Leaderboard

Again BIG Thank you guys!

No one asks you to. Not a single customer owes us a single bug report. But it should be known at the same time, that simply saying "it doesn't work", does not allow us to follow up much. In this case it is a bit different, the (factual) issues are known to us (as are the more non-factual complaints and opinions), but the fact remains. That said, this thread is full of hyperbole, which does not help make a case, if I may add ever so kindly. This is where factual bug reports that leave out emotions, help your cause simply better, because they add data that helps speed up the process of fixing. The more data we have, the easier we (and ED) can pinpoint the issue and adjust what needs adjusting. Reading hyperbole or absolute statements such as "is utterly useless" does not allow for much more than acknowledging your opinion, which by all means you are entitled to have and which is by all means appreciated a priori. Of course it also invites diverse or controverse opinion as well, which everyone else is allowed to have as much as yourself, including us, btw. Hence, if you put it like that, I disagree. The phoenix is anything but useless. How would I know? Because I use it myself. And if you look closely, the experience with the phoenix is as diverse as are the users on this forum, and the difference between those who make it work and those who do not, is that the former do not open threads about it being so brilliant for them. They make a post or two, about how more or less successful they were with it (online or against XY), or post a tacview here and there, but then don't linger much, because they do not face a constantly re-occurring problem for themselves, like not getting the missile to work. This is not a remark on skill btw, just on the matter of the fact that some make it work more, and some struggle with it more. And the latter do have our full understanding. It is an older missile to employ while still "amraam enough" to trick folks into thinking it should offer the same reliability and ease of use (by truly forgetting about it once fired), both from the side of the employing platform (AWG-9) as well as on its own. But this is not true. The AWG-9's TWS was the first ever, and came with its own set of issues. For example target weighting. We use the algorithm used by the AWG-9. And it has its limits. It comes to no surprise that PDSTT was a preferred employment method IRL, but in DCS players of course do not want to drop the comfort or advantage or if you will, "leveling ability" of TWS when flying against opponents like F-15s, F-16s and F-18s which come equipped with a much more modern and reliable TWS, more modern amraams, etc. Understandable to then think: But what good is the phoenix and TWS to me, if I have to fire it like a sparrow against a slammer weilding Viper??? And this is where making the phoenix work is more complicated than making an aim120 work, it involves more pre-launch decision making and more post-launch caretaking. (But if one person can make it work against Vipers (forgot who recently posted about that), so can we all, at least theoretically. And reports like that do not stand alone, just that they are more quiet, as mentioned.) This is one side that feeds into folks having issues, and many explanations in this thread and the main thread point exactly to that. The other side are of course its remaining issues as well: they add to that complexity and make it even harder and sometimes you can do everything right and it still won't work. That is true for all missiles in DCS to some degree btw. Missiles in a sim will never be perfect, heck, they are not even perfect IRL. Just recently a new post came up about the phoenix turning 180 with an overpitched shot. Guess what, if you overpitch or "manually loft" a missile that much IRL, it could potentially encounter something eerily similar. That said, in DCS this is still a bug, because it was not coded with intention to go 180 when you crassly overloft. But you know the saying, when life sometimes simulates fiction... And it does not change the fact, that even without a single bug being present anymore, you still should not overloft it. Which just goes to show: dealing with missile issues in principle is a thing of flying fighter jets. That certain bugs are more frustrating than others is also understandable: the automatic pitch up after being notched is a thorn in our eyes just as it is in yours. The general lofting logic otoh is far less off than most make it out to be. It is supposed to go high steep fast. And we tested it: a more shallow loft results in less terminal velocity. Which goes to show: not everything being "felt" or tossed around, is always substantiated. Hence: factual bug reports help more than opinions and feelings, as much as we appreciate any kind of feedback. Just that some is actionable and some isn't really, as much as we'd want it to be. Lastly, about issues not in our hands: I am not sure who you talked to at Heatblur (it wasn't me, I've seen you sent me a PM but I hadn't had the time to reply to it yet, and hopefully my reply will answer most of it here), and who you talked to at ED. But both ED and us have a firm and commonly shared understanding that we want to improve what we can, each from their side, which @NineLine pointed out aptly above. We work together and neither of us is interested in shifting blame. But we share different responsibilities, and some things fall upon us to work on, and some fall onto ED to work on, simple as that. AI, guidance, etc - that is in ED's hands. Which does not mean that we simply go "here, fix it please." We make our case concerning these issues, trying to produce actionable data that shows where one fix would help another, where things work not as they should, or need fixing etc. Likewise ED engages with us in this dialogue and common effort the same way. We help each other, out of a common interest to improve what must and can be improved. And some things are quick and easier to fix, and ED has always been very forthcoming in helping us with numerous issues that let us improve guidance, loft, fixing various bugs with the missile, from patch to patch, ever since we adjusted the overperformance of the phoenix. But other things cannot be changed over night, like having a new AI, or some parts of guidance logic, which result in some weird outcomes like the pitch up after the notch. We first need to understand what it is wrong or causing it, to be able to fix it. When we say we are working on it, we also mean that. And as soon as we understand the cause of an issue, either on our or ED's side, it will get fixed, as always. But we keep turning in circles here on our forums about issues that are known and, in the end, are still not in our hands and affect not only the phoenix in DCS, which also means: ED is not only responsible to help us, but to help numerous 3rd parties, keep a base game progressing, keeping modules maintained, etc. The phoenix is one issue out of many. Let me conclude with: we do hear you. We heard you the first time in the guided phoenix discussions and every subsequent time, too. We agree with some, but not with everything, and in both cases thank you for your feedback. You really don't need to open extra threads about these issues (especially since that is what the guided discussion thread is for), because we are fully aware of all the remaining issues and we have been committed to them from the moment we encountered them. But at the same time a lot of the complaining stems from wrongly set expectations as well, and as someone who flies the Tomcat daily, I know that it is far from unplayable, or to circle back to the phoenix: far from useless. The issues that remain anger me as much as they do you. But they pester me far less, because within the entire complexity of employing the phoenix with maximum aid by pilot and RIO to make a successful kill shot, or defensive shot, these issues are not the primary concern. And once you develop a certain discipline for the phoenix, you may find, like me, and many other, less loud voices, that these issues factor into the balance between success and failure far less, than one would think if taking the hyperbole, the boiling emotions and the frustration shared among some too literally - if you'll pardon me for saying it a bit more directly. Either way, I can assure you: we are as interested in fixing the remaining issues as you are. Even so I would caution everyone to not think that these fixes will turn the phoenix into the magical trick for all treats that some apparently would like it to be. But most importantly: hyperbole and exaggerations will not get us there. And I cannot stress this enough: the phoenix did not get nerfed. We don't nerf stuff. It is a notion as misguided as the accusations we received before that we intentionally overpowered the missile "to sell more modules." We adjusted its overperformance to be much more realistic following newly gained insights. That is something everyone should finally get to terms with. We do not care how good or bad a missile is, or what it means for PvP etc. And while we hope that you are successful with it and have fun with it, above all we care about it being accurate. PS: I am closing the thread, because we already have a guided discussion thread for the phoenix. Please keep discussing there. Opening more threads about your gripes with the phoenix will not help speed up the process at all. Factual reports will. Thank you! https://forum.dcs.world/topic/308085-dcs-f-14-development-update-aim-54-phoenix-improvements-overhaul-guided-discussion/

I'm currently working on a fix for the issues introduced with the latest DCS open beta version... I currently don't own the BS3 and the MB module thus currently no support...

it is pretty bad. i was looking forward to this patch with various long standing bugs being fixed, however so many of the base functions are so broken now that it is really not worth playing. pretty sad. RWR as a very core part of this aircraft given its SEAD/DEAD role, Cursor Zero, Mav Boresight and Ripple... while the features are technically there, most of them require a weird ass workaround for it to somewhat work (and yes i get it, its a BETA) but in this state it really isnt playable. yes it flies but thats about it.

Maybe it will be the big reveal in DCS 2023 and beyond!

Todays issues was due to a file system crash, the team had to export, recover and recreate the database, in total a 6 hour recovery. thank you for your patience.

I don't know what you -think- you fixed, but 120s are incredibly broken after the patch. Tested AI against AI and got a ~25% hit rate against Mirage 2000s, Mig-29As and SU-27s. When testing as a player against AI Mirage 2000 and Mig-29S, I managed to get the hit rate to 30% against the mirages but under 20% against the Mig-29S. Not. One. Single. Initial. Shot. Hit. Over 10 tests with player against AI. This is with a 50 mile initial setup and most engagements starting at 25-35K for both aircraft at high speed and then dropping towards the deck after defending against initial shots (First shots from both sides at 22-28 miles). This was a common engagement type pre-patch and was reliably first shot kill 50-75% of the time. The missiles are not low on energy when they get to the target. They are simply tracking poorly in terminal. Either flying a pure pursuit curve or appearing to drop track as soon as the AI does a roll while notching. This is the same experience every pilot in my group is having post patch. I setup the tests to control for other variables we were experiencing in missions and the tests proved consistent. If your goal is to have AIM-120s with about a 25% hit rate against any reasonably maneuverable target, you succeeded in admirable fashion. I am sure all the people who have extra time to use DCS over the holidays will appreciate the gift.

i did get an answer yesterday that it has been forwarded to the team. now to the usual, sit and wait patiently

Yes, sorry, my second answer was directed to grim_reaper68. In fact this bug stems from the yaw damper now (previously it was from the anti-slip) so now the only way to avoid it on take-off is to completely deactivate all rudder flight assistance, which is not good ofc. In any case, it will be fixed in the next update.

I tested the same thing with the BS3-Module. It is the same. Even with Cold start, normal aligmnent and "realistic INS" disabled. QFE ist set. The problem cannot be attributed to INS drift, Aligment errors etc. If you make your prober coldstart, alignment etc. and you just hover directly over your starting position (so that your LAT LONG Position is the same apart from the altitude). Then you lock a target. With your laser ranger you get a offset position (range and bearing) relative to your position. The flight computer is calculating the position of the locked target from your position + the offset (range and bearing). So if you now call up that datalink position a short time after (e.g. 10s). The Shkval has to slew to the same position, regardless of a eventual faulty INS position at the time you reccord that datalink position. There could only be a big error between the stored and called position if there is a position drift in that 10s. That can't make sense from a technical point of view. @BIGNEWY@NineLine

Hi, in a French mutliplayer community, many of us also pointed up that right now the DL is completely offset and useless. I walked through the detailed start up and aliglement process without success. Even a short 5 mins straight line flight results in the DL points to be offset by several kilometers. In the ME, INS is in realistic, and alignement on normal + gyrocompassing. I doubt a DL which points 10kms away from the designated point should be considered as ''correct as is''. Is there something to be known or is it a bug that require a fix ? Thanks

The liveries were updated to bring their labels into a standardized title format, and their assigned countries were correctly assigned as well. The livery you are looking for is now assigned to the USA country, and labeled "2-6 CAV, 25th Combat Aviation Brigade".

I really hope they will finish the CE first since it's so rough around the edges, and that the screenshot is only a christmas tease...

Quick update. Ironed out the major kinks in the panel base. Some few small alignment errors left. Nothing spectacular. Have to see how the panel spacing works. Good thing about panel work is that one has better control about how the spaces between the panels look like. Old skewl approach of plane texturing is just drawing the nooks n cranies, but that produces uniform spaces which dont really happen irl. UVW´s are partially screwed which is a pita to remedy.... Started riveting work. Doing this click by click to produce an uneven result. Takes time, so i work panel by panel. Fact that the ED doras panel/riveting pattern are quite off to some of my sources means i have to prepare quite a lot. Also made a flat screw brush and made some tests with it. Will do a round head screw and bigger rivet brush as the dora uses quite an array for these things... just have to identify where is what. once that map is done itll serve as mask and cavity map for the diffuse as well as base for the normal map.For the latter i will add various dings to the surfaces to make it more uneven eg. stressed skin etc.

Hi, I've played with the KA-50 III a bit, and it seems as the new Igla damage is a bit off. Please see the following track ka-50vsMI-8-1.trk In the trk provided it takes 8 iglas in the rear aspect to take out a mi-8. I am not saying that iglas with 1.2kg warhead should oneshot, (It doesn't take much time to find a yt video of igla taking out a cobra with the first attempt) but when it takes 8 to take down a heli it just seems like something is off. Additionally in one of the latest videos of Growling Sidewinder, he hits AH-64D 4 times without it taking any significant damage. (Video with time code attached below) With a minusclue lock range of igla and its near-zero damage iglas are rendered useless. Yes, I am an MP player therefore here I am writing about how weapon X should demolish everything With best regards,

This is almost offensive to the utility's author ... this is a mature and free tool, if you don't trust it then simply don't use it, but don't go around asking for its code source to be "donated".

Maybe interesting to all Viggendrivers who think their Mavericks are not working: They need a warm-up time of (I think) 3 minutes before they can be used. What I am asking myself is from power up (electrical system online), or wheels up after lift-off?

While we all wait patiently on the Phantom's release, I wanted to share this amazing video made by Youtuber 1-300 just showcases the absolute beauty and grace of the Japanese Phantoms!

And..... guess what? Yep, you're correct no kneeboard Syria map update in todays OB. What was a joke, has now turned into a total farce.

OH-58D develop pics.

If of interest it is now available from the DCS E Shop. As staccato shafts of burning light flashed by the canopy, Lieutenant Scott Rivers, call sign ‘Ford’, squeezed the release button. He felt the expected “kick in the pants” as the Hornet surged when a ton of self-guiding ordinance dropped away intent on finding its mark. Below, seconds later, there was a massive shock wave as the area where the I.R.G.C. meeting was being held, exploded into ‘Hell on earth’ lighting up the entire City. As the two Hornets disappeared into the dark Bandar Abbas night, chased by the flailing neon arms of the triple A they both new they had just changed the face of the conflict. For once things were going their way. With the Iranian IRGC command including ‘Asad’ now gone and the USS Truman relief fleet just a day away, ‘Matrix’ could taste that well deserved R&R. What could possibly go wrong? This campaign follows on from Ford and Matrix’s exploits in the Straits of Hormuz on board the USS Abraham Lincoln in the “Rise of the Persian Lion Campaign.” The campaign ethos, as before, is not to capture full reality but create an imaginative, immersive, and engaging set of missions linked together with a developing narrative. Even though the story line continues from the last campaign, “Rise of the Persian Lion II” can be fully enjoyed as a standalone. Key Features · 13 Detailed missions linked by an ongoing story line. (Mission 9 in two parts). · ‘Ford’ and his wing ‘Matrix’ are now joined with a second flight of Hornets, led by Lieutenant James Cook, ‘Chef’ and his number two Lieutenant Steve Miller, ‘Grinder’. · As before the campaign has been developed in VR so there will be no requirement to physically write down disappearing coordinates and break immersion. · Over one and a half thousand voice overs performed by voice actors. · Detailed briefs for each of the missions including PDF versions. · Kneeboards for each mission plus PDF versions. · Personalised aircraft skins. · Alternate optional campaign version included with ‘Easy Air to Air Refuel’ for those who have yet to master the art of catching the basket. BADGER633 Youtube.com/@badger633 Discord.gg/MAeMQ97 forums.eagle.ru/forum/275-badger-633

Despite changing the helmet ring angle in the special tab it doesn’t seem to adjust in game (in VR). The BS2 worked fine… Is this feature not implemented yet?

Passed on my first attempt! I think that was my only mission in this campaign without a bolter

True, though the shaped charge also needs to hit something that can be destroyed with a stream of molten metal like that, the cargo space of a Chinook might not be the greatest for that. Also from what I read, terrorists had gotten somewhat good at employing the self-destruct mechanism on the RPG-7 warheads, and making them explode right next to helicopters. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1998/infantry-rpg.htm And they do have plenty of HE warheads available too, AFAIK.

I know there is a thing about nuclear weapons in DCS. I know Ed has stated flat out, no more nucs. I think I have a compromise. What about practice bombs. I was talking in my squadron about this, and honestly having practice B61's for US aircraft would at least slightly solve this issue. Some people really want them, because the jets really can carry them. Pilots need to train with them, (real life) and the aircraft need to be tested to ensure clean separation with the weapon. As a practice B61 could be skinned to look real, and won't crash servers since it doesn't blow up, I think this might be a nice compromise solution. Practice bombs for the B61? anyone?

Just to be clear, Pilot wounding is already simulated. (At least im Warbirds, not sure for Jets). There is no blood, but your vision gets distorted and greys out and you‘re breathing heavily. It’s pretty convincing if I‘m honest. I don’t see any need to further intensify this experience with blood and gore. For the victorious adversary it doesn’t make any difference wether the Pilot was disabled with or without blood.

I do wish that Stable got more playtime. Multiplayer ends up running OB probably 3/4 of the time. Personally I can’t fathom why so many players run OB especially online where any crash or bugs would be even more painful to endure. I would choose a more stable experience over added features any day. It’s great that there are people willing to be beta testers but putting up with continual crashes and bugs would make me nuts.

fair enough if anyone else is like me and tend to keep cards for a loooong time, the gigabyte Gaming and Aorus Master cards have 4 years of warranty after registering on their website

Пульт UFC для A-10C Работаю над ufc для A-10c, подсветка кнопок и надписей на корпусе сохранена. Поэтому понафигачил на плате столько светодиодов кнопок и резисторов, что страшно смотреть. Кнопки к контроллеру подключаются посредством диодной матрицы, на обратной стороне распаиваются диоды. Разводка платы практически готова и вроде как все должно работать

Great writeup Pikey. Thank you to you and everyone else contributing to Moose and making this such a really awesome tool this is for mission designers and squadrons, wings, servers or other organizations here in the DCS universe. Thank you very much for the effort from myself and the entire 132nd Virtual Wing!

on mines, it just showed a red dot, without showing any text; that's why i reset everything!

The Huey is a Cold War era Aircraft and I hope it will stay that way. They can make a new Modern day Bell if that stuff is needed. Lol I want my Vietnam era Huey Bug fixed but not updated to new avionics. I think I would Cry you know like a BIG OLD BABY if they do that. ED call the Wambulance I think I have lost it again. lol

So I've gone and taken your second run with the updated driver, and ran another test with the track file I sent you to allow for a frame by frame comparison. Considering that our system are slightly different in terms of motherboard, ram, storage, and the fact that the track will have slight variation between runs, it's important to try and average the results and not take the values at face value. Looking at them side by side, I'd say they perform on par with one another. I believe the slightly higher FPS on the RX 7900 XTX is due to my ram/storage configuration being slightly faster than yours, especially since both our system's aren't maxing out the GPU's to 100%. There's a couple of frames where we are at the same FPS and both cards are showing the same GPU percentage. We might have to run another test where the GPU's are being maxed out, instead of being limited to our CPU's. It might also be worthwhile to come back to this test after ED's implementation of multithreading. On the RX 7900 XTX side of things, there's glitchy smoke as seen in the clips. I'm not sure if it's a driver, game setting or issue with the game that may be causing it, but I've only noticed the effect in the benchmark. I also think the RX 7900 XTX uses quite a lot more power compared to the RTX 4080. My card will pull up to 400W on 100% usage in other games, and I don't think the RTX 4080 will pull that high, so may be something to consider if you're in a region with expensive electricity. My card is also pulling a consistent 126W while writing this post, but I believe it'll be fixed with a driver update in the future. Also for VR, it's been mentioned before that the RX 7900 XTX will lose to the RTX 4080 at the moment, due to driver issues. I don't have a VR headset to test with, so I can't say at the moment how the card will perform and it'll be up to someone else to test that scenario. For my conclusion, I'd say if you're not a VR gamer then both cards perform the same and you'd be happy with either but the deciding factor on which to get will depend on price, which card are in stock and if you're willing to deal with the AMD driver problems until they're sorted.

Ich hatte Probleme Black Shark 2 auf Black Shark 3 für $9,99 upzugraden, da ich in der Vergangenheit das upgrade von BS1 zu BS2 gekauft habe. Wer das gleiche problem hat, hier eine mögliche Lösung vom Support: Hat bei mir wunderbar geklappt. Auf die Antwort vom Support hab ich nicht mal 2 Minuten gewartet

I found that the gun's laser ranging result would slowly change with time even if my helicopter is landed on the ground with wheel brakes enabled and is aiming the terrain in front of me. In the screenshot you can see the ranging result is ridiculously large and it's actually continuously increasing at a rate around 1.0/minute. (but it seems to be capped at 15.0) Another screenshot showing that the nearby vehicle being targeted. Laser ranging shouldn't be affected by INS, so I guess it's because DCS is calculating the laser ranging result between the laser point's location and helicopter's INS location instead of helicopter's actual location. BTW, I also found that the AUTO TURN TO TARGET is also affected by INS time-accumulated error so it will not be able to even roughly aim towards the target (off boresight angle could be as large as 45 degrees or even bigger).

For some of the more impatient guys: God ... someday it's all came to DCS, and I'll be there to fly USN Phantom II https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGhTuz5axs0

As we have mentioned many times before the splash damage is correct, but the ground unit damage can only be shown as alive, or burning / dead. To see actual damage you need to check the BDA or check the F10 health bars on the units to see the % of damage done. In the future we plan to have better damage models for ground units, but I have no ETA to share on this. thanks

Multithreading Development Report To date, DCS has performed most of the computational workload on a single thread (some audio components were moved to a separate thread). This was not a problem in most cases because the Graphics Processor Unit (GPU) did most of the work, and FPS was mostly limited by the performance of the GPU. As DCS evolved, GPUs have become much more powerful whilst the performance of a single CPU core remained practically unchanged. Instead, CPU manufacturers increased the number of cores rather than the clock speed of individual cores. As a consequence, DCS performance has become CPU-limited. In parallel, DCS World has become much more complex with increased reliance on CPU calculations that has exacerbated the problem. To improve efficiency of CPU resources usage, we have reworked the core of our engine. First, at the architectural level, it has been divided into two main threads: graphical and logical. This opens up new possibilities for further thread parallelization of calculations in both the logical and graphical parts of the engine independently. Second, to meet the requirements of scalable multithreading, and the needs of modern graphics APIs, the graphical engine part has been significantly enhanced. In addition, many subsystems have been updated, or written from scratch. Internal testing has begun, and we plan to release the updated DCS graphic engine (EDGE) next year. The initial release of Multithreading support will contain a fully reworked engine including preparation of the graphical frame and the separation of the graphical and logical parts onto two independent threads. It should also be noted that the most significant performance improvements will be regarding larger missions. This will be a welcomed change, especially in multiplayer where unit numbers are typically far higher. VR performance will also see a significant performance improvement in large missions. Stay tuned for upcoming releases. Source: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/newsletters/2b4826e39c84423db49b8789fe2409f3/

You can try to use the setting below. See Screenshot in the thread. It works for me. In addition: You have to go to options special/ultraleap and VR tab manually after each DCS restart to reapply the behavior (it's a bug/workaround).

No, everything in the cockpit is self illuminated and there is no shadow, like the cockpit is too bright and I see everything in the cockpit even stuff that should in the darkness, it's so bright that light leaks in the cockpit, just like cockpit when there is no light, for my screen gamma it's perfectly fine and I have no issue on any other cockpits or any other games (HDR too). Also the quality of the textures are really bad compared to before and looks very flat, like a mat plastic... The early cockpit textures where better to my opinion. For info my screen is the AW3423DW running at 2.4 gamma in calibrated mode and running at 10bits, I use the recommended gamma settings from ED themself.

Can we open up the panels in game and look at the internal compartments?

A generic map with a combination of islands at different distances (to be helo friendly, right through to fast movers), a large main land or two, different environments, and other factors that allow for multiple type scenario's is something I would be willing to buy, but I'm not sure how many others in the community would, and whether it would be a viable thing to consider. As to whether ED would allow one to be built by a 3rd party dev - only they could answer.

The downside is that such a display "looks like azz". The upside is that one button press could make the display look AMAZING. Another button could make a super-informative display with ALL the situational awareness you'd ever want. Another could give you a tuned set of displays appropriate to specific moments during a mission profile. Best of all, it probably has a LOT of pilot-chosen display options to choose from. Nothing stopping anyone from making the entire dash look like an early retro EF2000... DID people, call yer office!

The OP is right, the radar, in A/A mode, should be able to process incoming signals passively in SIL. SIL does not inhibit processing, only transmission. A jamming signal is an incoming signal and thus should be able to be processed with the A/A radar in SIL. AOTs should continue to be received and processed in SIL, as long as they still transmit a jamming signal. @BIGNEWYPM sent.

someone should make a pilot head mod with a cig in their mouth. oxygen off of course.

Вы говорите о других подходах к проблеме. С такой логикой можно вообще забить на мануал и выпускать без него. Но если принимать во внимание мод как ПРОДУКТ, то законченный мануал - одно из непременных требований практически к любому продукту. Это я смогу найти, вычитать и главное понять РЛЭ, ТБП и прочие продукты из сторонних источников. Но рядовой приобретатель даже если найдёт документы, вряд ли станет их вычитывать и тем более, понимать суть написанного в нём в силу специфики описания. В текущем же виде мануала пользователь максимум может запуститься, но не оторвать колёса от площадки, ибо техника пилотирования никак не прописана. В результате люди тупо бороздят по ютубам в поисках обучающих видео, о чём свидетельствуют комментарии. К Ми-8 был отличный мануал, но к Ми-24 он явно урезан до минимума, описаны лишь процедуры включения систем и весьма поверхностно применение отдельных видов вооружения. И по поводу "представителей общества потребления" - это едва ли не основная доля покупателей, отсекая её, ЕД и сторонние разработчики лишаются львиной доли доходов, а мы - новых модов и развития старых. И задача в том числе и мануала - перетащить как раз этого условного потребителя в стан понимающих вирпилов. Суть как раз в том, чтобы дав толчок, заинтересовать потребителя в более глубоком изучении техники, в чтении тех же оригинальных источников. Как раз отговорки вида "да нафига это нужно" приведут к обратному эффекту - отвращению "неиграбельного" в силу слабого описания продукта.

I agree with you. Let’s make all our Frogfoot T wishes known before they start re doing it. Would be cool if anything is added, I know it’s free so doesn’t make sense a paid option like BS3, but if it could employ laser KAB-500 why not?