Leaderboard

an interesting point of view

Guys, once again we only remove posts if they break the rules, we do not remove posts because they are negative, frustrated or unhappy with DCS. This can be seen by a simple search in the forums. Programmers do not get removed or leave a module in the middle of their work, rather sometimes their work is long and complex. For example, currently, we have someone working on the Sniper pod for the F-16C. He has not been removed and only stops for vacation. He has literally been working on this pod for months. Now before you say, oh he must be a bad programmer or slow. No this involves all aspects of creating an item in DCS, from researching, designing, and implementing. Sadly it takes a lot of time. Same with radar improvements, we may say we are improving a radar, and then go quiet for some time. That is them work away. We have hired people so we don't have to remove someone mid-project because it would be very tough to drop something in the middle and move to something else. I will also note, from the video. I get that everyone is eager for the Dynamic Campaign. It's a monumental undertaking. For example, way back when Falcon 4's Dynamic Campaign took over 5 years to do. They only had one flyable aircraft to deal with, and 1 era. This DC release has to be whatever one expects, and beyond. Even Falcon 4's campaign while good for its time wouldn't cut it if we just copied and pasted it into DCS (not that that is even possible) And before you say, oh he doesn't know, I have been flying simulations since the early days, I bought a computer for Falcon. It has to meet or more so exceed expectations now, and some of those expectations are immense and well beyond what has been seen. Our internal expectations have to be met as we know you want nothing but an exceptional experience with it. Some good points are made in the video, but some I am not sure I agree with. For example his dismissal of Bomb Fuses. They do do something in DCS and were very much needed. Anyways, I just wanted to answer a couple of points here. If there is something else from the video you want me to expand on, I will do my best. Once again, if you keep your posts within the very VERY simple frame work of the forum rules, your posts do not get removed. Thanks!

You guys are the Heatblur of maps. The real gold standard.

@Mistermann Successful test tonight gents in the Cayuse. We will say I intentionally go shot down in the CH-47 and the OH-58. Pilots were able to be located and picked up independently utilizing the script Mistermann put on the mission. This is good stuff now. Anytime player gets shot down and they eject, or shot down flying a helo, it generates a CSAR mission. Real quick video below of the one I just flew with time stamps. No music this time. I spend more time in the Cayuse I think than any other aircraft right now.

"UM001, RADIO CHECK" Hi Today will not be an ordinary review. I want to show you a video created by our team of testers Ugra-Media, for which we are very grateful. This is the first experience of creating videos, we wish you good luck and look forward to new works. By creating this video, we wanted to draw the attention of users of the Syria map to the new features that appeared on it in the latest and upcoming updates on October 30. Among them, we first of all want to highlight the new Israeli airfields Ben Gurion, Hatzor, Palmaсhim and Tel Nof. The appearance on the Syria map of more than 100 military bases and helipads. The ability to destroy most of the original objects, including the tolls on the Euphrates. And hundreds of other improvements that we added to the Syria map.

for me ATC is undoubtedly the most eagerly awaited missing feature to fill DCS world with "life". i understand this is a significant undertaking, but i believe in the meantime ED could easily improve what's already there using very little resources. just a few thoughts (focusing on western modern era): o replace QFE by QNH o wind from (iso blowing to direction), rounded to 10 degrees, speed in knots o provide QNH with startup clearance (iso take-off CLR) and after "inbound" call o correct take-off CLR: <callsign><runway>"cleared for take-off, wind"<w/v> o fix the "unable to clear for take-off" followed by take-off CLR issue o fix request azimuth/nav assistance all these points although mostly cosmetic (no proper traffic vectoring, separation or deconfliction service provided) would already add a lot to immersion in my view

Yeah, it bugged me for a long time as well, and in fact, has been brought up by me and BIGNEWY as well, the response way back when was performance but I think that is less of an issue now, so I want at least the option to expand this render distance out so that people can choose to render farther, and as you or maybe someone else said, with helicopters, it's more a thing than fixed wing.

I'm not sure what authority the creator of the video has to represent everybody, by using the word "we". But, that said, I appreciate the patience and will to post the video, to voice some common concerns - thank you for that. I could list a whole group of issues, with the AI, or with new features introduced while others get broken, and with bugs that remain in the modules for indefinite. But the three main issues I have with DCS (which were not really addressed there) have exhisted for years and years on end. They are 1) the performance, 2) the issue that new maps create, and 3) the lack of depth for specific eras where the aircrafts exhist in. Performance. No need to be a scientist to understand that the wrong size and format of textures has been chosen for many years, and it gets worse with every new module/map release. No, it's not a matter of reducing texture settings in game options because those only reduce the texture MIP in use. But the whole texture file size is still loaded regardless, overwhelming the drives, RAM, and barely aleviating the VRAM. Another example (and there are others), and beautiful as it is, the new clouds system (introduced with 2.7.0) was a mistake, as it heavily bogged down the performance benefits we add with 2.5.6. In my experience, VR was never the same again (still isn't). People want better and better detail 3D models (mooaar polygons), larger rendering distances, but forget that all that imediately means a heavy price to pay, in performance hit and (even higher) hardware requirements. A bit of a comical sentiment and desire, when that (performance issues and hardware requirements) is already a problem for so many users (I'd wager the majority?), especially for those playing complex missions and more so if in Multi-Player. Simply put, you can't have your cake and eat it too. What we need now is not prettier graphics, we need drastic optimization. Like yesterday! It's only once that is done effectively, and achieved in the practice, that the next graphical improvements can/should be considered. Issue with new Maps. These can become a really bad investment because the size of the community forces players to gather on one or two main maps (usually Caucasus and Syria), which leaves all those nice new maps unused in Multi-Player. So, basically, buying these new maps ends up in having to focus on Single-Player (not Multi-Player), with their buyers left with the hope that mission/campaign creators expand/add to them. It makes little sense unless you want to help funding (like a donation to) ED. The issue becomes even more prevalent because some of these new maps overlap with each other, but are released separate of each other. When, instead, they should have been expanded (joint together, continuously) onto a larger map. Lack of depth for specific eras. Then there's the issue with assets, maps, and overall content that doesn't focus on specific time periods, which is a must for realistic conflicts recreation (past and present). This has been one of the longest issues with DCS (maybe since the start?). We have aircraft from different periods and generations, all beautifully done, but then the content and context in which they're used does not follow same lines. In the end, it becomes a beautiful mix of disjointed period content (sometimes not making much sense) that turns into something rather generic.

This!

While I will not include the AIM-174B with the F-15EX mod, I have set it up such that if you have currenthill's AIM-174B mod installed, you can load it on the F-15EX straight away. I make no promises about how well it works, in my testing I have gotten a 50% hit rate thus far. If you do not have the AIM-174B mod installed, then you will be able to load AIM-120Bs on Stations 2, 4, 8, and 10. I will not add it to the outer wing pylons because the F-15C PFM really does not like the asymmetric load that results if you only launch one of these monsters. Who needs more than four of these anyway? XD

Just a comment regarding DLC content creators progress regarding ATC. I have previously acknowledged some of these are really good - but heres the thing. Mostly they restrict me to drive the aircraft they have crafted the mission for. If it was designed for the F18 or F16 simply swapping out those planes for my preference in the ME breaks everything - I assume because the "triggers" are looking for cockpit button states that completely differ in each airframe. I end up having to do what the mission designer wants - not what I want to do! - are their missions good? - absolutely - but are they the same things and missions I want to do? - rarely. Now consider if the below was a thing in DCS: ATC that actually works as intended? (none of this cleared for take off - not cleared for take off - oh go on then, cleared for take off! ATC that was seperated to specific freq for each controller (ground, tower, app/dep etc) AWACS that didn't spam you every 3 seconds with anything at all - let alone details of some banits 200 miles away New voices to replace the existing (with some minimal effects) The ability to hear these agencies interacting with other flights on the same freq locally Would not the above alone improve the experience? You are quiet hard pushed nowdays to see a video on YT (even ED's own) that don't include some type of "canned chatter" - probably because comms is a very big part of the flying experience - be that civy or military. Regards Gary

SharpeXB, You reference a number of things which have been mentioned previously and there seems to be a general assumption that extreme realism is being requested - which is not the case. Firstly the SC comms is nothing more than a quick, poor (in my view) addition that was rushed for the SC specifically. It is not an improvement at all generally in relation to ATC and consists predominately of a list of scripted messages assuming the pilot does as expected. Do anything else and its redundant immediately. You choose the word ambiance, my choice would be "immersion" - based on your interpritation why bother with clouds, rain, explosive effects, airport scenery and vehicles ets etc. Yes, the most we could ask for is ATC that deconflicts, provides safe, taxi, take off, vectors and other flight comms - which in itself could add significently to a players SA and sense of being part of the whole task involving others (human or AI) - all of which another F16 sim provides for already and which is some 20 years old now. (albeit code which probably looks very differant today to that when it was foirst released of course) I am not asking for super realistic comms to be added. I'm not sure I want to be doing DME arch approaches and such either (but I'd wager there are users who would absolutely love this to be included too!) - I just want something semi realistic, believable and something which would add to my personal enjoyment of the software. Regards, Gary

I agree, most good DLC campaings do this excellent, but: As I said in my previous post, this is a massive job. It's very cumbersome to achieve in a realistic way (especially when building in checks to see if the player actually tuned to the correct freq). This would only be useful for SP We would (still) be very dependant on good DLC campaigns for a nice DCS experience I agree, 100% realistic/authentic ATC is probably not possible within our lifetime and I also wholeheartedly agree that AI should actually respond to ATC to make it at all usefull, but definitely some improvement can be made (again, look at how the 20yo Viper sim handles it). Perfect? No. Better than DCS? ohh yes... Most of us are not real life pilots, so it doesn't have to be perfect. But having a few more callsigns, some land based ATC procedures (grnd, twr, dep, appr, arr.) and proper AWACS callouts can be achieved.. I'm sure of it.

Hi, ich beschwere mich doch gar nicht, sondern habe nur gesagt, dass ich gemerkt habe dass Ballern usw. Doch nichts für mich ist. Aber ich bin sehr dankbar für die Kampagnen, die ich hier genannt bekommen habe. Da werde ich sicherlich einige davon probieren. Da macht die Kommunikation doch Sinn, weil ich Hinweise bekommen habe, die ich sonst nicht erhalten habe. An dieser Stelle danke an alle! VG Herby

While I do get some of the frustrations, one has to also admit that the DCS community is very hard to please. I mean, since DCS World's existence, everybody is constantly asking for new features, new modules, new eye candy, etc. Some complain about their favorite module being incomplete and they're angry that new modules are released. While they do not realize that others may have been wishing for that new module just as long. For instance; I couldn't care less about any of the ww2 modules, but you won't hear me complain that ED and 3rd parties are working on it, while work on my favorite modules is not complete yet. I totally get that many want to see products finished first, before adding more, but personally I don't mind that ED and it's partners are pumping out content. Even if half finished. As an example; I rather see new content added that I'm interested in in early/crude state (like the new clouds we got a few years ago), than having to wait for some module I'm not interested in to get finished. I just wanted to share my view on things. No offence or disrespect meant to anyone of course. In the end, we all want the same: "that perfect mil flight sim"

Having recently tried that other sim with fully working ATC and com ladders. It would massively improve DCS. Following the directions of ATC sets you up for perfectly lined up landing. Even in full VFR, you don't have to see the runway. Just follow directions of speed, attitude and heading and you end up on final with the runway a head of you.

Astute -- believing their opinion to be an universal fact aside, their opinion is also strangely reminiscent of a "manly man's", gung-ho approach to flying, exactly the type of character trait that most people learn to avoid. It's akin to people asserting that "traffic lights are a waste of time; drivers have the ultimate responsibility". While the latter part is true, the premise is not connected. And asserting that "people who like traffic lights are wussies and should not drive" would strike me as a bit childish. Personally, I like traffic lights as IMHO they make the roads safer, even though I'm fully responsible and accountable for my actions in a car. I believe that smart people look left and right before they traverse an intersection -- even if they have a green light. And when I approach an intersection that has no traffic lights that makes me more careful. Mistaking my being careful (feeling "naked"/unprotected) with being scared is... telling? But I digress. I would welcome better ATC in DCS because I believe it would make it more enjoyable for me. Egotistical, yes.

Huh. I believe that you are mixing purpose and game goals here. There are multiple purposes for ATC in the real world. One of them is managing air traffic risk - for those in the air, and those on the ground who would - quite literally - be impacted if something goes awry above. For many RW pilots, ATC chatter - which they observe passively by listening to the radio -- is their mind's eye to get a local picture of who is around. During airfield procedures, ATC is vital, and many pilots feel 'naked' when they approach an uncontrolled field because they feel that trusting CTAF to be accurate is akin to running across the street blindly trusting the verbal instructions of your friend. It works, but can be much better. Now, in a game, especially sleepy backwater DCS ATC isn't that important - except that for many pilots not having ATC is the issue -- instead of being in a backwater region. And TBH, if you create your mission with some flights around your base, that ATC in DCS will lie to you, Tower will actively try to kill you (clearing you to land with traffic on the runway), and Ground/Tarmac is non-existent. Some people don't mind, and it's entirely inconsequential if your (absolutely legitimate) goal is to 'merely' blow stuff up. But some people enjoy procedures, and these procedures extend to airfield and RT. What really, really annoys me that airfield procedures are exactly that: procedures with defined states. Every state is fully defined. Putting this into code isn't that difficult. How do we know that? Look at other flight sim games that can do that. DCS's current ATC/TWR/GND is abysmal, even for a late 1990's game. Granted, having non-player aircraft observe ATC is something else entirely, so let's momentarily focus purely on procedures. I think that we can agree that ATC / RT procedures is an essential aviation aspect in reality. It can be an important aspect to a part of the flight sim gaming community DCS's implementation is currently (2024) severely lacking and 99.99% unrealistic Let's hope that this will be taken care of soon, even if ED takes a simplified approach of only implementing the international civil aircraft operations procedures first, and work from there. My feeling is that it can only improve. Will it make the game better for those who primarily fly to blow stuff up? Probably not. But I think it will make DCS an overall better game for dorks like me, who kind of enjoy some procedures, and love the fact that I can ignore others (that's another important aspect: having current DCS allow players to ignore procedures is a great thing!). -ch

We all know trackfile replays are unreliable for replays and I think most of us understand why, however Tacview IS typically reliable in regards to aircraft, vehicle and weapons locations. Could DCS not scrap trackfiles for replays and instead just model replays on the same data that tacview uses? Obviously track files are still needed for bug and fault finding. Maybe an option in the menu to enable/disable both replays AND trackfiles for performance reasons so you could enable both or disable both if you wished.

25 October 2024 Dear Fighter Pilots, Partners and Friends, Last week, we launched the pre-order for the DCS: Iraq map and this sparked many questions and concerns about the DCS: Afghanistan map. Primarily, why is Eagle Dynamics working on an Iraq map with so much work to do on the Afghanistan map? The Iraq and Afghanistan maps are being developed by separate map teams in different countries. The development of one does not affect progress on the other. As such, the Iraq map has in no way slowed down development of the Afghanistan map. Furthermore, map development has no impact on the development of other DCS aspects such as the Core and individual modules. In fact, each month you can find an extensive list of improvements and fixes to the Core and modules in our changelogs. The next big update to the Southwest portion and the Eastern region has been delayed due to developing a new approach that will improve this and all maps; we believe it will be worth it. After the initial release of the Afghanistan map, we have been carefully reviewing all feedback, and we’ll be incorporating this into the map as well. Also based on your feedback, we want to emphasise again that both maps can be purchased as a single purchase, just as all DCS maps. The individual regions are simply an option for those that want just a particular region or who wish to purchase bite sized areas for a reduced amount. As important, regardless of how you purchase a map, it will always be multiplayer compatible. Ugra Media is pleased to announce impressive enhancements to the DCS: Syria map set for the next update. Included are new airfields, and new destructible models for original objects. Additionally, the Normandy 2.0 map has also received substantial optimisation, more new airfields, improvements to existing points of interest, and new ones such as the Palace of Versaille. Please read the details below. Get ready for the upcoming AH-64D Outpost Campaign by Stone Sky! This new campaign will immerse you in 15 exciting and authentic missions with more than 200 pages of documentation. Stay tuned! Thank you for your passion and support. Yours sincerely, Eagle Dynamics Syria Development Progress In collaboration with Ugra Media, we are delighted to share a significant update coming soon to the DCS: Syria map. Airfields and optimisation New strategic locations including Ben Gurion, Hatzor, Palmashim, and Tel Nof have been added, and you’ll soon be able to add them to your missions. Improvements have been made to small objects models to optimise the rendering efficiency. Enhancements and additions The Airbus A300 and An-26 map objects have been upgraded. The minimum texture resolution of ground surfaces and objects has been enhanced, resulting in sharper and more detailed visuals. New helipads are now available at several military bases. The scenery at the refinery of south Palmachim has been improved with more detail. New terminal models and the iconic control tower have been added to Ben Gurion. Airbus A300 and An-26 map objects are now included as part of the airfield scenes of Deir ez-Zor, Latakia, Marj Ruhayyil, Nejrab, Beirut, Damascus, Tabqa, Ben Gurion. New destruction models for Points of Interest like: Bank of Cyprus, Beirut SkyGate, Limassol KEAN Factory, Paphos Terminal, Sheraton Adana Hotel, Dam Ataturk, Dam Tishrin, and Ben Gurion terminal. Bug fixes Resolved issues in Akrotiri and Paphos airfields. Fixed terrain scene bugs at various bases. Corrected errors in terrain and vector data and common scenes. Fixed collision issues with helipads on the Bank of Cyprus and Sheraton Adana Hotel. Corrected licence plates on cars and inscriptions on buildings. Normandy 2.0 Development Progress Impressive updates are also coming to the DCS: Normandy 2.0 map, here is a preview of what you can look forward to in the upcoming update. Optimisation Ugra Media has optimised the building models and structures to improve overall performance. The bridge scene near the Palace of Westminster has been enhanced with greater detail. Additionally, the model of the Notre-Dame de Paris has been improved. New airfields Eastchurch, Headcorn, and Hawkinge airfields have been added and are perfect to enrich your mission planning. New historical sites To enhance the historical authenticity of the terrain, new historical sites such as the Basilica Sacré Coeur, Palace of Versailles, and Hampton Court Palace have been added. Additionally, high flags at forts and major cities will be available. Bug fixes Fixed bugs in airfields with the same call signs. Fixed bugs in terrain, vector data and common scenes. We truly appreciate your support and can’t wait to hear your feedback on these updates! AH-64D OUTPOST Campaign by StoneSky In the complex geopolitical landscape, Syria is a strategic interest for Russia and the United States. Beyond being terrorism hotspot, Syria has become a stage for the rivalry between global powers, each pursuing their strategic interests and shaping international relations. The campaign features 15 meticulously crafted missions based on real events. You will participate in deployments at Incirlik Air Base, King Hussein Air Base in Jordan, and strategic locations in northern Syria like the well-known cement plant and the formidable Tal Saman base. Engage in battles for the Tishrin Dam and the city of Tishrin; and take part in the intense fights for Manbij, Tabqa, and the legendary city of Raqqa. These missions will showcase the full might of CJTF–OIR joint combat operations. Key Features: 15 missions based on real events. JTAC and FAC operations, Medevac missions, and special assignments. Interaction with U.S. Air Force UAVs, A-10, F/A-18, and B-1Bs. Over 2,500 radio dialogues. More than 200 pages of documentation and kneeboard. You can look forward to this campaign in an upcoming DCS update! Thank you again for your passion and support, Yours sincerely,

Yup, we need to adapt our options with the new cards, that said there are still players rocking the 10XX series cards, so its always going to be a balancing act.

Thanks for the reply and the points. 1. 1000%, these have been driven home hard to our team that the newest modules have some work to be done. I hope to see some improvements here not too long from now. We can still have the high-end textures we just need to make sure the lower-end settings do something for sure. It's been brought to everyone's attention internally. 2. Believe it or not, single-player is still a very big part of DCS, MP has grown and we are happy about that, but even Syria went through a period where no one was going to play it because everything was set up for older maps. We have map teams, and they will continue bringing new and exciting maps. Having more theatres to play is never a bad thing, but if you are only flying MP then I totally get why you might not want a certain map that isn't being used. I do not think that makes a 30% off pre-order a bad investment, BUT I understand that not everyone has the extra money lying around, so as always it's an individual choice on what you do or don't buy. We just want to offer as many places to drop warheads as possible, hopefully, some greener pastures soon as well. 3. Well we recently added a 3rd Party asset pack free to the game, and we continue to upgrade and add new assets of our own. So this is important even if we are not moving as fast as everyone wants. I agree more assets is never a bad thing. Thanks! Where did we say maybe we will fix it maybe we won't? The videos were made from the same map everyone received, yes it's not complete and many areas need improvements but I don't think we hid that from anyone. This is an honest question as I want to know if we are not sending a clear message about Early Access Maps. Thanks!

Misunderstood then. Well, we're all in favour of better AI in every aspect of the game. And if some hobby enthusiasts can do it. Why not Eagle Dynamics? Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

As I have said - each to their own of course. Everyone is free to use DCS the way it suits and pleases them. But fundementally if your answer to the simple question "do you consider DCS to be a flight simulation at all on any level" is yes - then the current ATC is unquestionably very much lacking and in need of attention and has been for a very, very long time now.

How about this? If this mission was in reduced visibility, the current ATC's complete uselessness would've resulted in a collision with departing aircraft. And this is in a single player mission. Yes - which is a bad thing. As it stands, the current supercarrier system breaks if you so much as bolter, there's no interaction with the AI at all, it uses the wrong callsigns when using the Forrestal and it also doesn't support ziplip operations. The other, F-16-orientated sim, begs to differ. Its ATC system allows for things that are straight up impossible to do in DCS (especially in single player) without causing utter carnage. Like I said before, ATC being fundamentally not worth using beyond turning on lights and receiving a single vector is probably contributing to that being the case. I ignore ATC completely in DCS because it's so limited. In the other sim though, I pay attention to it, because it actually works more like the way it should and I don't encounter the same annoyances using it.

You can already use all those assets - get creative because it's on the mission designer. If you mean full simulation of 100 thousand soldiers and thousands of units all fighting - the time has not come yet for our PCs nor is DCS goal. As for the water it's been reported many times that it's too transparent in DCS. You can see ship keels and screws, rivers look weird, ports look unrealistic...

DCS needs larger maps to be able to make big wars, with meaning for tankers, carriers and others. Right now they are like small battles in which all the units are a little tight...

Jester does operate the knob, also outside of Boresight. So if you start messing with it, you will confuse Jester and he will also eventually set it back to another setting. The correct procedure for a WSO, outside of Boresight modes, is to always put the knob into a setting that allows to read Vc, the single most important value. Based on Vc, you can easily deduct target altitude, aspect and of course the closure rate itself is given as well. Heading and distance is shown on the screen by the placement abd movement of the return already. Jester assumes the knob to be in Vc, if you force-move it, he will incorrectly interpret the number on the display and mess up. Aside from Boresight no-lock shots, the only time when the knob should be moved is shortly after obtaining a lock to validate lock quality. Jester cycles the knob through all settings after locking in order to do that (he doesn't really validate much yet though). Then, back to Vc. That said, we are planning to add some form of "where is the bandit" command where Jester would give you a BRA callout or similar again.

Sure, having a human to realistically do all this, would be awesome. This is however of no use to SP users. Unfortunately many (my guess would be "most") DCS users are not retired yet, have limited time for this hobby and therefor are not in the position to properly commit to and plan for multiplayer groups. Personally I don't think we're asking for the impossible here. Having something similar to that old Viper sim would give all those full fidelity DCS module radio systems at least some kind of use. I get that you are afraid that DCS radio improvement could delay other DCS features, but surely you must admit that current DCS ATC is a laugh and not on par with the rest of what DCS has to offer.

I'm sorry Dawger but you are again wrong! Whilst I'm sure a human acting as GCI, ATC and AWACS in a multiplayer environment is a blast, does it also include appropriate comms exchanges between the AI and ATC etc - no. Your replies and avitar suggest to me that you fly online, possibly in a squad of some form, and your personal views are largely based on these experiences - and that's absolutely fine - but it has been stated and confirmed many times that the vast majority of users are SP and for some of those, semi realistic ATC would be a very welcome addition for our flight simming experience. Regards, Gary

As a former RWP I agree with all your descriptions of ATC and especially PIC however your conclusion that CTAF is sufficient is strange given that DCS already implements a bastardised version of ATC and that other major FS that we cannot name () has clearly invested many programming hours in creating a passable ATC environment. DCS is a simulation which prides itself on realism, given that fact, a desire to improve upon an existing feature is laudable, in my opinion. And yet significant development time was invested in prettying up the pilots...

Also ganz ehrlich...der MSFS konnte mich gar nicht überzeugen. Die Helis fühlen sich so leicht an, als wären sie aus Papier. Von der VR-Umsetzung ganz zu schweigen...es gibt kein "VR-Fadenkreuz", was einen letztlich zwingt den Throttle/Stick loszulassen und nach einer Maus oder ähnlichem zu greifen, wenn man das klickbare Cockpit nutzen will?! Das killt für mich die Immersion. Hinzu kommt der abstoßend hässliche Pixelbrei am Boden, wenn man tief fliegt über Gebieten, die nicht überarbeitet wurden. Und selbst überarbeitete Städte sehen bei mir wie Zombielanschaften aus...lauter krumme, scheppe Gebäude unter Photogrammetrie. Auch die Cockpits erreichen bisher nicht die Qualität der DCS-Cockpits. Fazit: Es ist nicht alles Gold, was (optisch) glänzt.

That flat-out assertion in a wish forum tells me everything I need to know. Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Well I hope the next Afghanistan patch/update makes the ridiculous grass popping go away. I mean it feels like a freaking bad LSD trip where i am Alice in wonderland riding in the Apache with the White rabbit in the gunner seat flying over poppy fields…. The grass and other stuff grow like mushrooms 10 meters in front of you. Seriously disappointed with this… I don’t have an expensive computer and everything on max in the graphical settings to be welcomed by 90’s game texture rendering technology

Hi fighters Today we continue the story about our update. The words "Main", "most", "largest" best suit this message, and all this applies to our new airfields: Ben Gurion International Airport and Tel Nof Airbase. These are the main runways of Israel for civilians and military. A little information: Ben Gurion International Airport (ICAO: LLBG), is the main international airport of Israel. Situated on outskirts north of the city of Lod and directly south of the city of Or Yehuda, it is the busiest airport in the country. It is located 45 km to the northwest of Jerusalem and 20 km to the southeast of Tel Aviv. Tel Nof Airbase (ICAO: LLEK), also known as Air Force Base 8, is the oldest and main base of the Israeli Air Force (IAF) located 5 km south of Rehovot, Israel. Tel Nof houses two strike fighter, two helicopter and a UAV squadron. Also located on the base are the Flight Test Center Manat and several special units of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), among others Unit 669 (heliborne Combat Search and Rescue, CSAR) and the Paratroopers Brigade training center and its headquarters Plan a business trip to Ben Gurion, you will be met there and taken to Tel Nof to get acquainted with the new territory List of changes: - Added new airfields Ben Gurion, Hatzor, Palmaсhim, Tel Nof. - Optimized models of small objects. - Improved models of Airbus A300 and An-26 airplanes. - Improved min textures on the texture of the ground and objects. - Improved two military bases with helipads. - Improved refinery scene south of Palmashim. - Added new terminal models and Ben Gurion tower. - Added Airbus A300 and An-26 airplanes in the airfield scenes of Deir ez-Zor, Latakia, Marj Ruhayyil, Nejrab, Beirut, Damascus, Tabqa, Ben Gurion. - Added destruction models for original objects: Bank of Cyprus, Beirut SkyGate, Limasol KEAN Factory, Paphos Terminal, Sheraton Adana Hotel, Dam Ataturk, Dam Tishrin, Ben Gurion terminal. - Fixed bugs in Akrotiri Paphos airfields - Fixed bugs in terrain and scenes of veon bases. - Fixed bugs in terrain, vectordata and common scenes. - Fixed a bug with the collision of helipads on the roofs of the Bank of Cyprus and Sheraton Adana Hotel. - Fixed license plates on cars and inscriptions on buildings. Ben Gurion International Airport Tel Nof Airbase

Defintely getting our money's worth with the Syria map.

I love DCS and appreciate all the passion and dedication from the ED team. However, for a game trying to be realistic (look at the tedious maverick missile procedure for the F16), it's rather embarrassing to have such a lame "ATC procedure". It goes from giving request to take-off to request denied, to giving permission. It's so annoying. This for me should be a priority to implement a functioning ATC on airfields.

Thanks! Tried to recover, can't be done! First I thought it was not possible to auto rotate, but that works fine before the spin starts. I actually don't understand what really happens, and why the engine cuts out. I even managed to get blown up before the crash. [emoji4] Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

Because the RWR for the Phantom is an early device with limited capabilities, one of them is no launch warning tones for most of the mid-late SAM systems. Other planes have more advance RWR devices capable of reading and warning about both emissions and launches

Some how, I saved the track. OH-6A Spiral of Death.trk

I'm sorry Dawger but you are again wrong! I feel that they aren't wrong. When done correct, a human-staffed ATC is leaps and bounds above ATC. So yes, that's the coolest thing ever. Now, how many of your friends are trained and willing to do that for you on a second's notice? Ah, right...

I also heard that @OnReTech is working on a map of the Balkans, we will see ;). +1, his Sinai is great!

This game occasionally shows strange damage not only to WW2 air-to-air but also to Mordern ground vehicles. (gepard, stryker apc etc etc)

Some of the delays were application of normal maps in a new way so it might have slowed things like the East, hence the delay.

The majority of players plays single player offline. I don't know how many use DCS as arcade shooter, but I'm sure the majority would appreciate more atmospheric scernery - including but not limited to a good ATC.

You are welcome. Yes, we are working on Mirage F1M, though we can't provide any timeline yet.

@Eagle Dynamics BUMP! come on ED this is a feature like adding things in the AH64 that could easily be part of the standard rearming window ingame. Kinda disappointing i have to use a mod for this....