Jayhawk1971

Reflected, would you consider "re-releasing" payware ported versions of your WW2-campaigns for the new "merged" Normandy map by Ugra that was announced today? It could follow a similar pricing model as Ugra's: those who already own the respective campaign for the "legacy" maps would get a discount, whereas "newcomers" to DCS WW2 would purchase at full price. I always held back at pouncing on WW2 (I've owned the P-51 for years and never did anything with it beyond the tutorials) content, because of the hassle involved (two additional maps, an asset pack, a new SSD to incorporate said two maps.....). Now though, with a "once size fits all" map coming up, I am inclined to reconsider, if there were quality content for the map.

Not much, compared to the complex wizzardy - if not outright occult - world of the "Bobs" , but maybe a good start? https://www.f-14rio.com/?fbclid=IwAR2Lx4_feGUEt97ZpRKqmPxShs8a3p50ehGrGAZJqNHHXNl9bBbiiYklQ64

I concur with Lt_Jaeger. VAICOM ceasing to work with the Tomcat would be a huge blow to immersion. Worse than that if you're a VR-only user. It can not be overstated how the AIRIO extension has been a game-changer for me in terms of handling the Tomcat. Being able to quickly give verbal commands to Jester has done wonders for SA, as I am not being distracted staring at and interacting with a big wheel (with different layers) in front of my nose while in the middle of the thick of it. Should this functionality go away, it would be quite a blow with regards to enjoying this and other upcoming multicrew modules with "Jester" functionality, sadly. I just sincerely hope that nothing has happened to Hollywood_315 of course (!), but from the POV of a customer, also that he isn't the only person on the planet who knows how to access Jester functionality as he did. If he doesn't come back to the community, I just hope someone else will take up his mantle with a similar product. The best solution would of course be ED "simply" baking the functionality in, or as Lt_Jaeger suggested, HB includes this with the Tomcat and upcoming multicrew modules, should their workload permit it someday.

I tried this yesterday and could not see any difference, other than a slight (but noticeable) drop in performance. I'm on a Vive Pro with SteamVR, so maybe the effect is dependent on the headset. "Testbed" was the F-16 single mission on the Nevada map ("Home on the Range", I believe?).

I tried the Nvidia thing as well, but didn't see any discernible difference back then. I'll try this "stereo" thing later, and I shall see what I shall see.

Do you notice this effect "standalone" (= enabling "stereo" without additional tweaks), or do you also have these NVidia inspector settings enabled at the same time?

Do not lower flaps above 225 KIAS. 250 might already have been too fast.

I believe the long-term goal with DCS (Digital Combat Simulator) has always been to fully realize the decades-old dream of a "digital battlefield". A digital battlefield includes infantry. I don't see why in the future, when technology will be more advanced, Combined Arms couldn't evolve into an ARMA-type module (on a much larger scale). It will just take a while (a loooong, looooooooong while ). Think "continental drift" as a yardstick. What I do see as feasible near-term would be "pilot legs" and enhanced player-JTAC integration. ED could do that with the current engine. It would be highly immersive to be able to walk/ drive to or from the jet, do a walkaround, climb in and out of the pit. Or be able to move around on a hilltop to call in CAS in multiplayer. My near-term ultimate dream scenario would be to be able to attend a briefing in the (upcoming?) Supercarrier's Ready Room, suit up, walk onto the flight deck and get into the jet. In VR! All of this could be done with the current engine and custom movement controls for the avatar; creating the necessary Carrier interiors would be the most complex issue, I suppose.

Well, I'm in no hurry, I can wait....said nobody, ever! I'm so stoked for this campaign, and the video made waiting for this even harder. Thanks for all the fantastic work you (and fellow creators like Baltic and ChilING) do for DCS. It makes the rather bland sandbox (IMO) come alive!

PG map. Set around the Nimble Archer campaign 1987-88.

I don't think neither the Navy nor Hughes relied solely on NASA tests. The Navy ran a whole missile test center at NAS Point Mugu. I bet they've launched their fair share of Phoenix missiles over the decades of its lifespan. Edit: Oh, by "developer" you mean Heatblur, not Hughes. Sorry, I misunderstood. That happens when intermittently posting while working . Well, to be fair, Heatblur and other developers for the civilian market are dependent on material that is publicly available, and is subject to "fair use".

I think I don't quite get the point you're making, in this context. Are you saying that at some point the numbers are becoming negligible when "fine tuning" tactics? As in the charts are "close enough"? Because if so, that wasn't in dispute. But you need to know the effective range of your rifle in order to even begin to develop tactics. Sure, at some point it probably won't matter that much whether or not you can hit something 5 meters further downrange. But up to that point, it would be nice to know if I can train infantry to reliably hit a target, say, at 100 meters or 250 meters. Edit: My statement was made in response to someone above apparently telling me that weapon system performance was a "meaningless" factor in developing tactics to employ said weapon system. I disagree with that if that is what he meant. To circle back to the Phoenix, if I understood Puck correctly, the Navy apparently erred on the conservative side; by how much, or if knowing what they knew after those tests would even have made much of a difference in their BVR timelines, I have no way of knowing. And as long as it has no bearing on my small world of PC sims, it really doesn't matter. I'm not Iran.

I meant to write "charts" without the "tactics" in front of it. I just missed that I left the word in there. I was going to write something else about tactics but changed my mind since it's not what Lurker was asking. Nevertheless: Tactics are - or should be - developed based on the expected performance of a weapon system under "real world conditions". And, just to be safe from further hairsplitting, I'll ad: among other considerations. In the context of the interview, I interpreted his statement as the Phoenix performed "better than anticipated". In what aspects, by what margin, he of course leaves out. I also noted that he seems to be deliberately vague and steers the conversation in a different direction.

Towards the end of the AIM-54's service life, the Navy had their Tomcat crews live-fire a crapload of those, as I assume this was the easiest method to clean out the inventory. I bet the Navy collected tons of data in the process. The question is: who's privy to that data. I somehow doubt that'll include the DCS crowd, at least for now. Edit: one would assume they tested the Phoenix in all kinds of scenarios, including low, mid and high altitude shots. "Puck" Howe said in a recent interview that it turned out their tactics charts were too "pessimistic".

I only use Voice Attack/ Vaicom Pro with the Tomcat. But I also ran into this freeze-crash a couple of times when flying the Hornet in a SP campaign (that uses AI Tomcats), so I didn't even run Voice Attack in that case.

Mooch interviews Rear Admiral Mike "Nasty" Manazir. Very interesting note about the difference between Block 90 and Block 135, starting around the 10:30 minute mark.

I have never heard of AviaStorm ("avia" as in Panavia would indicate dedicated interest in the Tornado). Does anyone have more info on that company (link to their website, social media presence)? Did the company form specifically to create this module? A planned Tornado is certainly great news, and I hope the team can produce an awesome module.

I am not an ED AI.

I'd be happy if Jester would at least learn to prioritize contacts based on relevance and threat level. No need to call out the E-2 orbiting 50 miles away. I get that Jester is compensating for the Tomcat's lack of Link 16, and for SA's sake, HB could hide calling out friendly contacts behind an additional menu item: "Jester, declare friendlies" or something like that. I find it especially annoying when he keeps calling out contacts that either are friendly, or hostiles 100-150 miles away, while I'm in the process of AAR-ing, or while trapping (both Case I and Case III). I really don't care about a hostile CAP 200 miles away while I'm in the groove. The latter is also an issue due to mission/ campaign designers often putting the CVBG too close to shore, and yes, I realize that's a decision made for gameplay's sake. Still, if Jester could learn to determine whether contacts are posing a threat. BTW, off topic: @ mission designers, I for one would welcome a more realistically placed carrier battle group, with longer flight times and mandatory AAR. In most campaign missions I have to dump fuel because I'm always arriving heavy over the carrier.

Yes, for a long time now. Hadn't that been brought up already, way back when? IIRC, Floggers are stuck on the airbase and never take off. Edit: Found it, dunno why it's marked as "Resolved", though

Works fine for me, definitely not a "known" problem. Are your keybindings set up correctly? Any double binding or conflicts? Is your weapon select setting working as is should? Then again, you mentioned that you can fire missiles, so this is kind of mysterious. Does it happen only with missions you've made yourself, or all missions that start from cold and dark?

Sounds like you didn't turn your air source on ("both"). The gun won't work with air source off.