Leaderboard

In the Ru part of the forum there are some hints about changes that are being considered, Heatblur Forrestal with DCS deck crew is a possibility. Plans to rework almost all effects. (Question about SC module steam effect) Kuznetsov deck crew is not yet in plans. All answers by Chizh (ED team) On 10/4/2024 at 11:01 AM, MicroShket said: 1. Are there any plans to improve the effects of steam bleed from catapults? Yes, we have plans to rework almost all effects. But it is not a quick matter. On 10/4/2024 at 11:01 AM, MicroShket said: 2.Have Heatblur discussed with Eagle Dynamics the addition of Forrestal-class aircraft carriers to the Supercarrier module? Heatblur had such plans back in 2021, and this would allow the introduction of deck crew on Forrestal. Last summer, they also confirmed their intention to contact Eagle Dynamics on this issue. But have any steps been taken?.. I think it will be possible when we finish the development of deck personnel. There are a lot of rakes there. On 10/4/2024 at 3:52 PM, Nick220584 said: Is there a deck crew planned for Kuzya? At least static. Not yet

@NineLine Edit: I am aware of the meaning of stable. If I am talking about stable, I mean as bug free as possible with the current systems (Stable VERsion of DCS World), and the systems are well usable. But at the same time, ED is only implementing stable changes to the stable version, without rising the bug counter. Stable doesn't mean a module has to be out of the EA phase! If ED is adding bugs to a module, because they changed something and want to test it, and they are thinking, because the F16 isn't out of EA, and they can "test" the new stuff and fill the F16 module with bugs within the stable version of DCS World, destroying working systems, then we have a big problem. Much bigger, as I ever thought! Thank you for your support and your answer. I have to say, personally, I can't see that the F16 seems to be "the" Product for ED right now. If so, why are so many issues finding their way to the F16 module of DCS World? And why does it need several months (more than 6) to fix those issues for such an important module? There are so many bugs in this module you don't even need to find them. They are jumping you right into your face as soon you try to use the F16 like the manual shows (the small part who is correct). And as you have said, one system is related to another on. So why is ED putting bugs into the stable version, jumping into my face during a 30 minutes test? That's out of my mind. It looks to me like there is no good testing anymore for this essential module. I only have to start a basic Flight from a Quick Mission and all the Bugs saying "Hello" to me. There is no searching. It's only the use of a standard flight check necessary. Take a mix of weapons and sensors, and there they are. Bugs over bugs, since 2024! If ED thinks, they are not game breaking, I fear ED is not aware how bad the F16 feels after such a long time in early excess. All those issues were not there at the end of 2023! ED put issues into the stable version, all of them I can find in a 2-hour testing. Those bugs should have never found its way to the stable version. Never ever! The stable version should behave stable, right? But for me, the F16 is light-years away from the stable version, she was in at the end of 2023. Again, we are not talking about systems never worked good or "stable" before, we are talking about an F16 who worked pretty well with all available systems at the end of 2023. Some small issues, but you could use all the weapon systems and sensors without big problems. Now the basic systems, working before, are full of issues and the issues growing up. With every Patch we get more issues, not less, more! TWS, RWS, FCR, Navi, GPS, INS, Weapons, Tracking, Datalink, all those and many more systems worked pretty well. No big issues, but then there was the beginning of 2024, and the horror starts. This important module became a mess of "workarounds" for more than 6 months. Again, workarounds for things who worked well before the beginning of 2024. So, I have to ask again why does ED put changes into a stable version, who are not stable one can see in a maximum of a 2-hour testing? If I want to use the F16 at a minimum I could at the end of 2023, that is impossible. But why? Why did ED that? Why is ED making a good working module to a mess of issues, if this is the stable version for DCS World? If ED wants to test something, use the Beta. And PLEASE, test the things and if you find those obvious issues, don't put them to the stable version. If a module and the systems were "more" stable months before, then ED has a big problem with the quality of service team. I don't know what's the problem really is, but I have eyeballs and I can see what's not working anymore and there is nothing that seems to fix it. And one is for sure, if a module becomes more and more worse, there must be something wrong, especially in a stable version! @NineLine And here is the problem. ED can't even say when and if they can fix the main issue. And that ED really thinks there is no big problem to fill the F16 module with so many bugs, isn't a good sign in my eyes. It's really hard to find a way to believe in ED after this year, especially if the F16 is such an important module for ED, and we have to live such a long time with this many new issues. To be highlighting it, with this patch we've got 2 new TWS Bugs I could find in less than 5 Minutes! How can it be possible, those 2 find its way to the stable version of DCS World? That's exactly the reason we are running in such an endless row of issues following each other. So, I have to ask what exactly was the "benefit" of these 2 new bugs? What other issues of what important systems were fixed, so it was necessary to put these 2 new bugs into the stable version of DCS World? I think that's an important question, because there must be reason to fill the module with bugs, one can find without a master in Game Testing within 5 minutes. ED tells us, we have to wait such a long time for new Patches for the stable version of DCS World, because to prevent us from getting unnecessary bugs. How ED want to make that possible? I can't see that that ever happened this year. Not for the so important F16 module, that's for sure! If those bugs were necessary for the stable version of DCS World, tell us why? Again. Please, stop filling the F16 with issues without any benefit for the customer! If ED wants to test the module, test in with the Beta Version of this game, NOT in the stable version!

Hi, when can we expect the F16 to work as well as it did at the beginning of this year? The FCR and the cooperating modules are in a terrible state. Especially the functions concerning the TWS. There are so many issues, and, as if that's not enough, with every new patch we get more of them, mostly related to each other. So guess what, 2 new TWS bugs were added with this patch. Many of the problems are known for several months and have not been fixed even after 3 major updates. Look at the F16 FCR, especially the TWS section. It's a mess right now. The sad thing is, it has worked pretty well in the past! 1000 times better than now. Instead, fixing all those stone old bugs, you add the new ground radar shadows, but you can't fix the sticking to the cross bug for the ground radar. That all wouldn't be a problem, if the F16 systems never worked better in the past, but most, if not all, did! In the past, the F16 Radar and all the modules were working much better than now! Are you not aware in what bad state the F16 Module is right now? All that was starting with the first big patch this year, and since then it gets worse and worse. One fix, two new issues. Two fixes, four new issues. The Bug-Section is full of "stone old" Bugs, reported but not fixed. I suggest instead of constantly implementing new "features" for the F16, or new modules, you should start to fix all the game breaking bugs at first. Am I right? It's no problem, if the progress is "not fast", but it's a huge problem, if the progress seems to be that we will get more and more bugs for systems who worked very well before. Some known F16 bugs: 1. F16 Switching modes, Dogfight/ missile resets the radar setting 2. TMS up command starts a radar slew from left azimuth locking the first target that comes into its sight (ACM mode) 3. radar in "NO RAD" with JHMCS still locks targets ( ACM mode) 4. TWS: Cancelling a Cursor/Bugged Target doesn't return Azimuth Scan Limits to a normal TWS scan 5. AG Radar Image sticking to Crosshairs (it's marked as fixed with this patch, but it isn't) 6. Unable to use Spotlight in TWS 7. Air Boresight Issues 8. F-16 Radar takes too long to create track targets with FCR in TWS 9. IFF MASTER Selector behaviour 10. Difficulty upgrading Track Targets to System Targets ......... And there are many, many more. If it takes me 5 Minutes of testing to find 2 new bugs (TWS section) coming with this patch, jumping right into my face, I can say for sure, nobody ever tested it. I found 2 new bugs in less than 5 minutes. So now, after this patch, we not only can't have a stable MFD setting with RWS or TWS, we now can't switch back from TWS to RWS with the long TMS right press anymore. And, as if this wasn't enough "fun", we can't spotlight in TWS anymore. A small hint, both things worked pretty well till this patch. At the end, some small fixes and 2 new bugs. Not good. The F16 is no fun right now. I need for most of the systems workarounds, more than ever before. The "funny" part is, there were no new systems implemented. Those systems are old, but getting filled with new bugs every new patch. So I have to ask: "What's going on?" Why you (ED) add so many bugs to working systems without any reason? The 2 new bugs are made because of what? The F16 systems are old. They worked well. And now, instead of fixing the old bugs, you add more new issues. Stop it, please. Please fix the bugs and stop to implement new ones! Thank you for reading.

Military Asset Pack Sweden 1.1.0 released! Changelog Version 1.1.0 Added Ag 90 case ejection Added Archer case ejection Added Archer user UK Added BvS 10 UK two tone livery Added BvS 10 case ejection Added BvS 10 desert livery Added CV 9050 camouflage livery Added Grkpbv 90 track animations Added Ikv 91 LT Added JAS 39C Gripen Fighter Added Lvkv 9040B camouflage livery Added Lvkv 9040B case ejection Added Lvkv 9040B track animations Added RWS 12.7 mm MG to RBS 98 Added Sisu GTP APC Added Strf 9040B camouflage livery Added Strf 9040B case ejection Added Strf 9040B track animations Added Strf 9040C camouflage livery Added Strf 9040C case ejection Added Strv 103 camouflage livery Added Strv 122 case ejection Added Strv 123 MBT Added Strv 2000 case ejection Added Strv 2000 track animations Changed Archer collision and damage model Changed Archer textures Changed Artillerisystem 08 name to Archer Changed Bv 410 name to BvS 10 Changed BvS 10 3D model and textures Changed BvS 10 collision and damage model Changed Grkpbv 90 collision and damage model Changed Grkpbv 90 textures Changed Grkpbv 90 weight and acceleration Changed LvS 103 3D model and textures Changed LvS 103 collision and damage model Changed Lvkv 9040B collision and damage model Changed RBS 15KA LBASM from require UndE 23 STR to AWACS instead Changed RBS 15KA textures Changed RBS 98 3D model and textures Changed Strf 9040B collision and damage model Changed Strf 9040B weight and acceleration Changed Strf 9040C collision and damage model Changed Strf 9040C weight and acceleration Changed Strv 103 textures Changed Strv 122 3D model and textures Changed Strv 122 collision and damage model Changed Strv 2000 collision and damage model Changed Strv 2000 textures Changed UndE 23 3D model and textures Fixed RBS 15KA antiship missiles to correct number of channels Fixed RBS 70 missile characteristics Fixed RBS 90 missile characteristics Fixed RBS 98 IRIS-T SLS missile characteristics Fixed all assets sensor issue due to DCS update Fixed all missiles seeker head generation configuration Removed Bv 410 / RBS 70 Removed Bv 410 / RBS 90 Removed RBS 70/90 Bolide redundant configuration files Distribution model This Military Asset Pack is available in the following versions: The standard full download. Remove old asset pack version and unzip this in your Saved Games mods\tech folder. The incremental download which updates your full download and contains only the changed files. You apply it by overwriting your current installation. Special thanks A big thanks goes out to @daskjdhjah for yet another tremendous testing effort! Also a big thank you to the Gripen mod team for allowing me to add an AI version to this pack I also want to thank @HE5405 for making the Sisu GTP mesh!

First release of my CH-47F Pilot profile. Please note you MUST have Helios version 1.6.6110.0005 minimum for all functionality. Enjoy! Go here to download---> https://github.com/HeliosProfiles/DCS-CH-47F-Profile-by-MadKreator37/releases/latest User Files-->https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3340914/

Сноси DCS, чтоб не мешал и наслаждайся опентреком.

Issues regularly make it past testing and into release builds. Versions get merged incorrectly. Builds are last minute. Fixable. The parts that work are stable and those that don't aren't. Is this what I'm reading? Is the MP Scoreboard no longer functioning a EA addon module-related feature? When an update makes south-bound launched missiles loft downward instead of lofting upward, that's not really a "complex modern fighter" problem, is it? With a dedicated team on it, I'm sure the pod will be well researched, correctly modelled and not have any inaccuracy persist beyond a reasonable time frame.

Thank you for raising the issue. The programmers already know about this and are working on solving the problem, but we don't know the deadline for fixing it yet.

Everything has been said... so what to do ? ED is a business and like any business needs to sell these products for a living. If the consumer is not happy for x reasons, no problem, he no longer spends his money. This is the only pressure lever. It's that simple. everyone makes their own choices, for me no more purchases planned Then depending on the events to come, i will see

Shortly after release, there was some criticism about this issue that got shot down pretty quickly. They firmly stated that there would be no adjustments or changes to it. It's understandable they'd take pride in going the extra mile to model stick force responses, so they were probably a bit offended. We've seen a few comments since from the team claiming that SMEs and internal testers feel the stick behavior is accurate, but there's been no direct support or evidence from those individuals. In fact, we've had the opposite from a few Phantom pilots who've noticed the problem and spoken up about it. They have not yet cleanly demonstrated that the understand the issue. We've tried YT videos showing the motion, detailed graphs, and data logs that compare force-feedback (FFB) to non-FFB sticks, but it seems to keep being met with deflection to other systems or factors such as trim duration. However, the trim rate isn't the issue. It's modeled correctly. It’s been explained that this isn’t a stick modeling issue, but rather a virtual pilot issue. The threaded-rod trim actuator creates a smooth, linear change in stick force and doesn’t interact with the bellows or anything else in a way that would cause bouncing. The stick shakes because the reaction force from the pilot’s arm isn’t being modeled accurately enough for users without a force-feedback stick. This results in unnatural oscillations that the pilot can’t easily correct for. There’s no rate dampening, transient dampening, or anticipatory control algorithms in place to produce a flight control result that is similar to FFB. The unspoken reality in contention here is that stick force modeling is only one part of a two part problem, and that the 2nd part is missing. That is sometimes the unfortunate risk of trying to go the extra mile in uncharted territory. It doesn't always produce a better result and requires more work.

What you're doing there is begging the question. You're assuming a priori that IC stops cheating, and using that as an argument that it needs to be there, when the actual question was “does it?” Sure it does. Disabling it allows for the use of any number of QoL improvements and advanced mods to make the game much much better, server-side as well as client-side (but only the client side really matters). Spotting dots are a good example. They were pretty horrid in their implementation, and there were mods to make them make some semblance of sense. But then that mod was disabled and the dots went back to being horrid again to the point where ED had to try to improve them by themselves. All of them. Well… all of them that don't have centrally controlled managed hosting. This may come as a shock to you, but just because you would do a thing — and have admitted as much — doesn't mean that everyone else will.

WW2 has not been shelved; it's just on pause, albeit it might be a long one... The birds are here and they are very good looking, the feeling of flight feels very nice to me. I will therefore never give it up, I rather hold accountable ED for pretending to work on WW2 assets and planes, for not following up on customers feedback and diligently fixing bugs. The reality however is I do not know, WW2 birds might be on sale (discounted) more often than not because ED has perhaps given up on the WW2 project altogether? It is not the first time that customers have to voice their concerns for ED to reconsider things, the problem is that we do not voice it together as a group and have no way to talk the matter with ED to find solutions (e.g. pay more). Most of us got in the warbirds taking advantage of the many sales ED offered, while it felt nice to increase our virtual hangar size it was a trap in the end that got us interested on an unfinished product. As you say, it will probably never be finished if ED runs out of business. I have always supported ED the best way I could, buying old products through sales, even if I had little interest in some of them, did it for the big picture, so part of that investment goes in to the warbirds and WW2 asset pack. Ultimately we are all interested in seeing ED grow as a company. At least I am. The problem I have right now is not the waiting, is seeing ED play with us, doing every possible effort to ‘shushhh’ any discontent by a very heavy moderation, even like that it is very hard not to feel it or witness it in the different subforums. Just recently and to take an example, the artificial horizon has been broken in all warbirds for over a decade, Nineline finally showed up, deleted our messages, locked the topic, apologized for the delay (over a decade of delay!) and moved the topic from investigating to reported as high priority (over a decade later)... There are other reasons as to why I did not purchase the KOLA map, mainly related to feedback from the South Atlantic Map and for fear to anything related to Razban, even if it is an ORBX product, the head of the project apparently is also head of the South Atlantic map project. Then it also came to quality, take away the complexity of our modules and the landscape surrounding our sim sessions is lacking in quality, but there again, is it possible elsewhere to have all this complexity running smoothly like we do since MT? Kudos to ED for the performance improvements. It is never easy to have the big picture, the maps are bigger and bigger and DCS engine needs to cope with the new challenges we customers throw at it, boundaries have been pushed hard since I have discovered DCS and I am confident many more will be pushed 2024 and beyond! DCS will always be an unbelievable challenge, if you have used and studied your modules however unfinished they are you can only agree. The only point I am trying to make is that in an ideal world, all the products ED decides to sell should be supported and move forward, If customers take the time to test and report, the ED staff should be there to take action, products should be thoroughly tested before release and as close to finish as possible. This is what Heatblur is trying to do, it’s not perfect, but we can feel it through their released products. ED has other sources of revenue, I just learned about MCS (Military Combat Simulation), maybe DCS is becoming less and less important to ED in terms of revenue, after all government agencies have far more revenue than private individual customers. Again, hard to assess the big picture. What is sure is that ED should rather talk about the challenges they are facing, faithfully explain the direction they are working on even if that means recognizing that the warbirds and the WW2 project has been moved off the shelves. To me that would mean to remove it from the store or make it clear up front to future customers that it might take a very long time before the product is considered as released/playable, the meaning of 'finished' with ED products being hard to define, I guess as far away and advanced as possible, so every user can feel that the product is close to completion and that the list of Bug Reports have considerably reduced. Considering that ED could fail in this big project, I find it ever more important that customers voice in an organized fashion their concerns but, at the same time continue to support ED achieving the different goals, trying to keep the big picture in mind as long as we can feel ED support on a daily basis, as this is the only way we have to feel the business is growing healthy and strong, respectfully to all parties even if that means we have to confiscate their barbecue for a couple of months. With regards to VR, I have not made the step yet, mainly because I use a tablet where I can read my flight planning and documentation. I am not a specialist of VR and I am sure there are solutions to that, like switching off one eye on the headset. That being said one does not have to be an expert to feel the gear we use is already struggling to run with the graphics quality mix that satisfy us to know if VR could be an option without an upgrade. While we wait for kneeboards in game to be more advanced (ability to write on it like on the canopy with the F4E), I will continue using my old TRACK IR. Respectfully, TIP: Take a screenshot of your messages before they are deleted

Wrapping up my passion project for the v57th. These were made for this group. They operate 36th vFS, 8th vFS and 16th vWPS.

Hello Nghitran, I don't see a problem with upgrading the missile as long as it's part of the load out of the Molniya/Tarantul ship. I will make a note of it. Yes, we may have to adjust the speed of the missile probably. Hey RWC, happy to hear you worked it out. I try to keep the names as close as possible because it brings on conflicts. That's another issue I see. Wrong name spelling is another reason why mods don't appear in the game as well. --- You know RWC there's a livery # or name we can use to remove certain textures on a mod which would be much easier than creating two separate mods. That way I can just create two Lua files vice two shape files. I need to find it though but I know it's possible. Honestly, I didn't think there would be much interest in the Suspect/Rogue ship. Happy to hear you all play with it. I will create a new one but much smaller. I have the perfect vessel in mind.

And you were all in favour of it when it was working for you. So let's just say that your opinion on the matter is… tainted. You, of all people, are not in a position to complain that other players are “cheating” by setting their game up a specific way. Yes they are. They provide excellent extensions to fill in some pretty egregious gaps in both content and functionality. In fact, some are pretty much obligatory to get the full experience — stuff like SRS, LotATC, Tacview, SLMod. And that's on top of those that fix very nonsensical and outright anti-realisitc design decisions, like that spotting mod, the clear canopy mod, the good old F5 RWR mod, the gun dispersal mod, and any myriad of terrain mods. The list goes on. Unofficial mods are not just a great idea — they're a key component in what makes DCS great. Up until the point where ED make it less great by arbitrarily and pointlessly restricting them because some clueless people get a bee in their bonnet about some perceived irrelevant advantage this might conceivably create according to this prophetic dream they had but refused to back up with any kind of evidence. The whingebags ruin the game for everyone, to a massively larger degree than cheaters ever can because, ultimately, such a tiny set of people can even be affected by cheats to begin with, and the number of cheaters that exist that could affect this tiny set of people is itself vanishingly small. And, let's just reiterate the point above, ironically, it's occasionally the whingebags who are the ones who actually cheat… at least according to their own definitions. Not happy with just ruining the game for some with their own abuses, they want to make sure ED ruins it for everyone for no remotely sane reason whatsoever.

Wow, why are you here if you hate DCS so much?

Better? Yeah, better. But I think it's not the level everyone expected. Definitely not the level of Orbx(don't know if they even have anything to do with this map except on paper). Maybe in time it will become something good, but for now it's average in my opinion, just like Afghanistan. It's definitely not bad, it's just that for me Sinai seems more detailed and doesn't seem like a field of pixels but quite reflective of the actual landscape.

As long as this issue isn´t fixed, DCS is dead for me too. Sad for all the time and money I´ve put into this project. I´m happy to have some alternatives. In IL2 for example spotting feels MUCH more realistic, even before the last DCS patch. And it has lots of other advantages in visual quality.. but that´s another topic And i always wanted to give MSFS a shot, maybe now its the time. so long guys.. maybe see you later maybe not

You should just feel the resistance to displacement in the stick, without any "shocks". We are investigating it and will try to find a solution ASAP, as there seems to be really an issue with FFB.

Thank god it not only me, really taut it was my setup.... Iv really stops me playing with Anton as in VR is super annoying..... I'm a Fw190 A & D fan but really feel like were kinda left behind with updates and fixes.. I totally get updates are revenue driven... but i keep hoping to see some WW2 love..

На мониторах улучшение есть это факт, но в vr все наоборот, для этого и был сделан ползунок отключения этих контактов, который после последнего обновления перестал работать- возможность выбора должна присутствовать я считаю

I think he means for M3 to open-source the existing module, which is not a reasonable request, as much as I'd like it updated.

Do you mean you refuse to fix it? I don't quite understand why you have this position. When you hot start the plane in the air, the Autopilot works absolutely normally and correctly, but during a cold start on the ground, the Autopilot refuses to work... Based on this, it is not entirely clear - Why don't you want to fix this so that we can normally use the new feature?

Dumbest take today. You might wanna drop the tinfoil hat.

Please sort the dots I know you are working on it, my feedback is I want the original dots back. Not being able to turn them off the new ones is really annoying and they completely break immersion and are are unrealistic to say the least. Reverb G2

Landing at Bodø Defending AAA after striking a SAM Site near Severomorsk-1 Rockeyes!

This is probably getting added as the reason for not having them was that they didn't exist in DCS when we did the loadouts.

Было бы здорово, если б можно было сохранить статус вылета , чтоб позже загрузиться и продолжить. + рандомную погоду и облачность.

I'd also like to see the addition of a rescue hoist, and AI that is smart enough to use it

Is this already spam or not yet?

Can confirm all work for me as well & I have > 500 other mods loaded as well! @Mapi Do you mean the cargo mod Hawkeye60 kindly shared to transport the Humvees's? I had a problem with that from the start, but thought it maybe a conflict with the many other mods I use, so unloaded & all worked fine again

Those "high res" fields are still there I think in the final product (in the sim) but the problem is that 95% of the remaining area is genuinely horrible and totally unacceptable. Not to mention those beautiful "Norwegian-looking" fields have no place in Russia. If you check goggle maps it's not even remotely like that. So both a combination of wrong high res textures and totally appalling low res textures in other areas. The bright green colours are also so nothing like real life. Orbx, please redo the whole map. This is very poor for a company of your caliber.

Nope, I made them to co-exist, since this version is only an AI version. The reason for this was so that I could implement the weapons for AI, which is much easier than for a player-controlled aircraft.

Thanks @Qcumber @Phantom711 - legends! I disabled OXRTK via the check mark, didn't load Oculus Tray Tool and enabled QFR via the tick box in DCS VR settings and I'm back to 50 fps!

I'll add the High Drags

So looking at this one... ... it almost feels like genuine scam compared to what you posted @Boosterdog, and thank you for your effort.

I'm not necessarily arguing for disabling IC, just pointing out that one of the games biggest servers had it off for 5 months. The world didn't end. And why would disabling IC lead to more cheating, when we've already established that the IC doesn't seem to stop cheating? It just stops some forms of cheats but not others. Lots of games let you decide whether anticheat is enabled, that's not very unusual. This is not a ranked MP game or something, with any kind of ingame currency or progression to hack your way through. There are already people exploiting known bugs and mechanical quirks to their advantage. Like zooming in/out in track-IR to make the current dots pop much bigger. You won't stop that behavior, and you probably shouldn't base the entire MP experience around those people. At least imo.

A real-life pilot has a much better grasp on what the aircraft is doing (and often about to do), because they can 'feel' the aircraft and thus react (proactively) a lot quicker than us armchair pilots - since we have to wait until we 'see' the effect. But even we can learn to anticipate certain behaviours given enough virtual flight hours and muscle memory

Похоже драйвер камеры слетел? И надо заново поставить, потому что опентрек просто камеру не видит?

Откатить чего? У тебя оупентрек на видит камер в системе, а виноват ДКС? Хотя-бы разъём камеры переткни сначала, потом, если не поможет, а другие её видят, посмотри, что мешает приложухе видеть её. И если откатывать, то OpenTrack, а не DCS, проблема у тебя вообще никак со вторым не связана.

Another big improvement to the map in the latest patch. Kudos!

I don't understand anyone who is praising this map and the new summer textures. They are easily as bad as they were. The whole map as it stands, with the exception of some NATO airbases and whatever towns are currently modelled, is beyond poor. The textures are appalling. It's literally unflyable at low level because it's so bad. It's not even 10% as good as the old default Caucuses map. To say this has been a huge disappointment is a colossal understatement. I was expecting a lot more given the reputation Orbx has in MSFS. I'm beginning to loose hope it will ever actually be enjoyable. Hopefully someone in the community can come in with a texture mod to fix it somewhat.

I'm not a 1k forum poster like some here. I just started posting about this issue a week ago as I play in VR and do not have a Pimax headset. The new "Improved" Spotting Dots has ruined the sim for me as I can't stand how they look. The broken OPTIONS > GAME PLAY ability to turn off these spotting dots is the biggest disappointment and the lack of acknowledgement the feature is broken by ED, especially the insulting post by @BIGNEWY that we should "read the patch notes again" signals to me that ED has no interest in listening to their customers and are one of those companies that sees them as complaining idiots. They have definitely lost sales from me as I already own most maps and most of the US aircraft and was planning on the Chinook, F-15E and Kola map. These are no longer planned purchases. I will invest my time and future in other currently available flight sims that don't have this issue and treat their customer base and developer community a bit better as I recently learned about the whole issue with RAZBAM. Throw in the entire "we have partnered with Pimax" and here is a discount code to buy one, you quickly realize the entire Spotting Dots issue and "get a Pimax and the spotting dots issue is fixed" is more than just a coincidence. Just a sad example of hubris and a developer that has lost the passion for its user base.

Yes we do, forget the Air Force, the Army and the Navy and hire some coders, 3D artists, Beta testers, Support Staff able to liaise and address customers feedback, bug hunting. Forget about "and beyond", finish products now 'and they're here' to match the investment many of us have made with nearly 1000 EUR 'worth' of modules. Warbirds and WW2 Pack...........S............O...........S.......... Just to make sure we are on the same line, Pretty please, with many cherries

I don’t know about bringing in more players but they’d certainly sell more campaigns.

As in : The M-2000C module comes with a 689-page instruction manual

Hey All, so firstly, all those listed bugs or issues have all been reported. This is a common issue in Early Access products and in fact, shows more so that it's being worked on. As new systems and features are added, it can affect older systems either unintentionally or by design in order for new things to be added. We do our best to mitigate these issues, but it's not always possible. Also, rarely do these issues make it past our Q&A team or Tester team (and are known before anyone), and just because they are marked reported on the forums does not mean we missed them, we are only acknowledging that these are reported. We do not enjoy or look at adding new issues, but it can be the downside of active development on a very complex aircraft. Most early-access aircraft see very similar problems. Next, "that the current pod is a mix of the old and the sniper pod to "test" it", This was never the case, it was not a mix of pods put in to test. It had nothing to do with testing. The Hybrid pod will be removed when the sniper is released, that is the only relation it has to that development. By the way, DCS itself may be referenced as stable or not a testing build, but as long as a module is in Early Access, it can be considered less than stable due to active development. A stable release of DCS as a whole does not include the status of any addon modules. You have been around a long time, I think you know that. To expand on the above "If they have never worked before, I could understand that, but that, no, that's BS." These systems are complex and intertwined, work on one thing that might touch on another system can risk an issue popping up. This is the nature of development on a complex modern fighter. We are not able to copy and paste these systems into DCS, in many cases, they are being designed from scratch with very little documentation to go on. Again, this is the nature of Early Access and active development. Lastly, "it seems it doesn't care ED much.", This is completely untrue, the F-16C is a flagship product in DCS, it's one of the most important modules we have released to date. It has some of the most active developments of our modules. It is still in Early Access and it is still seeing heavy development. Yes there are known issues and these are and will be addressed, but suggesting we don't care about this module is strange to me personally. Again, I must point out that everything you listed is acknowledged and reported. This is not a sign of not caring at all. Thanks. PS I should mention that there are no shared engineers, these systems being as complex and work-intensive to program means that a dev cannot bounce around from project to project or even system to system. So it's not a case of why this guy moved to that. Especially when you talk about art, core issues, etc. A good example is the work on the Sniper, the development on that is complex and extensive, and the dev(s) working on that will focus solely on that and that alone. It's not something you can bounce around between, as well it's not something someone who specializes in models, effects or core programming even can just jump into. We have highly specialized individuals at ED, much like you see at 3rd Parties who have a person who does art, someone who does FMs, etc. It goes further into Helos, Western or Eastern Systems, etc.

thanks we are aware, it's on the list. cheers

F6F is shown in this video as a logo