CageyLobster

It may not be a bug, but it doesn't make it a non issue. When they decertify the purchased modules because the authentication server is messed up and it clears your special settings. The settings don't need to be part of the authentication. Who cares if you have settings for modules you can't fly. They should only be removed from a repair or deleting them from an issue.

A small thing I noticed was Wadi al Jandali uses 96x and Hatzerim also uses 96x. Thanks in advance! I am enjoying the map a lot so far.

Both of ED's WW2 campaigns have horrible performance after the Normandy 2.0 release. Hitching with AI on screen or being spawned in. Makes both unplayable. My fps will continually dip from 140fps to 90 every couple frames, but just ED's 2 campaigns. Other WW2 campaigns seem to be working better.

If you look up the Natops manual in section 11.1.8 talks about aircraft stability and dynamic response. It does mention in situations the FCS does limit roll. But, I am not a hornet guy, so my knowledge in what the book says vs. what happens in DCS is very, very limited. I just recently read about it, and was curious if this was what you could be witnessing in the -18.

TLDR: The limitations of the F5 and the lack of "AI limitations" in DCS will absolutely beat you down in this campaign. Don't go into this expecting to win. Hope for a draw at best, and hope you learned something in the experience. Don't get me wrong, a win is cool, but I think with this plane, and these scenarios, it's about the little victories more so than the other BFM campaigns. I very much enjoyed this, but I was aware of what some of the game limitations were ahead of time. I will start off with what is most likely going to be the biggest complaint, that isn't in your control, but should be mentioned for a new DCS player. The energy management and decision making of the "AI" in the current iteration of DCS 2.8 MT is really evident in this campaign. In my opinion the low thrust to weight of the F-5, and slow spool times of the motors makes the AI's savant like ability in those areas very evident in the outcome of these fights. The AI will absolutely outturn you, out maneuver you, and make you pay every time you are late in your own management of the aircraft. However, I went into this experience knowing that the AI was going to be a limitation. I love the NTTR map, and it's fun to jump in fly a short sortie and get some practice in. This campaign in particular surprised me a bit, because of how the F-5 is replicated in DCS. If you go into it knowing you are at a severe disadvantage (It's an F-5. You are the underdog...plus the AI) I just try to focus on things I can control in a BFM situation. My corner speeds, my flaps, my fuel, my throttle 5 minutes in the future. I have a couple of the BFM campaigns, and because this is in an F-5, I think it adds so much challenge to in your own abilities. You get a lot of practice in navigation using TACAN radials. Sometimes I would just fly the fam flight just to practice and relax with some navigation. (This practice is in the other BFM campaigns also, but the nav systems are usually much more advanced in later generation airframes, so you aren't forced. But I enjoyed being forced. It's like flying formation, or refueling, or landing on a carrier. Every opportunity to do these things is only going to force you to become better.) This is easy enough to do, but often not done in DCS because it doesn't actually serve a purpose, nor is it required. I enjoy that it forces you to practice basic airmanship stuff on the way to the range (again, if you want to. But all the information to practice and learn this is provided to the player in the briefings if you look. Also, if you have flown the NTTR map enough it becomes mostly visual, but if you want to be precise the information to do it is provided.) Fuel in the F5, is a thing in these scenarios. 3x 5 minutes dog-fights, while trying to keep up with the AI, is going to be a consideration. Also, tank drag is a real consideration even for the flight out. Just another little consideration the other airframes don't suffer from as much. I try to have a centerline 150 gal tank with a bit of fuel in the first fight if I can. I am still trying to figure out if the drag alone is worth the extra burner time in the initial few turns. Using this campaign to learn sight pictures if the enemy is pulling lead, pure, or lag pursuit. When you should reverse, or nose counter, but also not float out in front. Should you drop your nose to extend and gain speed. Should your flaps be in auto or fixed (if you want to stir up some community discussion). These are all challenges in the other BFM campaigns, but the nature of the F5, make everything an energy management consideration. In your F18 BFM campaign you have included different threat profiles of the different airframes you will face. I was curious if those could also be included in the F5's campaign? For those that may own only own this campaign they could be beneficial. I hope in the future, once the development of some of the core of DCS settles down a bit, and the airplanes mature, we can get more of the cold war era jets in your BFM/ACM campaigns. This is a bit of an over exaggeration and simplification, but to me, this era started to change how much of a pilots skill translated into the outcome of these engagements. That's what makes getting a win in the F5 such a good feeling. You were never supposed to win in most of the situations the campaign makes you face. That's what makes it all the sweeter when you are able to squeak out a win.

I just tested training mission 1 and 6 and they all progressed using spacebar. My space bar is mapped to "Camera/Gun Trigger - Second default" This is the default. Have you changed it? DCS has a couple of spots a space bar may be miss-bound. Under your controls section in the upper left you have a drop down box that allows you to swap between aircraft and DCS specific controls. So the space bar issue may be in your aircraft or something like the "General" tab. In my controls (These are years of fine tuning, so they could be messed up) I dont have space mapped to any general or UI layer of DCS. I assume if that doesn't work, you should save a track file of your attempt. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/faq/support_ticket/#3319437 This link has the instructions in how to create a track file. It will be the "DCS Track File" hyperlink at the top. I am not super knowledgeable in bug testing, but those that are, will want a track file at the very least. Also, DCS version (beta, Stand-alone, or Steam) and any other specifics you can think of can be useful. Edit: Im on the multi-threading version 2.8.4.39731 currently for reference

I'm curious if anyone else has had this issues with most of the Normandy 2 official campaigns no longer having the right comm channels set up for the airbases? Or, if it's been posted somewhere already? I am not even really sure if this is something that is just easier for the Normandy 2 guys to fix airbase radio frequencies or all the campaigns will need to change to all the new. But, currently it's simple things like Chailey is set for 118.8 channel D in the BNoB campaign, but Normandy 2.0 map has Chailey as 119.0. I assume this is also an issue present in other official WW2 campaigns, but haven't checked any others but the 2 P-51 campaigns so far. I have just been hitting the mission planner up before launching them to change the presets, so it does have a workaround. Also, thanks for your hard work. A lot of things to be happy about for WW2 fans right now.

The documentation that is provided no longer shows the correct headings/distances to targets or waypoints based on the briefing page in game. I assume with the updated Normandy 2 map the locations changed slightly. The briefing page has been updated, but the documentation isn't showing those changes.

You can't imagine that's a good business model can you? Also you were never asked what your opinion was by OP. The 2nd response to OP answered his question. At that point no one else needed to respond. But, like often you guys do without empathy or understanding and little regard to see how things could be improved. That was my point in defending OP by asking where certain documents were located. I asked because I new they were in different files and folders within DCS. Making it convoluted. You voiced your opinion without adding anything beneficial to the discussion, other than I know where to look and I read readme files. That's great. It helps OP in no way. Actually, I think that you belong to that type of user which is always right and any faults he suffers are someone else's blame ... if instead of ranting, you had just asked on the Forum you would have found the manual very quickly. Neither does this response by you one the 1st page. You can say what you want about OP being frustrated, but I hope you can understand how I would expect better from my community. Especially one such as yourself within it @Rudel_chw

I don't know. That's why I also asked. This is what I use though until I can find better. I wasn't ignoring you, but you said you didn't understand what the problem was with the documentation in the game. So I just listed some off the issues I knew of top of my head. Again, sorry wasn't trying to be rude, but I didn't have your answer either. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3312200/

I'm sorry. But you guys keep linking to all these locations for files that an experienced player would know where to look for, but aren't centrally located or streamlined at all. You guys are defending a poorly implemented system for no other reason then, it works for me. Is their room for improvement yes: no: That is literally what Im arguing about. Because you guys seem to think the current system is fine. But, clearly it is not. Not broken mind you, but could use a new paint job. My post was never about the documentation. It was about the fact OP had a real grievance and was frustrated because he couldn't find the documentation that was needed. I provided some points that backed up OP. People responded with other locations to look and have zero empathy when OP didn't know that, and got frustrated (also non English speaking) You guys jumped to a conclusion that OP's frustration was being rude. Maybe they are just stressed. You guys are also older and come from a time when reading imbedded files and instruction manuals were required. You guys realize my kid has never read a manual for a video game yet...cause everything now is tutorialized in game, or has a video explaining the system. But, ED is this ever changing monster and things are ever changing. So it's hard finding clear concise answers to a lot of things. A lot of you guys have a real high post count or a forum badge as part of ED ( Are you speaking as a ED as an employee or a person that just knows? Seriously? I can't figure the two out and I think the forum badges often become more confusing from where the message is coming from) You guys with high post counts are the Liaison of my community, and often the message you say isn't one I agree with. If the files are confusing to just 1 person and ED finds time in the future and has nothing to do...I expect them to try and improve that 1 players experience. Not because it needs it or would help the guy whos been here for 10 years. New players are your life blood. If the experience isn't good for them, then your F2P business will die out. Don't hold up progress just cause you guys looked and so should someone else. Stop gate keeping. Be accepting of the huge stressor this game is and how it could be improved ever so slightly by changing the in-game file structure...maybe...when they have time. Or their are any other number of changes. But if a frustrated player has a real complaint (It is a real complaint. Show me the PG aerodrome charts) The frustration isn't pointed at you, it's pointed at ED. They don't need you to be the hero. Just explain where they can find it (The 2nd response did that) and move on if you have nothing of merit to add and are just coming by to condemn someone. Their is a reason this is a last stop for the community. Edit @NineLine or @BIGNEWY I assume in a bit you guys can lock this. I don't see it going much further, but I would like the other members a chance to respond since all arguments have 2 sides? Anyway, thanks

I'm not arguing where they are located. I'm arguing for a better file structure to make it more user friendly. I just used the current file structure as an example. It is a mess and if a program contains a readme (I never knew this, thank you for pointing this out) and a 390 page manual, what one is the player going to look at? (I only skimmed the manual, so I could have missed it also. I don't expect anyone to look really) I mention this because the manual doesn't seem to mention the file structure to locate any of the manuals. We also have to remember some airframes need aerodrome information, or something else from another file location to facilitate start or other operations, and finding this information located in spall patches all over the file structure can become difficult and *frustrating*. This makes anyone who pays attention notice just how disorganized this program is. Sure, you can find the information, no one said it isn't their. (Until you start mentioning maps and other types of modules) I am saying it could be done better. We can do this all day. It's either poorly implemented and in the future could use work, or the file system is fine and the readme is where the pertinent information is in DCS. You think it's fine, and I see room for improvement. It's also hard when really experience people have responded all with different areas to find information in. Or, know where to look for it, because it doesn't exist outside of a user file (Thank you soooo much content creatures) and then gets frustrated that a new player is frustrated. The most suggested thing for a new player is to download a chucks guide. That's awesome. Thanks Chuck. But what would happen if that outside resource didn't exist? The fact that that a chucks guide exists, mean improvement to the documentation and training methods used by ED could be improved. This is again just an example of deficiencies and areas that long term may be looked at for standardization in training and layout of how the material is presented. Edit: words

My problem is when the community gets short with people who are frustrated looking and come here to be ridiculed by the player base cause its convoluted. Also having a good manual and training and things that a new player first encounter in a working order goes to huge lengths in improving the experience and its an easy and cheap fix to start with some organization of the file directory. No one is asking for manual rewrites and them to be correct 100% of the time in a EA module. I also spent a lot of time in the military training, writing training plans, writing documents, tech order rewrites, validation and a ton of money spent training me in process improvement for maintenance actions at the wing level. Where does it say to go look for the f-16 manual within the mods folder. D:\Program Files (x86)\DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\aircraft\F-16C\Doc This is where my f-16 module documents are located. Do you think most people are going to dig that deep to look for a manual? Also if I'm English speaker it would be awesome if I didnt have to download all files that are only of that language to minimize hard drive space. It could be worked if they ever made changes to the file system maybe. D:\Program Files (x86)\DCS World OpenBeta\Doc When this folder exists higher up in the file structure? While these are mostly DCSWorld documents it also has a charts folder D:\Program Files (x86)\DCS World OpenBeta\Doc\Charts This folder has Aerodrome charts for FC3. A10C, and a general one. But, Aerodrome charts are kept here for Caucasus. D:\Program Files (x86)\DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\terrains\Caucasus\Kneeboard I say all this as someone who knows where the files are NOW. Who knows where to go. Who spent time finding out where stuff is. I spent a significant amount of time first finding them, then having to remember. Finally I just now have a 2nd hard drive with manuals and files. Asking here and getting mod testers who think the problem is people are lazy and don't look is exactly the problem here. I don't don't get this community often. Super hostile to new players and yet unwilling to make it better for them. Nope, we are just gonna hog pile a new player for not knowing and asking a question in a manner we don't see fit, all the while refusing to see how things could be better. Whatever, I know how to play this game. I'm not here to make customers. Later gators This isn't messy guys?

If this were the case can you tell me where to find the Aerodrome charts for the Persian Gulf map released in 2018? edit: Within the file structure of DCSWorldOpenBeta

The file structure for DCS is kind of a mess. So many of the documentation files are located in multiple different locations within the DCS directory. Some of the presented docs are not up to date either. I understand the question wasn't worded in a manner that was less confrontational, but the person also stated English was not the native language. Also, I think you guys sometimes forget with how convoluted some things are in DCS how frustrating a new player can feel, especially when they don't have the resources that some of the older players have. As someone who has those resources available to me to figure stuff out, it still is frustrating to look at DCS as a product and see how messy it can be. It also doesn't take long to see that it's messy. Since 20 years of military have taught me not to bring up a problem without a solution, here is mine. Have a centrally located Docs folder within DCS that contains all associated documentation for every module, terrain, tech, and so on. All the Aerodrome charts for the maps, the aircraft docs, the tech docs...all of it installs its documentation to a centrally located folder. Inside DCS could be a hyperlink to documentation. It could either link to your internal folder, or if a network connection is established open a link to the web page to see all current documentation. (At no time should it be different. That's messy) It's little housecleaning things that are cheap and easy fixes to making the experience for the consumer better. That's what niche titles need to be doing. Open the doors, don't shut them just because what works for you should work for me. Make it better.

This still appears to not be working. Any word if it has been resubmitted to the engineers or what the status is?

I hope this gets traction. It really would be nice if it wasn't off. Can make it tough to keep things in focus and use the HMCS.

It will be a right click to pop the ILS/TACAN volume knobs up and a left click to push them back in or off. They default to off, so you will need to right click them to turn them on initially to hear. I just tested the A10cii on a three of the maps caucasus, NTR, and Syria. The 3 airports all transmitted both ILS/TACAN when I jumped in. So, it could be just be a fluke or switchology. ED will most likely only help if you provide a track file if it happens again.

I don't own the -64 yet, but this is huge. Thanks Chuck and Happy Holidays. Huge thanks for everything you do for us!

This! The INU prep isn't even part of chapter 9 in either the BS1 or BS2 manual. I don't know what the equivalent of a dedicated crew chief is in the VVS, but I can't imagine an operator stepping to his airframe without the INU alignment being done or started at the very least. It also can't be done with engines running. This is all stuff that should be done by the maintenance crew prior to pilot step. Everything about this says "Maint crew function during preflight prior to aircrew step" It's cool it's a process, but it should definitely be something that's toggled in the mission editor. 15-20 minutes is a lot of time to do absolutely nothing.

Hey, Reflected. I just wanted to say thanks for your WWII campaigns. The amount of information and background you provide, along with skins and other bonuses to make the experience that much better. The amount of voice work and little extra bits of radio chatter is really immersive. I find myself learning planes to play your campaigns lol. Again, thanks for all the hard work and giving the community great WW2 content.

Thank you so much. You are a legend

Nope. The forum page for the campaign has a link by BalticDragon that links to a google docs that needs to authorize me before I can download them.

I don't know why I need to request access to the campaign docs. It seems excessive considering how most are included with the download.

This would go for that Anton also, but I haven't tried her yet. Would it be possible in the future that the view option provided to the Bf-109K-4 be also added to the Dora and Anton (if it's not yet) under the special options menu? I have a bad neck/back and find myself twisting to center myself in the crew compartment. Obviously you can make snap views, so it's a super low-threat wishlist item.