Nipil

Replacing models from mods with models of other assets is just a terrible idea, as it will cause confusion in almost any case. Visual ID, both of friends and foes, visual model not corresponding to collision model. When it comes to ED investing any effort into making the game more mod-friendly, TBH, I think that there myriads of way more important tasks. ED has never pledged to support modfing, IIRC, and so it's justified that they ignore problems of mod users. I am not against it, but, really, there is already a community-made mod manager, why slow down DCS development even more for the sake of ED making the same thing? Don't know about comparing mods lists, shouldn't be too hard to implenent, but, once again, I'd rather they fixed one of these small annoying bugs that have been reported but not solved for years instead. But I disagree with the somewhat irrational hate towards modding in general. Most mods are trash (especially those which portray modern stuff... especially those made by some certain ace from a certain Caribbean island). But there are some which really are good. Community A-4E mod is so good it even made it's way into DCS World 2023 and beyond trailer. Not to mention some mainstream Cold War servers. That's not the only example, MB339 and C-130 have long been mods prior to going official. I don't see how people using mods like this harm anyone, and calling such mods "junk" is clearly not appropriate. The aforementioned A-4E is in a better state than official MiG-21 now, it seems, and in some aspects is more realistic. The "headache" part is also somewhat exaggerated, at least if you use a small number of quality mods. Honestly, though, ED does this too with almost (?) each OB, and sometimes they don't fix such things for years (the F-5 drivers seem to know that especially well, as does every mission creator). Although I would agree that using mods always adds it's risks, proportional to the mods' quality and quantity. I only use A-4 mod BTW, since it's ptobably only one I find both interesting and good enough.

Будет ли в рамках разработки GFM и переработки ИИ (я так понимаю, что это взаимосвязанные процессы) переработано использование ИИ форсажа? ИИ постоянно использует форсаж в ситуациях, когда он в реальности этого делать не будет (например, сразу после взлета, когда занимает строй, даже когда ведущий всего в 5 км от аэродрома круги нарезает). Это здорово повышает расход топлива и приводит к тому, что ведомые падают без горючего тогда, когда у игрока его остается еще предостаточно. Надеюсь, что ИИ заставят использовать форсаж только в боевом режиме либо тогда, когда его использует ведущий.

I wouldn't call it the best case though. Most people would not buy two modules which are essentially the same. This means that already limited revenue would be split between two different devs, making development even harder. Really, the M4 is just M3 but better, while still being the good ol' analogue Cold War dumb bomb carrier. I can't see 90% of the playerbase justifying to themselves buying both for a full price. Maybe as one module (F-14A/B example), maybe as separate two modules but with a big discount, but not for 60-80$ each. Not to mention having different implementations of the same systems and FM. No need to add such inconsistency.

Su-22 by AviaStorm confirmed?

So every aspiring flight simmer, especially if he is into military aviation, has a problem. He needs to get a comprehensive understanding of flying and (in our case) air combat. Learning by doing has only limited application in such a complex business as flying. Learning by consuming isolated titbits of information like videos and small posts on the Internet does not allow you to build a comprehensive picture. So, sooner or later all of us have to search for some literature/other sources which could help us build a comprehensive picture of what we try to simulate. Be it the basics of flying, or the basics of modern(ish) air combat tactics, etc. There is many information lying around on the Internet, oftentimes available for free, thankfully. But it's incredibly hard for someone with no IRL aviation background to understand where to start, how to tell good quality sources from bad ones, and how not to miss something important. Even those with hundreds of hours' experience in combat flight sims can sometimes find themselves a little disorientated in this regard. So, my suggestion is, why not create a thread where we can share some useful media like books, IRL manuals etc. about military aviation? Like books/manuals on air combat tactics, BFM, formation flying etc. For general aviation one can already easily find similar threads on other civilian flight sims' forums, so military aviation-related stuff should take priority. This way, we could collect a lot of necessary information from high quality sources in on place for all beginners to learn. And even veterans could discover something new! Inb4 "one can do research himself": that's true, and that's what we all do, but why not ease each others' burden a little? If we educate the newcomers properly, everyone would benefit from increased human capital in the community. And of course, we all respect the 1.16 rule and laws of every country, so only legally available content should be shared, no currently classified or pirated data.

Hello. Can anyone advise me on how to pass mission 1? At the current OB the SAMs fire at me instantly when I start my pop-up, despite of the bad visibility. Is it just me, or has the AI become way too good at instantly seeing the target at any weather? I just can't help but conclude that at the current OB this mission's success is purely based on random. Either the enemy missile somehow fails, or you get owned with 100% certainty.

Было бы полезно сделать раздельные настройки для качества текстур кабины и объектов снаружи. Это позволило бы заметно снизить нагрузку на слабые и средние видеокарты. В то же время, сохранялись бы приятный облик кабины и, что важнее, читаемость надписей (при снижении качества текстур они, зачастую, становятся мыльными и читаются без приближения с трудом). В игре уже есть раздельные настройки для текстур вообще и текстур земли, так что техническая возможность должна быть, наверное.

Есть планы доработать этот момент в БС3, или останется как есть?

Простите, неправильно понял новость. Я подумал, что под голосовыми командами подразумевается управление игроком при помощи голоса, вопрос был о такого рода функционале.

В связи с новостью о голосовых командах для Петровича и Джорджа вопрос - не планируется ли такая же функция для ведомых в звене и в целом для радиопереговоров?

Су-34, Су-30 (хотя он и является лишь реликтом времен flanker'а) как минимум.

MiG-23 itself will take some more years to complete, given how low it's on Razbam priority list. And by the time it's done, Raz is going to have it's hands full with half a dozen other projects, just ad always. So I would not expect a MiG-27 from Razbam in next 5 years or so. Still, we might (but it's still to be confirmed) get an Su-17/22 from other dev in the coming years, so it's not all bad news.

2022 and beyond video at 3:09. Nakajima Ki-43? UPD: No, it's a FW-190 with IJA livery, see a comment below by @Silver_Dragon.

We need destructible trees, that's for sure. Yet I believe it's going to drastically lower performance if we had a full-blown damage model for every tree on the map. So simply destroying trees should be enough.

Now imagine how technically difficult it would be to make a proper FPS out of DCS. And how poor will performance be. The engine of DCS is just not suited for this. There is a reason why there isn't a simulator of everything on the market. It's technically impossible to create one, even for giants like EA, Ubisoft and others who have billions of dollars at their disposal.

Adequate AI. Without it singleplayer is pure pain.

FC-3 is unlikely to recieve any new functionality, it's already written off I guess since it's old, low fidelity, and it's going to be replaced by upcoming MAC anyways. Our best hope is that ED does make future full fidelity MiG-29 right, but its release is years away from now and it's not even officially confirmed.

Su-34 has been in DCS for a very long time, might be a mistake from more than 10 years ago the devs didn't bother to correct because it doesn't really affect anything.

It's a really important question for me. Right now I am using it in free trial, and while external model is good and the plane itself is quite interesting and is simply iconic, the cockpit spoils the overall impression significantly. Especially the lower part of it. And the switch logic, as mentioned above, is really counterintuitive after playing all other modules.

Когда планируются светящиеся палочки для ночных операций палубной команды Supercarrier'а? Печально, что об этом уже много месяцев не говорится ни слова, хотя это самая важная с практической точки зрения фича, которая еще не реализована в этом модуле.

AFAIK, there is not enough data available publicly to make a full fidelity Su-34. And Russian government is highly secretive about aircraft currently in service, even those less advanced than the Fullback. At least, that's what have been answered many times to similar wishes by the devs.

We don't even have proper ATC or cloud's impact on AI in an aviation sim, yet you already want resources to be directed to what basically is something completely different than a flying sim. DCS should not try to be everything at the same time, ED simply doesn't have enough resources to deliver even what they've already pledged in time they'd announced. Also, DCS as it is now is not really suited for infantry gameplay in general. This is not to say the idea itself is bad, what I mean is it would steal resources from other things which would be much more beneficial for what is first and foremost a flight sim.

Before new clouds were released it was totally playable. Weather was Case III but visibility was ok for CCIP delivery.

I have the same problem right now, latest 2.7.6 OB. Actually, this is not the first time a mission ended abruptly in this campaign for me, mission 4 has ended this way for no obvious reason several times for me until I was able to pass it.

Update: tried this mission another day. The first time it ended in-flight in the way described above, the second time it worked ok all the way and I finally managed to pass it. Nothing like this happened in further missions. Maybe it's not linked to pressing Backspace, but rather somehow coincided with me pressing it, but mission abruptly ending is still strange.