Ash Lynx

Similar thing with me load into a server, firstly all the dynamic slots slow my game down so i have to scroll in on the map before hand and filter alot of the slots out quickly. Then I click on a slot get the spinning cursor for windows is doing something then i get a white screen with not responding then crash. I've played the game before and have reinstalled it recently honestly this dynamic slot system is ridiculous. I have a ryzen 2600 GTX 1660 and 32gb of ram this should be causing the crash because i've played the game before completely fine before the addition of these dynamic slots and filtering system. dcs.log

**bang** *shoots razbam in the back of the head* oh damn you saw that, uhhh F35 coming to dcs. Source? Youtube obviously.

I only said those assumptions to provide context as to why I was asking the questions I am in my original post. I am mealy commenting on possibilities and did intend to put what I've said as fact, just background context.

The only question i ask about all this is, does Deka have all the relevant documentation to faithfully represent the proper integration of these western avionics. The fact were 2 were built and the project was cancelled provides a scenario of which operational documentation and design docs are lost/discarded. I am sure Deka chose this version because this was the only way of bringing the J8 to dcs. Im fine with the fact that only 2 were built, only one of these aircraft being built is the minimum to say that this aircraft existed. But its to be expected with such limited numbers also the surround reasons as to why the program was cancelled its understandable to assume data pertaining to the integration of the avionics were lost. To summarize: Does Deka have the relevant documentation on how these systems were specifically integrated with each other, or is Deka taking the approach of using documentation of each avionic system and using that to put everything together in the peace pearl package. I am asking this to better understand Deka's approach to this project and this hopefully would answer a lot of questions and clear up a lot of other peoples misconceptions.

F105 or AW-129. F105 because we are getting alot of other vietnam aircraft in development and the AW129 just to further fleshout the attack heli roster.

Might wanna update the IADS part. Its been put on hold.

The IADS interest post seems to be missing or deleted. Can someone explained why it is missing, maybe because the deal fell through or something. Just looking for official clarification to manage expectations. Thank you

Please or add a drag box to select everything.

You can also see the dynamic option in the ME in the ACLS video so its definitely a tease. If it was a oversight it wouldve only been in one video.

I think we need a wishlist item asking for better sam implementation. From what i am reading here it seems sams in DCS are simply heavily neutered versions of their real life counter parts.

Its from my observation that the way that aircraft do certain operations depends on what branch its from as with the A10 and F16 the manipulation of the SPI and SOI are very similar but the whole system is entirely different for the F18. To me its feels like you have Navy way of doing this and Airforce way of doing things.

This seems something that would definitely would be required for the dynamic campaign as well, runway bombing in order to disable an airbase although same effect could be acquired for that by loading up the next turn as a new mission, either way this would be very useful for MP. Maybe a "remove crater in x meters" function would be alot helpful this way you can not only set up a "repair runway script" but also a "repair taxiway/parking" script. Provides the same result as the OP suggested but with more versatility.

Adding these regions would add alot in terms of content and possibility to DCS and i am pretty sure there were mentions that they are working on a world map although its very far off in terms of development maybe when its alot more mature this idea could be a first implementation, adding in the middle east as the first section of the DCS world system.

Having MFD datalink and navigation in it self would be amazing especially for the MIG-29 major set up from FC3 levels apart from the obvious full fidelity treatment. Having a moving map and a SA page by it self would add alot to the aircraft at least in my opinion since Nav and Sa pages are what i use the most in all of the modules that i use.

A CH47 covers alot of eras as well although if it were to be developed a single variant would be developed with its respective avionics but its a CH47 either way. Plus we have a redfor transport already with the Mi-8.

I think having a Vietnam era Cobra and the most Advanced Cobra possible is the most likely outcome if it were to be developed. ED and 3rd parties don't really do variants unless its either a major difference or very similar so it would be easy to develop. Having the 2 cobra types mentioned would cover mostly everyone's needs mostly. But what I am speculating is the bare minimum that ED or a 3rd party would do.

I haven't seen any mention of the British variants (correct me if i'm wrong) so i am making this post just to get some attention for these variants. All i wanna know is that is there a possibility of getting these variants maybe pay a A-10C tank killer styled upgrade to whatever version the british variant closely relates to. Also if it is on the table then we need a brit voice acting the WSO. P.S: I would happily do the British voice lines.

Weird that it recognizes the DCS voice chat as a telephone call, maybe ED can do something so windows doesnt see it as a telephone call and not have the noise suppression trigger

This would be a good addition.

+1

The most popular server on DCS growling sidewinder. PVP and would benefit from a team balancer, yes you can use the argument that the planes available arent balanced but that again is a mission maker problem not a team balancing problem.

Server admin here, my guys were actually discussing how to add team balance cos its not natively in the game. For a server which has the same aircraft and number of aircraft on both sides it just makes sense to have team balancing, one major example being 4ya full out war were both sides have access to the same airframes, quite a couple of times there would be 7 people on red side and 3 on blue for example. A further suggestion would be limiting the amount of people can be on each side. so you have 40 people in the sever but you cant enforce an even 20/20 split so you just have to hope people balance themselves. There are people mentioning things such as map position and weapons that is something for mission makers to worry about and factor in. When I read team balancing like in other games it means balancing the number of players and simply that.

I am posting this mainly due to the announcement of there being no roadmap, which i fully understand due to people seeing such roadmap as solid even though there are reminders that it can change. Suggestion: Have a trello The main reason I liked the roadmap is that it listed all the things that are in the works and coming at some point, also having a small update for each feature just to make sure everybody knows that its still being worked on but there isn't much to talk about yet, one example being MAC. In the 2021 roadmap not much about MAC but a nice little update to let people know that the project is still alive. Using Heatblurs trello as an example, they do not specifically list any dates for features they simply list things that are coming at some point for their modules e.g Iranian F14. This is a possible substitution for the roadmap newsletter. My idea for the trello is to do the same as heatblur, just have a one stop list of features that are confirmed in development. A place where people can easily refer to and keep themselves up to date without having to ask on the forums or the discord if something is in development or not. 1. Bug tracker: Have bugs that are being investigated on the trello, of course they can always look on the forums but having it on the trello people can take a glance and see if someone else has mentioned this bug and if its already known to the ED team, another way of cutting down on people posting about the same bug or asking if ED knows. 2. In Development: Just have a list of features that are confirmed and are publicly known in development. No need for any dates as its more of a list to show what is being worked on and is coming at some point, just like Heatblurs roadmap. Update when required and attach any relevant news letters and media to the respective feature. So if someone wants to find out more about a certain feature, they can click on the feature on the roadmap and refer to the attached links This is something that can be updated when certain features are getting close to release and when features are slated to appear in the next beta patch. It would be nice if 3rd Parties were included but that depends on if they wanna get involved.

When I turned voice chat on, then joined a server opened the voice chat menu. All the people on my discord vc were a lot more quite. Didn't fix it self until i closed DCS then my audio suddenly went back to normal. I have since turned off voice chat and hasn't occurred since then. Some other people in my squadron have also had the same problem, all ik for now it affects discord.

A friend of mine was making a JF livery when he came across dip sick instead of dip stick. Not sure if its intentional but just letting you guys know. This is his updated version he told me add this