Weta43

I hope so, but I suspect the RuAF isn't quite ready to give permission for a high fidelity anti-RedFor PC training aid just yet.

& nothing in the newsletter today, not even a “work continues”. …Although perhaps that’s fair if it doesn’t

Same

Business is business, and saddened as I am by it, maybe I can see E.D.'s choice. Many, many people with no real exposure to DCS will see that there's a full fidelity model of the F-15 available and be disappointed - perhaps to the point of not buying it - if it's an "A", or an Iraq contemporary C rather than the most modern variant modellable - they'll find another game or buy the "E" module. Many, many existing users want to shoot things down more than they want historical realism - some using the correct procedure because that's their bag, & some just because they want to dominate the skies - & both groups will scream blue murder that E.D. are 'nurfing' Blue / The US / the F-15 if it isn't the most up to date version they can model. ...And then there are the smaller group of existing users who want to be able to replicate realistic combat for a time period or conflict (rather than just a realistic procedure). Most of those will buy it anyway & either accept that it's the incorrect version for the conflict they're modelling & try to find a way to use it that isn't 'search, select a target, fire before you're within their range, rinse and repeat', or try to limit stores to something time specific. So I guess E.D. can: Make more sales by selling a newer version Make the same number of sales but spend more money by making both a new and an 'older' version lose more sales than they gain by modelling an older variant As an approach maximising short term returns might over time make DCS into something it hasn't been & that loses its appeal to some parts of the current user base, but it does seem the current understanding of fiduciary duty is "take the money now, worry about tomorrow tomorrow" & of course -there's also 'pay the wages today, worry about tomorrow tomorrow'

So another patch will arrive after the Orthodox Xmas holidays... Any chance it will end the 7 month wait for some updates to the Afghanistan map?

A new year, another patch, and still nothing (absolutely nothing) for Afghanistan. 7 months since release into EA: not only have none of the 3 monthly releases of other areas of the map happened, not only has there not even been bug fixing happening, the most egregious thing is that E.D. have made no meaningful effort to keep purchasers aware of what their plans are. Are you rebuilding the terrain, are you re-doing the textures, are you spending all this time adding access to the sea so 0.5% of purchasers can spend an entire day flying one mission? Is Afghanistan E.D.'s Yak-52 of maps? (i.e. we thought it would be a good idea, but not enough people bought it to make continuing with development a revenue positive activity & now Iraq's out working on something more popular makes sense) or are you all just waiting to blow our minds with a fantastic mega-upload that exceeds our expectations ? ??????????????????????????????????????????????

It is not that such scenario is unrealistic. It is perfectly realistic. It’s true, during their colonial period the British used gatling guns against Africans armed with spears & leather shields to secure their interests, & when the U.S. invaded Panama or Grenada they really didn’t face any credible opposition - but it’s not really the most challenging of scenarios to simulate is it ? I mean if all you want to do is maximise your score, f35 vs MiG-15 gets you that, but you’re relying on the tech, not your skill As someone (Yo Yo ?) wrote, sheer numbers can overpower technology, but it reminds me of a printed flyer I saw that was handed out to Australian troops poster to Papua New Guinea during WWII pointing out that the locals were 5’2” & 100 lb and there was no honour in beating them up if they were annoying. There’s a reason boxing is divided into weight divisions. Maybe it’s only an MP problem anyway - no one wanting to be the clay pigeon isn’t an issue if you make your own SP missions.

Saddened by the F-35, disappointed it's the F-15C not F-15A, happy the Draken is in there. We really are moving to DCS being the SIM you start when you want to fly a US aircraft in a time warped lop sided turkey shoot. But hey - my boy loved using that camaro with a bazooka in age of empires - to each their own...

Ka-50 (2) Ka-50 was done in cooperation with Kamov

At 6:45 is that a couple of Saab Draken flying off ?:

Thanks for that. So having to wait the current 3 minutes for another (repaired) aircraft seems a reasonable delay then.

How long do you think it would take to 'jump in a new airframe' ? More or less than 3 minutes ? I'd guess more than 3. Perhaps rather than removing the 3 minute wait to repair there should be a forced 5 minute delay between slot jumps in multi-player? if you want to avoid 'grotesquely unrealistic' behaviour, perhaps they should 'eject' the pilot for 3 minutes (you could wander around to entertain yourself), pretend to de-spawn the aircraft (stop rendering it) then re-spawn (render) it & drop you in it. Then you can imagine that you've got a new aircraft not a repaired one.

The Shturm / Ataka are principally anti-tank weapons but given that the Shturm was also produced in a thermobaric version & the Ataka in HE, they were presumably also intended to be used as a guided A2G missiles for attacking unarmoured targets such as buildings etc. too. That being the case, they should be available to the player as a precision stand-off A2G weapon for the ground attack role where a task of 'attack map object' has been set. But Petrovich won't do that (though the "normal" Mi-24 AI will), Peter will only attack objects added through the ME by the mission maker. If a player Mi-24 is set to ground attack as a task, and one or more map object targets have been designated in the ME, surely it should be possible to append Peter's 'visually' ID'd target list with a list of possible targets from the ME that are within Peter's optics' field of view and for the player to select from the list & tell Peter to attack the object. Game AI generally can be handed targets in this way, and Petrovich is just an instance of the game AI - hopefully not so divorced from the general model as to make this difficult. Obviously, the ME can already do a 'designate as' function where it detects a map object & it can throw a zone over it and let you give the zone a name. Those names would form the basis of the appended list (filtered for Pete's FOV constraints). All the building blocks seem to already exist, it's just* a case of joining them up (I can say 'just' 'cause I don't have to do it :-)

Good lord - how will The Snark* find its way to our houses to make its deliveries ??? (*SM-62-Snark that is...)

1/ The Ka-50 module used to have blood and guts - if the pilot got shot the contents of their skull appeared all over the windscreen. It took work ($) to remove it, so presumably there was a commercial reason for doing so - & avoiding an adult rating seems like a valid one. 2/ I guess the flippant answer is if you don't run over the deck crew, you'll never notice the difference. I think generally - if you want immersion, you want realism, and if you want realism in your gameplay, start by practicing not running over the deck crew. Pretty sure it's frowned upon IRL. On a serious note - being able to kill the deck crew is a terrible idea from an MP point of view. Ignoring poor training and lack of skill leading to a crew shortage, the average age of DCS players may be high, but you're still going to get the occasional person with the mentality of a 5 year old that think it's hilarious to race around the deck collecting as many crew as they can before getting bounced.

"This means the immersion of the Supercarrier module is rather limited" Slight exaggeration? Maybe 'slightly limited'? You're unlikely to be taking off or landing under fire, and if the ship's taken fire, there may be deck/equipment damage, but when it comes to the actual crew (& admittedly I know FA about carriers, but) given they're supposed to be able to operate round the clock even if someone's sick - presumably there's at least one other person on the carrier who could step in and do deck crew job of any injured crew member - with a little notice (& if the carrier's just been under fire, you probably wouldn't have to wait for them to dress and get breakfast before they turn out). As a general concept though - I agree with the OP. Collidable deck-crew is an invitation to online mayhem

You don't see 'opinion stated as fact' more strongly than that very often - even here...

Wellington's pretty close...

Reading the thread, they're not. The screenshot is by SparrowLT just re-posted by Byteman21. SparrowLT is "already using the Radio mode" & Byteman21 is asking them how to "find the "Radio Mode" you wrote about but can't seem to find it. That's in the F-15C correct? How can I find it? I would appreciate your help. Thanks. "

On this we can agree…

You should never do anything just because all your friends are doing it. In the context of DCS it’s just a gimmick - there are a lot of improvements that could be made to the simulation of weather in game that would add more than being able to tell yourself “oh look - it’s hot and sunny outside the cockpit so it must really be hot and sunny in Kabul (Mosul, Nevada, Shiraz etc)” Maybe before realtime weather they could implement realtime sun and moon positioning - force western hemisphere players to play during work hours

No, and a simple mission in Iraq seems to use ~20GB Ram...

I'd have thought that ED could do say the current MiG-29A, then some western 3rd party could do a licensed upgrade mod (as for the NS-430 or J-11 but on steroids)- drop some parts of the existing cockpit & external model out & replace, replace upgraded systems, keep the bulk of the existing model that brings the underlying model up to say the standard of the SM or Serbian SMT. (whatever non-Russian mod info's available for) As happened in real life ED doesn't lose any sales (maybe gets extra because to get the SM you have to buy the ED "A" first) only sells what they're allowed, some western company pays to use the underlying module as a starting point.

Hillock is a little too long

Change occurs quite abruptly, shape of the two LODs not a close match