norman99

Interesting. I'm getting the sense that the new "ATC" is nothing more than some scripted audio messages played at the correct time. Apart from the initial inbound call, and "see you at 10", there's actually no real interaction at all. Hopefully there's a lot more detail to come later in early access, as this is very underwhelming.

+1 That would be the best implementation, though not sure if it's the easiest to code?

Thanks guys. I understand what has been shown in the video, and how to choose the catapult for my own launch. My request was more about controlling where the AI aircraft launch from. I have a number of different deck setups, some with static aircraft placed on the bow. Currently, I can get aircraft to use only cat 1 buy spawning single aircraft at no closer than 60 seconds apart. Realistically though, almost all flights are at least flown in pairs, and when doing this (spawning 2 units together), the second aircraft always takes cat 2, regardless of whether it's blocked or not. Here's a couple shots showing an E2 deparing followed by a hornet, and why I don't want anything using cat 2.

Awesome. keep up the great work. :thumbup:

I would love to see a video demo of a Case I recovery with a few AI flights already in the marshall stack.

I’ve watched the videos and read the manual, but couldn’t find anything. Will there be (in early access or full release), any way to control which catapults are used for launch? I’d absolutely love to use one of the bow cats, with static’s parked alongside on the other cat, as this seems to be one of the most common deck configurations. Could be done by either by selecting the desired launch cat for each unit, or activating/deactivating the cats themselves, in the mission editor. Alternatively, it could detect whether the launch path is blocked by any objects and direct aircraft to an alternative cat. It doesn’t really matter how it’s implemented, simply whatever is easier to create and manage would be great.

May have been requested previously, but in the mission editor, I would love to see a small figure next to each leg of the currently selected unit, showing the distance for that leg. So simple yet useful as we don’t have to use the ruler every time we want to set up a specific leg distance. Thanks.

Ultimately ED has two core issues they need to resolve. 1. Are they the game architect first, and dabble in minor content creation on the side? Or are they the primary content creators for DCS World, producing the leading modules and most detailed/realistic content? Currently, the way the depth and breadth of DCS has grown, they no longer have the resources to do both adequately. 2. Are they striving for the best combat gaming experience, of the most realistic simulation? Again, currently they're trying to do both simultaneously, which is just not possible. On one hand they promote their realism and deny features because it "doesn't work like that in the real world" (Hornet radar elevation control anyone....) Yet on the other hand, you have Nick posting about how the entire game is designed to force the merge for the sake of game play, and missile/radar/notch/anything else behavior has all been biased towards this goal. These two ideals completely contradict each other. At present, ED seem to have lost focus of who it is they actually are. They want to be all things to all people, when both sim/game ideology, and resources show that is no longer possible. Until they can decide this, I don't see how any meaningful change can take place. DCS will continue stumbling around from one place to another, being both the best and worst combat simulator at the same time. Amazing us, and completely frustrating us, in equal measures.

Coming from that “other” combat sim, as well as the civil sim world, the core issues are the ones that drive me the most insane with DCS, and the reason I have never really been hooked. Sooner or later they have to bite the bullet and work on this if they want to maintain a modern, relevant simulator. I believe that ED should focus on all the areas constantly raised by the community such, as AI models, AI behaviour, ATC, weather, data cards, in mission planning, ect just to name a few. Release this as DCS 3.0, and most importantly, charge us for it! I don’t expect all this work to come for free, and understand EA need revenue to survive. So charge a reasonable amount for DCS 3.0, with all the bells and whistles people have been wishing for. But.. no early access, or pre-sale, just get it right and release it. I’d also leave big ticket items such as the dynamic campaign out, and sell that as a separate module. The amount of work involved with that alone would justify an additional purchase. Ultimately, I think it’s time for a strategy change, and leave most of the content creation, (aircraft, theatres etc) to the third party devs. Go down the P3D, MSFS, X-Plane route of releasing a new core sim every 2 years or so. I’d definitely pay $$ for it.

Quite the opposite. In normal flight you always strive to maintain a balanced state, and the ball is the primary means of indicating this. My point was that depending on the FBW control laws implemented, this may be done for you automatically, and therefore no rudder input is required by the pilot. For instance, this is definitely the case for the 777, and I believe so in the Hornet too. This is not to say that manual rudder input does not have its place, and as mentioned above, can be perfect for making small corrections when lining up during AAR or on a bomb run. My last point about using rudder to counteract wind away from the ground remains. This is simply never ever done in any aircraft, FBW or conventional. I actually don’t believe this is how you are flying, and may have this concept confused slightly.

In a nutshell: FBW = no rudder input required in the air. Non FBW = rudder input required. Flight control laws differ for each aircraft and for different stages of flight. All FBW aircraft I’m aware of will still require rudder input during cross wind landings, engine out scenarios etc. As an example, the 777 FBW system will only input approx 80-90% of the rudder required during an engine failure after takeoff, leaving the pilot to input the final 10-20%. In reality aircraft such as the F-15 & F-14 should require significantly more rudder attention than the F-16/18. Sorry zhukov, but you never use rudder to counteract wind once airborne (last second or two of landing aside). Crabbing across the sky is exactly what you do. If you tried to keep the nose pointed ‘straight’, you’d then need opposite aileron to counter the induced roll creating a high drag crossed control situation. This will rob you of significant speed/range/fuel, and his highly inefficient.

Thanks @Harker, I’m still using 2.5.5 stable, but I’m glad to hear it appears fixed in beta.

Any further news on this bug? I’m on 2.5.5 stable, can anyone confirm whether it has been fixed in beta?