shagrat

Thank you soooo much. Can't wait for the next patch. This was something that was subconsciously always bugging me.

The thing is: a simulation should simulate the real life RWR sounds. This the AV-8B uses a different library, than the F-14 which uses a different library than the F-16, which in turn uses a different library than the A-10C... And then there's the Mirages and that's just the western aircraft. From a "game" perspective, it would be convenient to have all RWRs use the same sounds, symbols and logic, to make it easy for the players to switch aircraft. From a simulation perspective, the individual aircraft should replicate their real life original... Just my two cents.

Looks more like the screenshot(s) have not been updated since the original BlackShark release... Old LOMAC/FC map pre FC2/3?

As Razbam stated very clearly, the delays are related to the promotion material, not the product development. They also said clearly that the release plan is not affected, by this. So we will have a shorter(!) time between pre-order and Early Access release. From my point of view, they could delay the pre-order sales another two weeks, or months, as long as it releases on time.

From what I have seen Razbam invented a new system, kinda like selecting the "active control stick" via in cockpit click zones and/or assignable keys/buttons. So you can simply use one Joystick and click the stick in the pit that you want the controls to address. Click in the flightstick to fly the aircraft, click on the left side control stick to work the left MFDs and click the right side control stick to work the right MPDs. Though I think of using my collective grip as the control sticks and Flightstick and Throttle for flying.

Same in the real aircraft. The controls set brightness and contrast for the selected sight, either TADS on the TDU or HMD.

Nah, I was speculating about DCS features along the road. But for what it's worth, as long as it is just the promo material that needs polishing or fixing, it's not a big deal... The good thing about digital products is, unlike hardware, there is no problem with scalpers buying up stuff and affecting the sales... we just buy it tomorrow, or Saturday, or whenever it is available to pre-order.

Still trying to recover and breathe... breathe...

Release is way more down the line. This is about the pre-order date! And Razbam already said it is only delaying the PRE-order, not the development, or the release...

If you only want a basic Anti-Virus I highly recommend to safe the money and use Defender. It does basically the same, as any "paid" virus scanner. If you don't require any fancy visuals Defender realtime scan does the job and it does it well. Do a little google search for comparison of Windows integrated Defender vs other AV scanners. The times where Defender was a simple pattern based on-demand scan and always ranked in the bottom 10% of AV solution tests is long gone. Honestly, with modern malware attacks getting more complex and targeted, an Virus scanner is nice, but fighting a losing battle. About 3 new malwares per second on average, requires a different approach in enterprise environments since years.

Ah, you got the reference.

Basically this, just do the same for contrast with the rocker switch. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/296405-how-to-remove-tads-on-the-ihadss/?do=findComment&comment=4924375

Seems there is a bit more to "promotion" than just a page with some screenshots. Like a video, detailed description of the product for the store (especially if you consider people will dissect this description word by word in a couple of months, to claim what "has been promised"). There could be an issue with the promotional video accidentally showing stuff that is considered work in progress or worse "not for the public" and that's just what comes to my mind, why there could be a delay, through what's supposed to be "5 minutes" work.

Then your best bet is to address this with f-secure, as they need to add DCS, as a false positive. If you have windows 10/11, it has Microsoft Defender integrated, so your f-secure is actually an additional security suite or a replacement. Most anti virus suites today that do "more" than what the integrated security does, either provide specific "browser security" or come with enterprise/company level management features. As far as standard Anti-Virus goes Defender is as good or bad as any AV.

Yep, as I said above. Depends all on the circumstances. If you plan a training excercise with regularly dropping a full load of precision guided munitions, you may get interesting questions...

(...)"CAG will demand a minimum amount of fuel to show up in the groove with. We call this number “Tank state + X”. The “ + X” indicates the number of additional passes that can be performed prior to reaching “tank state.” (...) "Of course, this is all based on local flying around the carrier; long missions in country have differentf fuel planning considerations but the later stages of those flights boil back down to a ladder as well."(...) The fuel ladder does not change. Still the same minimums, only you "could" and "should" try to conserve fuel in blue water ops. That's at least what I took from the video. I am not an expert, but the Hornet's and Tomcat's are very different weight and payload wise. Maybe a SME can clarify it?

You plan your mission with the basic idea of getting the job done, making it back alive and causing no damage to the taxpayer paid equipment (usually in that order). If the mission demands a loadout exceeding max trap weight I am sure they just drop the ordnance, but if there is an option to send more aircraft, that's usually the preference. That's what I meant by "extreme circumstances". The uncomfortable truth is, economics and logistics are a critical part of warfare.

You still focus on the fuel amount, while the key is the max trap weight(!). You don't hold a fuel "reserve", you try to retain as much fuel as possible, without exceeding max trap weight at the first landing attempt. If you originally planned the fuel ladder with ordnance that leaves a max trap fuel of 5.6 as in the example, the fuel ladder tells you what amount of fuel you must have at a minimum (!) to arrive at the carrier at recovery ops with all ordnance still loaded (e g. you had to abort and dropping a couple $100,000 worth of GBUs is not an option). If your planned recovery time is 07:45 and you are approaching 07:00 you should have a minimum of 8,900 lbs in your tanks and need to immediately go to max conserve, if you are at or below 8,9. If you have 10,800 lbs remaining you may arrive at the carrier with more fuel than max trap fuel (5.6) and not enough time to dump, so you need to adjust burn rate and/or dump 1,900 lbs fuel. Now, let's assume the mission went as planned, you dropped both GBUs and shed 1,000 lbs of weight this way. You adjust all values for the fuel ladder by +1,000 lbs and approaching 07:00 you arrive with 8,900 lbs you indeed should go to max conserve immediately, because the perfect fuel state for maximum fuel, while keeping max trap weight is now 9,900 lbs and gives you a greater fuel reserve if something happens. Sticking to the example above, with 10,800 lbs fuel remaining, you can now adjust burn rate or dump 900 lbs fuel, only... Your new max trap fuel is 6,600 lbs to arrive on the first landing approach with max trap weight and you have 1,000 lbs more fuel to spend on bolters, holding marshall for emergencies and may not require a tanker.

"Supposed to not bring back" maybe, but if you have to abort the mission you may easily find yourself with all your ordnance and a lot of fuel on the way back to the carrier. I am sure that other than in extreme circumstances it's considered good practice to plan a loadout that doesn't exceed max trap weight.

In the middle of the ocean, trying to land on a moving and tilting carrier deck, you want as much fuel in the tank, as possible! If the weather deteriorates and they can't start another tanker, the fuel in your tanks is all there is between trying to land, again and again, or ejecting into a cold and raging ocean. So the idea is to have the max trap weight as the limit, to land, but always try to keep as much fuel, as possible in case things goes south. If you have not dropped any ordnance you need to dump fuel to max trap weight and if you dropped a thousand pounds of ordnance, you still dump fuel to max trap weight, but this time it gives you more of a safety buffer. Edit: the fuel ladder does not matter for max trap weight. It's just another tool to quickly check your fuel state at certain points in the mission and manage your fuel.

The point is, you want to arrive on the deck with max trap weight or below as in 54,000 lbs. If you drop 1,000 lbs of bombs and drop fuel to 5,600 lbs max trap fuel (planned) how much does the aircraft weigh? So you could keep 6,600 lbs and comfortable bolter a couple times more. Or stay in holding while other aircraft with fuel emergency or damage can land, before you. On the other hand, nobody can guarantee, that you drop (all) your ordnance, so you need to adjust, based on the fuel ladder and max trap fuel.

Rewatch the video, you are missing some of the things he explained.

Yep, it seems RotorOps also found a way to script moving a FARP object with MiST teleport. Need to test it still, but it is a truly creative approach.

Yes, but ED would need to address the environment and AI problems on the grand scale, even before some third party could tackle the rest. On a more positive note, ED is indeed working on the ground units and the WIP videos of the new infantry and insights on those development is (at least for me) an indicator, that enhancing the ground war aspects is actively worked on. I hope the aspect of defensive countermeasures for tanks (not the optical short smoke burst but laser blocking smoke screens) are in the pipeline, as well.

Yep, but in my experience, there is limit to people interested in jumping into a tank, or a backseat/front seat instead of flying aircraft/helicopters in a flight focused simulation. I don't mean it would not be a good addition, but as I mentioned in the rest of that post the key is to get realistic defense systems to make armor survivable and ensure the typical scenario is something beyond hopping into one tank after the other, while dodging hellfires and LGBs... That can be done through mission design, to some extent, but most aspects relate to damage and weapon modeling, AI etc. So the point is: it's way more complex than adding a DCS level tank module. I would love to get sophisticated Tank/IFV modules etc. but I see the challenge...