79Au

9 months without any update is unacceptable for any early access product. The way BN handles this situation, defending the party that hasn't delivered, just adds insult to injury. Booo!

This rivet counter approach wouldn't be such a problem if they gave us more than 2-4 numbers per squadron. But apparently the livery guy likes to move on to the next fancy paint scheme rather than dealing with the disadvantages and consequences of using static numbers. (There was a screenshot on reddit and it looks like we're getting a grand total of 2 numbers per squadron for the F-4. But 200 different squadrons, of course) I don't mind rivet counting but what I do mind is ending up with just 4 numbers after 4 years of early access. (F-14) At this point I'd rather have "generic" dynamic numbers. HB's way of doing liveries is overambitioned and badly executed. 2 static numbers per squadron, not again, no thank you, hard pass.

Yeah where's the missing radars for the SA-5, ED? Another paid asset pack?

Hey OnReTech, unfortunately there are additional depth issues: Ships can move through the canal but they get stuck in mysterious shallows north of Port Said. The canal extends under water into the med sea, but it ends abruptly "trapping" the ships coming out of the canal. The floor rises up to around -70ft in every direction which isn't enough for the Seawise Giant Tanker. Please make it high priority because the suez canal is the main element of this map. Thank you.

@Jakko: It's not easy, unfortunately. Make sure your waypoints aren't too close together. It can cause this behavior. AG-51_Bluto's drawing should work. The hardest parts of the canal taught me sometimes all it takes is to move the waypoint by a couple feet and suddenly it works. Remember ships "pass" their waypoints a bit early, and immediately begin to steer towards the next one, causing them to cut corners depending on the geometry of the path. Basically all you have to do is place ample waypoints (40-50) and keep the course changes between each one at a minimum. Again, the ships don't strictly follow the ME line/path, but in general it's enough to set the waypoints in the middle of the canal. 1 waypoint per 10 degrees of curvature, at least 1500 ft apart. (edit: Oh and don't forget to choose the right speed before placing 50 waypoints) Works for the Seawise Giant

Well to me it sounds like the item is in used ("almost new") condition, so no, 1900 isn't really a fair price. I'd rather cough up the difference to a factory new, untouched product. Too many (legal) factors at play when it comes to buying things from strangers/private individuals in my opinion. How about the warranty? Does the item come with a full 24 month warranty that can be transferred to a potential buyer? Yep, here it is: "the repaired or replaced Varjo Product shall continue to be warranted for the remaining time of the original Warranty Period or for three (3) months from the date of the repair or replacement, whichever is longer." Caveat emptor.

Lack of AI assets is a huge problem, so many are outdated and production is way too slow. Overall there's not much output and I'm worried it has something to do with the ongoing conflict. What happened to the CRAM Wags showed us in game almost two years ago? When are they finished with those 3 AI planes (S-3, B-52, B-1) so they can move on and replace more outdates models like that ugly C-17A? How come there's no KC-10 (or plans to add it)? How come a handful of modders put out more content than the game developers themselves? Feels like ED stopped caring about the core game /SP content entirely which also explains the heavy marketing of MP servers. Buy modules and join an airquake server, then buy the next module.

This is un-freakin-believable.

The only thing that isn't happening soon, is me spending money in your store. Yes, I am "still waiting" and it's your problem, not mine haha.

I'll just throw in my 2 cents, a couple thoughts. First of all I agree with OP, we just need to find a solution for this whole multiplayer stuff. Because at this rate (5 units per year) we're gonna run out of decent assets soon. We already have heaps of Nintendo64 era assets that are still in the game like the russian bombers or our beloved S-3B that ED "promised" to replace... 3 years ago? So I'd definitely buy as many asset packs as possible, since I'm a singleplayer guy who likes to build missions, and just admire virtual tanks, trucks, planes, KC-10s... Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those preorder, or shut-up-and-take my-money people. And I understand that the demand for AI asset packs is limited. But something needs to be done and I believe it would make ED and 3rd party devs a little bit of money. I'd buy generic as well as country specific asset packs. Imagine ED released a proper Iraq map, and a couple weeks/months later we get an "Iraqi forces asset pack", and a "coalition forces asset pack", for 20-40 bucks each. That would be absolutely wicked. Public servers use an overhauled, "base" free asset pack that provides a range of sam systems and other units, but nothing country specific. similar to what we have now (more free WWII assets would be nice though, the paid asset packs should be 100% optional and "non-essential") That way players can create and play all kinds of multiplayer missions without paying a single cent, but they will lack the last bit of fidelity, country specific versions, liveries etc. Or just make asset packs single player only, but I think there's a lot of private servers that focus on a certain setting or conflict, and that their players would love some more variety too. I come from P3D/FSX and I loved the huge selection of add ons that allowed people to customize/"shape" their simulator to fit their needs/interests. And I feel like the current system that requires everyone on a server to own everything is dragging DCS down, especially for the singleplayer guys.

Can someone report this issue please? Currently the tag says missing info, which doesn't make any sense because the problem is absolutely crystal clear. So is the solution, but it's up to the developers to do something about it.

I have the same issue, when I add a target for a ship on F10 (Ticonderoga) it immediately launches a volley of 10 cruise missiles and I can't reduce this amount. In my opinion, the ship should just launch 1 missile until the player/commander requests another one.

Yes please ED add a KC-10 KA-3 is my favorite Navy tanker, but I'm also looking forward to the updated S-3 tanker. If we'll ever see it released. ED should increase AI and statics production, in my opinion.

Can you read, son? That's where you guys are headed, and in my opinion that's what ED needs to avoid at any cost. It's a common issue in game communities that experienced players want to introduce more and more rules and challenges, making the game increasingly difficult to get into for the newcomers.

But then it needs to be done right, the information needs to be present inside DCS, and in the DCS manual as well. Preferably together with an ingame/kneeboard page that shows all the limitations of the weapons that are loaded in-game. Otherwise, if it's hidden, it will be a nightmare. And it must be opt-in. "Realistic weapon employment envelopes" in gameplay settings. I just don't know what the deal is with these types of posts. If someone's a "pro DCS player" and weapons expert, good for them. They can try to respect these advanced little details like weapon envelopes and stuff, but I don't get it why they need to come here and basically ask ED to start punishing people who just don't know any better. Seems kinda smartassy and elitist in my humble opinion.

Well, I think that's beyond the scope of DCS. If there's too many of these limitations, the sim becomes too confusing for the average customer. It just adds up and at some point the sim can only be enjoyed by people who know A LOT about military aviation. For most players, mastering the basics of flying is already complicated enough. OTOH I think implementing these limitations wouldn't be too hard, so as an optional hardcore mode, why not. But, there's the risk of running into issues, bugs, and just general confusion by introducing restrictive rules and expecting customers to be as skiled or as knowledgeable as a real pilot. Furthermore, since DCS is an entertainment sim, people like to fly many different planes, so it's even harder to keep up with all the rules and limitations that apply IRL.

Looks ike we're getting 24xMk82s and triple rack mavs, awesome!

I hate to say it but I'm fed up with all the premature announcements. It's ridiculous. I'd rather hear about the modules that were announced 2-3 years ago, or you know, the ones that stalled in development like KW and F4U. Wait until you are almost done and have something that's actually in reach and about to enter the market and not some concept stuff we won't see for the next 2 years minimum. The base game doesn't get nearly enough attention and the empty newsletters are depressing. I mean, I'm waiting for a couple AI planes for over a year. And that batch doesn't even include the KC-10. SAM repetoire is incomplete and inaccurate, so many things could be optimized or corrected. But of course, new modules it is.

Happy to see a SAM site, I really like the white berm. Thank you OnReTech. Can't miss out on the first DCS map with decent SAM sites!

1. I don't like these silly wires at all. I think it ruins the look of the product I purchased years ago. 2. If realism is so important, why don't we get more liveries with more numbers? (more than 4 per squadron) I see a bit of a double standard here. The problem with the numbers remains unadressed since release. Takes a couple seconds to duplicate, increment number, save. That's just lazy.

And here we go! I wasn't paying attention and the "save" prompt got me, overwriting my last test mission with a completely empty mission when I briefly went into the ME and decided to go back into main menu settings. What the eff man. There's no way that's correct. I didn't even open that test mission that got deleted. Upon leaving the empty mission editor, the damn save prompt came up and took the name out of nowhere and put it into the save box of a completely emtpy mission for no reason. I thought I was editing said test mission after getting back to the pc but I was wrong. I was messing with the weather and didn't look whether units were there. I made a mistake but my old test mission would still exist if DCS assigned a "new" name by default and not an existing name of another mission. Excuse me but it's SUPER frustrating to lose hours of work due to a simple problem like that.

You're entirely missing or even avoiding my point. Let me repeat, so that you can understand. The "forbidden" launcher was there when the F-18 released, it was there when people purchased the module, and there is no reason to remove it other than a couple hard core purists feeling like their day was ruined if it shows up on their armament menu. This stuff needs to stop. I'd call it bug report abuse, and only a developer like ED would side with those who advocate for the removal of previously developed and paid components of a module. Even if it's just a small launcher, it's not okay to flat out remove it from the game just because someone doesn't like it. This time I'm not asking for UnReAlIsTiC weapons like APKWS, I demand that ED stops listening to fanatics that want stuff to be removed. (Most people/consumers would think it's bad to lose something they had access to, you know)

I don't understand why they had to remove the old launchers. Just... Why. Some kids like to destroy other kids' toys I guess. Removing content/features (for no technical reason) should be illegal without the consent of the buyer. Why can't we have both. Straight up removing the single launchers was a bad decision. PLEASE BRING BACK THE SWISS LAUNCHERS THANK YOU ED (I paid for this stuff)

I never said it's a good practice to avoid bullets during an attack run, But it's funny to see these laser beams missing you every time, as long as you keep changing your direction of movement. A couple meters off the calculated course is enough and you're golden.

In my opinion it's not just the aiming/lead calculation, the dispersion/recoil is also very unrealistic, at least in a COIN type of scenario. The shots are always waaaay too close together for a guy firing his AK from 500+ meters away. But for some units it seems to be modelled correctly, or at least it's more plausible. The shilka for example. But infantry and technicals are a nightmare. On the flip side, the current low disopersion and perfect aiming makes it somewhat easy to dodge the bullets as long as you keep jinking constantly. (you have to be aware of threat) A higher dispersion would make it harder to dodge the salvos. At the moment, it's "everything or nothing", you either get hit by the entire salvo, or the entire salvo flies by, which is not desirable or realistic. Because, I believe IRL pilots (even helo pilots) mostly talk about single hits in podcasts and other media.