Jayhawk1971

In order for certain triggers to fire, you need to be inside the trigger zone set by the mission designer. This is the nature of story-driven single player missions. This is nothing new, and not limited to DCS either, as these things can happen in basically any scripted game. If you "trick" the game and thereby miss a trigger in any Call of Duty game, for example, the AI will not spawn and the game will not progress. Same happens in pretty much any SP scenario in any ARMA version if you go outside the parameters set by the mission maker. Evidently, your aggressive (and not briefed) decent to ~6000 ft put you outside of the necessary trigger zone. So either play the mission as it was designed to be played (which will proceed without problems), or you will have to skip it. Or you can try to edit the mission yourself and maybe extend the trigger zone to sea level, if the campaign's copy protection allows you to do that?

I agree that a dedicated, integrated Vaicom-esque speech recognition mode would by far be the best and most immersive solution for VR users. For pancake, and for those who - unlike me - don't want to embarrass themselves in front of family and friends by wearing a headset and talking into the void , a Jester-like wheel (with transparency slider) would be the next best solution for an enhanced comms menu, IMO.

As long as ED sends us complementary physical "copies" of Rum and Cigars, I'm down with it.

An interim solution when playing other (non-F-14) campaigns that use AI Tomcats seems to be - and it pains me to write this - to disable the Tomcat module in the module manager. I really hope that HB can find the culprit soon, because that is hardly a viable solution for any Tomcat fan.

Thanks for posting this video. Also interesting to see them taking off with flaps, despite being "light". Incidentally, the video shows what I would love to be able to do in DCS one day: Being able to walk to the jet, do the walkaround (with the ground crew), get into the jet....all in VR. Bonus: do all that on the Carrier as well (Ready Room to flight deck).

@KeithDouglass And after you've watched "Speed and Angels", it wouldn't hurt to also read "Lions of the Sky", by Paco Chierici. Both are probably not mandatory to enjoy the campaign, but I suppose you'd feel more "at home" initially. Both film and book are also good entertainment, so certainly not a waste of time if you're interested in the topic matter, at all.

That would be even better, because I'd rather have one map to "rule them all", than several smaller, adjacent ones clogging up valuable SSD space. Also, a lot more potential for larger, longer-range missions (more "natural" bomber escort). Now I'm hoping for Syria 2, which should include Iraq, and maybe overlap somewhat with the upcoming Sinai map.

After the initial confusion, my understanding is that Ugra's (a third party developer) Normandy 2 will greatly enhance Normandy 1, both in detail and in scale. So Normandy 2 is potentially a replacement for Normandy (depending on performance, I suppose). The Channel map is developed "in house" by ED, therefore has nothing to with Normandy. However, there is speculation that the enhanced scale of Normandy 2 may include the same area that the Channel map covers, so Normandy 2 may or may not render the Channel map somewhat redundant. Note that even if Normandy 2 would include the exact same area as the Channel map, that does not necessarily mean it would be as detailed, or look the same or better. Also, ED may have plans for a future extension of the Channel map as well (even if they don't know that they will have those plans yet ).

And to be fair, no one asked for that. I wrote "payware ported version", which means charge for the upgrade, maybe discounted for those who already own the original campaign, and full prize for those who don't. No one is asking Reflected to do any of his work for free. He puts way too much effort and passion into his projects for that. IMO he deserves every penny for his work. But of course I fully understand his point, because I bet he is already hard at work on his upcoming projects (for which he is currently passionate about, so most of his creative energy is probably focused on that), and being from the creative side myself, I understand that as a creator you'd rather not invest too much time and energy into past projects, even if you get revenue for the work, unless you see some potential in expanding on it. Once your "children" have moved out, you need to let them go. The info that content for Normandy 1 may work almost flawlessly on Normandy 2 is already good news, at least for me. I'll definitely purchase Normandy 2 and Blue Nosed Bastards once this map is released and optimized enough to be playable in VR. I was only asking because I found the map thing confusing initially.

Don't get me wrong: I understood the point you were making in your video. I was just thinking that this particular map may constitute a "special circumstance", because from the newsletter I got the impression that this may very well make both current WWII maps kinda obsolete in the future, since Normandy gets completely replaced by version 2. So what if the current Channel map will be made redundant as Normandy 2 would "swallow" the area? That was my train of thought. Like the original Black Shark was made obsolete by Black Shark 2.

New BFM-AI in action, video by Growling Sidewinder:

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.