cold war Flanker. We need the ability to build strike packages for both sides on as many maps as possible. With the MiG-29 we have a nice lineup for the Iran-Iraq war. The issue comes down to the documentation. I think an early model Flanker B is possible. in fact I think ED has state they have plans to do that. As for the Su-30, I don't know if there is enough information to do an early model Su-30 variant of some sort. If we can I'd like some multi-role variant with a good AI WSO. If they felt they had enough information for an official Su-30 and a kick starter I'd pre-order a copy right now.

Oh, that must be what's going on with the YAK-52 then.

Oh stop Rudel, and just go back to your Jazboom Mugage 2001D

Any updates?

same...

Well, three out of four ain't bad these days for them young developer folk. Seriously, is there really a "situation"? Seems a little hyperbolic right now. There certainly is no reason to think that yet. Well, at least we hope not

but the manufacturers license does not allow, for example, a truck to be anything less than brand new, that’s why you can’t damage it at all no matter how serious the accident.

A pattern I've noticed on my end has been that the 109 and Anton seem to be opposite what they should be in terms of robustness. I can sink a lot of ammo into a 109, pop his radiators, and he will still somehow climb away from me with damage that would have seized the engine on a player. The Anton, which should be capable of taking a lot of hits (and indeed does when I'm flying as a player), always drops the left landing gear after getting hit with a burst of .50 and the pilot bails immediately.

Hello, after discussing with some people on a server's discord, I think this might be related to an experience I had about two weeks ago. You're gonna have to bear with me as I may struggle to find the log, but I have a pretty strong recollection of the events leading up to it. If I find the log I'll post it [Bug Encounter] Working in the SP mission editor on a scenario, it is this one where a ground assault plays out and you're there assisting in your Mi-24. (Important note, while testing it during this session, i had not loaded up the Mi-24P, or any other module, it was purely a spectator session afaik) Inside the mission you have 12 red vehicles, 15 red artillary pieces, 12 blue bunkers, 8 100mm KS-19 flak cannons, and another 4 IFVs all expend their entire magazines by the end of the test run (they fire continuously for 20 minutes) After loading the scenario and testing it about a dozen times, I noticed the 125mm cannons on the T-72s doing no damage to bunkers, despite having the correct shells loaded. I jumped in to control it myself and indeed no damage had been done. after closing the mission my game proceeded to crash I think. once again, I'll have to check and see if I still have the log, but knowing how online servers are sorta operated on the mission side, I think it has something to do with the most likely either the quantity of projectiles or time elapses since session starts. From discussions once again it seems to affect only the machine hosting the server, and as soon as a player takes control of the vehicle, the object now being simulated on the local machine begins to register damage to the target again

I feel like 50% of the time, AWACS isn't anywhere near as good as it is in that video. When you need it most, it's not there. -Ryan

Does anyone know of a way I can get the wishield cleaned? Realy has anyone done a mod to the OV-10 to get rid of all the dirt spots on the canopy?

They should make the description a bit more accurate about what it does and doesn't do. Other than that, how was the rest of the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

It's a shame about this whole situation. Honestly, the only way this unfortunate misunderstanding could be cleared up is if Aerges shared some pics of the Mirage F1M.

OK. So it is supposed to be hidden? No way to unhide it other than to lase? -Ryan

Radar could be interesting the F3R version of the AESA doesn’t add any additional modes from the F3, those are added in F4. So if you can do an F3 you could do a F3R https://www.key.aero/forum/modern-military-aviation/129695-f-35-news-multimedia-discussion-thread-2?p=3021418&page=137

How 'good' is this mod with respect to the VSN F-4? Haven't really heard too much about what it's like but I'd love to give it a try at some point, just wanted to know what everyone else's experience is?

Zuyev's account seems to indicate they did like the name Fulcrum and used it sometimes. Same as with Su-27, that one also got a cool name. "Bear" for the Tu-95 also quickly got traction once the crews found out about it.

Why are you posting this here? Shouldn't you post it under the relevant module? Cheers!

They did is because westerns would get confused by 9.12A