norman99

I couldn’t agree more. Package ATC into the DC, and if done well (optimistic I know..), it would probably become one of the most popular modules of all. I actually think releasing these as free core updates, somewhat reduces ED accountability. No timeline, no guaranteed feature list, they can just drip feed improvements without fully committing to anything.

I thought the streaming mode was just an extended display mode, maybe I’m wrong. I know the screen displays the WinWing logo on startup, exactly the same as the MIP MFDs do, so maybe it is technically a monitor display? The real difference I see between the MFDs and these CDUs is the MFDs require 2 cables, one for the buttons and one for the display, whereas these CDUs only use one. This might be one of the limitations that prevent the display operating as an additional monitor? I pre-ordered the 777 CDU, so it’ll be a little while before it arrives, but I’d happy to answer any unanswered questions when I do receive it.

Yeah, this seems to be a long time complaint. Hopefully it'll get addressed on day. Untill then I just keep wake turb off. Not ideal, but it's all we have at the moment.

Why wouldn't the screen work? My understanding is that it can operate in a 'data injection' mode where the sim sends data to the WinWing software and it populates the displays, (similar to the Hornet UFC & Falcon DED.) But, it also has the ability to operate as an additional monitor, just like the MIP MFDs. In this mode, all you need is to calculate the screen positioning and put the correct data into the .lua file to make it work.

@Pillowcat I did read the first post. I agree that the question "why is my altimeter reading 18K when I set the tanker to 20K" is the wrong question. It should be "why is the tanker at 18K when I set it to fly at 20K." With that said, it doesn't really matter which way the question was asked, there's a long standing issue in DCS, and it's way overdue being addressed.

Mate, respectfully, you are completely missing the point. I am well aware how temp/pressure changes affect the ‘true’ altitude of an aircraft. What you are showing is how temperature affects indicated altitude, great. But ALL aircraft are operated based on indicated altitude and accept that the ‘true’ altitude will differ, not the other way around. (The only exception is low temperature altimetery corrections applied during cold weather ops, ISA-15°C, which I am personally very familiar with.) It’s not a matter of becoming a better pilot. If I set my altimeter to 29.92/1013, and fly at 20,000ft, my actual altitude will be whatever it is on the day, I actually don’t care. What I do care about is wether all the other aircraft in my vicinity are using the same altimeter setting, therefore allowing indicated altitude to be used to accurately seperate/deconflict seperate flights, just as is done in the real world, both civil and military. Currently only user/user separation can be planned this way. Presently there is no way to get AI aircraft to fly at a preplanned altitude in a realistic manner, ie fly a constant 20,000K on their simulated altimeter, regardless of what the temp/pressure and resultant ‘true’ altitude is. As an example, the following is currently impossible. Imagine a scenario with a requirement to minimise emissions, so no comms and radars off. At a pre-briefed point you are planning to rejoin on a tanker, one of 3 stacked 2000’ apart at 20K, 22K and 24K. The 3 tankers won’t be where you expect them to be because they don’t simulate flying at an indicated altitude. Even if you do find one, unless you visually acquire all 3, you’ll have no idea which tanker it is. This is because their altitude is hard coded to be the ‘true’ DCS altitude all the time. This needs to be changed to be realistic.

Sorry, but I completely disagree with this take. Honestly, it's that the interaction between atmospheric modelling and AI unit behaviour (and mission editor) is almost non existent. This is the crutch of the issue. AI are simply oblivious to the realities of temp/pressure and how they affect the indicated altitude. If a unit is set to fly at 20K in the mission editor, most users would expect that so long as they use the correct altimeter setting, the AI would appear in game at 20K, not +/- 3000'. It's most likely the result of a game engine that dates back decades, and the therefore core changes become almost impossible. Just something we have to live with unfortunately.

There's no aircraft more reliant on accurate radar cross section modelling, radar detection modeling, and multi-sensor integration, than the F-35. And yet historically these are some of ED's weakest areas, as many who have argued for improvements/features over multiple years can attest. If ED can't/won't implement accurate representations in these core areas for the F/A-18, when they have access to all the data and expertise they need, what makes anyone think they'll do a better job just making it up for the F-35?

Once you're trimmed for on-speed AOA, that trim setting is the same for all bank angles (within reason). As you bank around the landing pattern, to maintain altitude or the same descent path as with wings level, your speed must increase, and therefore, thrust must be increased. Nothing changes with the trim.

Has the error above been acknowledged or fixed?

I definitely would not drill that area! My understanding, (though I’ve never seen the inside), is that the screen used is a standard 16:9 display mounted in portrait. The reason that part of the case exists is to cover the unused portion of the display.

Thanks @Whiskey11. I am actually running a modified Skynet, but I’ve always placed the tracking radar first, so in this case the Square Pair. I’ll swap it with the search radar.

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.... The Dynamic Campaign, more than anything else, firmly falls in to the "Beyond" time line. Beyond our lifetime.

Question re the composition of an SA-5 site using this mod. After firstly swapping the launchers and tracking radar to the 107th modified version, I then subsequently swapped the ST-68U Tin Shield for the P-14 Tall King. The template I used also included the P-19 Flat Face, which has a similar range to the Tin Shield I've replaced. If I choose to keep this unit in the SA-5 group, will it affect the engagement range, effectively overriding the addition range of the P-14? Does the order of units within the group matter? Currently I have the modified 107th Square Pair 1st, the P-14 Tall King 2nd, and the P-19 Flat Face 3rd.

I confirm, the SA-8 can intercept cruise missiles, AGM-86, AGM-84E etc, etc. I have never found any literature that even remotely hints at the SA-8 having this capability. Furthermore, the AGM-86/BGM-109 was one of the primary reasons for the development of the SA-10/S-300 and SA-15 systems, as they rendered the SA-5 a sitting duck. If protecting their primary long range SAMs from cruise missiles was as simple as parking a few SA-8s around them, they would have.

The BGM-109 Tomahawk is currently broken. They launch from the ship correctly, deploy wings, but it seems as soon as they approach terrain, they immediately go vertical, then do a 180 and uncontrollably dive into the ground. Tomahawk Bug.trk

I'd like to see this too, as I've been asking for more user friendly HOTAS bindings for a long time (simplified ground radar TDC slew incase anyone's listening). Unfortunately, ED seems to want to choose these specific items to wave the "not realistic" flag.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if ED are just delaying the pain, and push it out as long as they think they can. Lets face it, whatever they show, there's a larger part of the user base than ever, that are disenfranchised and ready to attack ED. If they show the same assets/modules as last year, the complaints will be "nothing new?", and if they announce new assets/modules, the cry's will be "what about all the unfinished/broken ones". ED will struggle get out of this video release without any heat, no matter what it includes.

Nope. The only way to know what the AI is doing is via datalink/radar, or using the F10 map. (This is not incorrect for zip-lip procedures.) Last time I checked too, (years ago now), if there were multiple flights recovering, than each flight was stacked at a separate level. Annoyingly, only if a flight had received the signal "Charlie" before you, will they recover before you. It seems currently as soon as you call "overhead" at about 3 miles, the player's flight is placed at the front of the queue, next inline behind anything currently in the landing pattern, regardless of where you are positioned in relation to other AI flights. In practice, this means that if you arrive in the stack at 5K, with three flights below you (@ 2K, 3K, 4K), the first may/may not land, but the subsequent two will definitely wait for you to land first. Completely wrong, and it means descending through other aircraft, but it seems priority goes to the player at all times.

I've notices the same too. I'm really having trouble getting the SA-11 to engage, even with aircraft circling directly overhead.

How about ED just start with an AI model? That alone would be a great addition.

Great, you have an opinion, but understand that’s all it is, nothing more. With that said, I happen to agree with you in that there is so many individual things that should be improved re DCS weather. My intention when arguing for real world weather however, is that it would require all the improvements we often hear, localisation, dynamics etc, etc, yet require them to be implemented in a wholistic, realistic manner. My fear is if we just look at weather improvements individually, then ED will implement individual features in a way that makes sense to them, but seems completely illogical to the end user, or doesn’t integrate well with other weather elements. (Let’s face it, they have a history of this.) If every improvement is made with the end goal of having a real world capable weather system, then we have a higher chance of getting the weather system most of us want, even if you chose not to directly use real-time as you go to setting.

I couldn’t agree more.

Maybe? Try making your font larger and see if that gets ED’s attention….

Basically as per the title. When searching user files on the DCS site, the maximum number of results returned is 50. Can this be changed?