Jayhawk1971

Alpha nerds gonna alpha nerd. Woe to any module that threatens to diminish the coveted image of "hardcore simmer" in the world of flight simulation computer games.

Better say nothing and surprise everyone than give out possible EA release dates and having to backpedal.

As I wrote in another thread, DCS is not a zero-sum game. Your FF modules will not suddenly get dumbed down with the release of the F-35. I bet those who don't want to encounter the F-35 in MP will find more than enough servers that won't allow 5th gen. Whether or not ED has "enough documentation" to go ahead is strictly ED's problem. It's their decision to move ahead with development, and it is the customer's decision to purchase the product, or not. I bet there will be ample reviews once it's released, and I assume at some point it will receive the "try before you buy" option as well. Bottom line, I highly doubt that ED's choice to make this module will have a significant negative impact on current gameplay, or DCS as a whole. If you don't like it: avoid and don't buy.

Experiencing that HMDS must be wicked in VR, I'd imagine.

Also, since the dynamic campaign footage in the video only showed the Caucasus map: will it work with every map in DCS?

You are missing my point somewhat. The Flaming Cliffs modules do not take away anything from the full-fidelity modules. Releasing something "in-between" will also not diminish any of the full-fidelity modules. It's not a zero-sum game. Your preference for full-fidelity will not be affected. Releasing the F-35, and who knows, maybe even the F-22 and/or SU-57 in the future will not suddenly turn DCS into "War Thunder"! I also prefer the full-fidelity modules, but I might give Fat Amy a chance, depending on what ED delivers. And should it turn out to be too "lightweight" for me, it would still not be skin off my back.

I remember when DID released EF-2000 and later both F-22 Air Dominance Fighter and its successor, Total Air War. I had so much fun with those games! And at no point was I wringing my hands lamenting the "lack of realism". I suppose the F-35 will fall into a similar category: more guesstimates than fully documented features, "simulation of effect/outcome" rather than accurate systems modeling. I for one care more about what I can see rather than what's being simulated under the hood. For example, I don't necessarily need a faithful representation of the hydraulic system, as long as the effect (working control surfaces) seems plausible enough. I want my disbelief suspended enough to enjoy the game; how the game does it is less interesting to me. And as long as the price tag will reflect the fact that this module will most likely be "mid-fidelity", I will be totally fine with that. Who says that ED has to forever be condemned to only release full-fidelity modules? Just a reminder that DCS retains a good amount of its LOMAC-DNA and still has the Flaming Cliffs modules in its portfolio (which it recently added to). They can absolutely broaden their lineup by releasing "lesser-fidelity"* modules if they believe that there is a market for that. I'm sure that will not diminish its existing full-fidelity lineup, nor any upcoming FF products (like the F-15C). Let's wait and see what product ED delivers first, and grab torches and pitchforks later. And remember: there is no obligation to buy anything that you don't like. *if the F-35 even is "mid-fidelity" (emphasis on "if"). Who knows what ED has is store? We'll see....in about "two weeks (TM)".

No AI A-6?

Eurofighter on thumbnail is always a welcome sight.

If you start from cold& dark, you need to boresight your Mavericks. Which in DCS is still a pain in the butt. If you start in the air, the mission loads pre-boresighted, which is why it works in the training missions. Check YouTube, there are tons of tutorials how to boresight the Mavericks in the Viper.

Not true. Reflected alone made 2.5 campaigns for the map that are not "Red Flag": "Mig Killers" for the F-4, simulating the very first TOPGUN class. "Zone 5" is another TOPGUN campaign for the Tomcat, and the first half of "Speed & Angels" uses NTTR for the RAG part of the campaign. And those are among the very best campaigns that you can get in DCS! He's going to make another NTTR campaign for the F-4 that, indeed, will be about Red Flag, but simulating a specific one set in the early 80's.

NTTR 2.0 would be fantastic, if it would include detailed Southern California (NAS /MCAS Miramar!!!!!) and more detailed northern Nevada (NAS Fallon). Throw Edwards AFB and Fort Irwin (NTC) in for good measure, and it would be a great map for mission/ campaign creators. Might even be an incentive for module makers to create the X planes from the 40's and 50's, and we could have a historic test pilot campaign. And for the Apache and/or Combined Arms (once that has been reworked), an NTC campaign. As an extra special bonus, add Yuma Training Range, and we can finally have an on-location cold-war-era TOPGUN campaign (paging Mr. @Reflected ) (Would "Zone 5 II" be called "Zone 10"? Zone 5: Part Deux? Zone 5 Two: Electric Boogaloo?)

Is the Bullseye location you are using the correct one? I don't know if this is even modelled in DCS (well, if it has any effect), but when I activate the Bullseye on the display, I set it to the waypoint noted on the kneeboard card (it always seems to default to waypoint 25). Which for mission 7 is "Rock" at waypoint 12. As I did find the column no problem, doing that at least didn't hurt. Again, IDK if this is even a thing in DCS. And if this step even does anything. But if what I'm doing isn't completely unnecessarily bonkers, then this might explain why you can't find the column?

It's on one of your kneeboard pages. Titled "BRA". For mission 3, BRA is 8k

Baltic Dragon made an excellent training campaign for the A-10C (II) called "Iron Flag Part 1" (hopefully, part 2 will be released at some point soon). Also, a training campaign for the F/A-18C is planned (prequel to both Raven One campaigns, again with Jello/ Hoser). So things are happening. Regarding "realism". The first ever flight sim game I played was Microprose's F-15 Strike Eagle (1984), where I launched small triangles at larger triangles and bombed squares. Back then I would have killed to have this level of fidelity we currently have (WRT to systems-modelling, procedures and graphics). I do have a life as well as many more hobbies, too, yet I still manage to "keep up" with the modules I own. Granted, having 40 years of continuous "experience" with flight sim games does help, as I can focus on the specifics without having to worry much about basics. Also, and I can't stress this enough, using YouTube tutorials is a huge time-saver. You run into an issue (or need a reminder of a sub-system function you forgot), chances are someone already made a video about it addressing that issue. IMO. one of the biggest issue with DCS is that it is a "study-level survey sim", and jumping between modules is challenging. Especially the "flying calculators" like the Hornet, Viper, A-10C and F-15E are just different enough in their switchology that it takes a while to get back into.

@IronMike Frohe Weihnachten!

I gunned down the other group anyway. It's war. I had lots of ammo for the gun, and Frogfoots (Frogfeet? ) make for easy targets (as long as you stay behind them). Apparently I destroyed them so thoroughly they were even eliminated from the mission.

Thanks for the huge Christmas patch! Landing the Viper on roads in Finland, here I come! (fixed excessive roll/yaw issue in landing config)! Just one question: did Santa forget Heatblur for this patch, or was Heatblur naughty and forgot to send the patchnotes? Nevermind, just saw on Discord that the changes apparently made it in, put patchnotes hadn't been written yet.

IMO, the conundrum with the Strike Eagle in particular is not only the uncertain future of the module itself, but also its "place" within the DCS environment. Even if future patches and updates won't break the module. For SP only players like myself: if it remains frozen in its current state, who's going to bother to develop content for it? I was hoping for a Baltic Dragon campaign for the Strike Eagle, with hopefully other 3rd party creators following suite. Would it be supported should ED some day release a "Dynamic Campaign"? And for the MP people: will it remain useful/ competitive in a server environment in the future? If all you will be able to do with the module is to play the already available handful of SP missions, or fly around the sandbox, I don't know if that would be worth the current $63.99. I did buy the SE mostly because I have some sentimental attachment to that aircraft (my very first "sim" experience was Microprose's F-15 Strike Eagle on the C64, followed by all iterations of that product, and culminating with Jane's F-15), and back then there was no indication that the relationship between ED and RB was going to sour. So far, I'm still in the "holding off on refund, hoping for a reasonably positive outcome" camp. Yet should someone ask me whether or not to purchase that module right now, my advice would be a solid "No!". Certainly not at its current price point.

+1 to functional helmet visors/ sunglasses for all modules. Like it's already implemented in the Strike Eagle.