CoBlue

I agree. Jester AI isn't really that sophisticated, he can't sort targets properly etc etc. Now, he's just a button pusher, until we'll see the Litening-AI, we were promised before 2020. This just shows how complicated "realistic" AI code is. In Mi-24, they must show us that the AI-code is properly functional in MP & SP, I don't care about fancy diagrams or promises down the road. If the multi-crew or AI isn't included in release, I ain't buying. But they haven't really said it isn't included. I guess we'll have to wait & see...

Switching between the 2 cockpit wear, in special options. Only factory-new cockpit is showing in game when flying. No aged cockpit? Tried switching like 10 times. See pics.

Yes, of course we need door-gunners!

Link plz?

Did it myself. UB-32/16 working rocket pods. OVGME ready. Mi-8 UB-32-16.rar

Can you upload the .lua file, whit the description were to put it, plz?

The systems has to be study-level, simple as that. That means follow related checklists, procedures, manuals etc.(includes everything from a warning-light to emergencies, FM etc). NATOPS compatible. A10C, F-14, Mi-8, have adequate "study-level" detail, to name a few. There is the "other civilian" sim where PMDG (boeings), FSlabs(A320), Majestic(Q400), exists. They are so detailed system-wise, that you can follow FCOM almost to the letter, including emergencies. And easily use them for your RL Type-rating, LPC/OPC checks training. Many RL pilots have/are using them, including me. The system depth is just astonishing. I don't see why this can't be the standard in DCS, minus the "secret" weapon stuff.

If only they had the same attention to details on systems.

This is ridiculous! With your reasoning we wouldn't have study-level simulators at all & play half-baked modules. If you missed it people are here exactly for this reason: As real as it gets, full-fidelity, study-level simulators. If you want to "play", there is WT, IL2 etc.

Very well written Pikey! For me the trust is completely gone. This is exactly how Razbam's (& ED's) business model looks now & how it will end up, given their long airplane list.

That is encouraging:thumbup:. As I was getting a little worry for people sitting in the gunners pit when multi-crewing, with "just a simple sight". I hope we'll get the 8 ATGM's (not 4) so the front-seater has something to do.

Not true. See below. Product description page states: "The subject of this study level simulation is the AV-8B N/A Bu No's 163853 and up which are the latest variant of this very capable AV-8B version." Not study-level simulation compered to the referred NATOPS. And the missing features. "Highly realistic modelling of the aircraft systems including electrical, fuel, hydraulics, lighting, engine and navigation that includes:" Standard not achieved. "Realistic weapons, sensor, and defensive systems include:" Standard not achieved. What about this list of wrongly implemented or missing features? https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=285495 "ARBS: The ARBS/DMT right now seems magic. It automatically know altitude of the target and therefore knows slant range etc. It can snap onto anything, not just contrast, which also ties in to "It knows everything". It functions nothing like it is described in the NATOPS. Right now it appears to be nothing more than a budget TPOD. It is also missing its crosswind compensation and by extension, ability to handle moving targets, which again ties into how it locks onto things. It currently has none of the limitations of the real thing, except the slew limits of the camera. Basically, the ARBS itself is what is missing. CCIP/AUTO targeting modes: This is in the same vein as the ARBS. The plane magically chooses the targeting mode (CCIP, RCIP, BCIP, GCIP etc.) for you, but what it chooses does not matter because all of them seem to be the same right now, aka the ARBS/plane already knows the exact data of the target. This is probably the same thing as with the ARBS. The modes are there, visually, but they are one and the same right now. Back up modes: There are back up modes missing for targeting (DSL, DSL(1) and DIR). Simple as that. Toss bombing mode: There is a sub mode to AUTO which is a toss mode. It is not implemented. INS drift: This is not as important as the ones above, but since the limitation of GPS has been included into the sim, modelling a scenario without GPS would require drift of the INS to exist. This might not be modelable since data for INS drift probably is classified, but I'm bringing it up anyway. Summarised list of this thread: Realistic ARBS CCIP/AUTO Targeting modes Back up targeting modes Toss bombing AUTO mode (Realistic INS) (MAVF instead of MAVG. Pet peeve of mine) Missing keybinds Correct AWLS MGRS Coordinate input NWS button toggles MAV FOV Many functions missing from EW page HUD/INS Slew [Weapons Release Data Page] Separate brightness/contrast settings for different types of MFD pages CCIP pipper should occlude velocity vector, designation diamond Gunpod should not be able to function unless sufficient air pressure is supplied (I can't remember wether it was vstolmech or a pilot who pointed out this out and now I can't find the post) DMT slave to sidewinder Full VREST page features Ground Power panel EMCON mode Expendables programming Expendables auto release Target point and Mark point data entry Magnetic variation and its effects Tarawa promised features (AGM-65 force correlation and ship mode, this is on ED side if I remember correctly) [TPOD data such as coordinate display, north arrow etc] AFC features during jet borne flight [TOT and connected features] Fuel dump animation FLIR Hotspot tracking Various BITs Configurable IFF to let SRS/LotATC/etc. interface Various FM deficiencies: 1 and 2 "The EW Menu page that provides the capability to control map, waypoint, RWR and Radar footprint (radar aircraft only) symbology displayed on the EW page" LAR button on EHSD to show JDAM LAR. AGM-122 Primary & Hot mode Missing Cage/Uncage functionality. Missing HUD symbology for caged seeker. Missing symbology when uncaged seeker symbology is HUD limited. Sensitivity should increase when uncaged. " Razbam has not addressed the community's main concerns as per this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=285364 Soon 4 years in development & counting.

ED is not taking any responsibility for 3rd-party's whatsoever. 3rd-party's decide when a module is, out of EA, feature-complete & finished. Interview with Katia Peredenko(ED COO), specifically about Razbam situation, she even says that Razbam products "are quite good": Yet, ED is taking ≈30% on every 3rd-party module sold. But their obligation towards us paying customers stops there. 3rd-partys can do whatever they want. This is unacceptable, as 3rd-partys can practically pump & dump modules as they wish without any repercussions. I was always under the impression that ED would protect us, when 3rd-party devs don't deliver or misbehave contractually. Apparently that's not the case at all.

Are all going to be FC3? Or do you aim for half-baked "sikrit" systems like the AV8B, after 3.5 years, 35% done & out of EA, without any customer-care or support?

Are you absolutely sure? I know this is about pilot's sight, but still..

Lets face it. Razbam's AV8B is never going to be an in depth, full-fidelity simulation, they don't have the knowhow or willpower, since it's already paid for. The AV8B is in such a mess, that they have to redo it almost from scratch & develop so much new systems. How long will that take? Another +3 years? I'm done with their empty promises & I'm sure ain't waiting another 3 years or even 1. My AV8B has been unused for +2 years. It doesn't matter what they have to say, that ship has sailed. Meanwhile Razbam's representatives are mocking us on discord. Do people really think they will do an in depth, full-fidelity F-15E or Mig-23? There's no chance in hell! How can ED even let them? Refound or a free module for the same price everybody paid & uninstalling the AV8B. For those who want. They have to pay the price of intentionally neglecting their customers. ED needs to make it happen, it's the only right thing to do!

Here's Tecca NVG mod I use for trackir, drop in DCS main folder or use OVGME. Readme included. For VR I don't know. Use this to change NVG oval to your liking. "Change the values of 0.99f, 0.85f to whatever you like, where 099f=X=with & 0.85f=Y= hight of the NVG oval." /Thank you Tecca, great job:thumbup: Tacca's NVG mod .rar

But it does mean: Realistically feature-complete, full-fidelity, study-level sim, within the scope of publicly available documents. And that the development is completed. Or has that changed? Bugs are another thing. AV8B is not even 50% done, compered with NATOPS. It's a half-done module. That happened becouse Razbam after 1 year decided to develop the Mig-19 & basically abandoned the AV8B. All with ED's blessings. That ED approves AV8B out of EA is a testament of third-party devs quality control total breakdown. Or a deliberate breach of contract towards it's customers. There are digital EU consumer protecting laws, that are harsh on such behavior. ED thought this would go unnoticed. Who took this decision? That person should explain himself. I will be reluctant from now on to buy any coming third-party modules (Kiowa, Eurofighter, A-7) like others have said. And I will never ever buy anything from Razbam, they are not trustworthy & disrespectful. I gave them my hard earned money & 3.5 years later I've got an unfinished half-done AV8B.

Don't know how much is featured in since toilet2000 wrote this list up: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3744535&postcount=27 Someone more knowledgeable should take a look at it.

This ^^^ all so true! Razbam I want my money back? How can ED allow AV8B, with wrongly implemented systems compered to NATOPS, be out of EA??

What kind of sight mechanism is there for pilot's cannon & rockets, gyro stabilized, boresight, other? Is it going to be easier to aim than in the Mi-8?

+1000:thumbup:

Any news?

Back to TS topic: what's the status of the "dynamic cockpit system"?

Is it the 7 months that bothers you? or the fact we're still using, 1.5 years since release, an simplistic trap/hook-model physics?