CaptJodan

Sent via PM. Thanks for taking a look.

Hey currenthill, Did some tests. Not sure if I'm messing up or there's a bug. 1. PrSM version (not antiship) works as intended. 2. Having trouble getting PrSM to fire. I have included AWACS coverage. When using Combined Arms, I notice it still acts like a traditional arty piece in how you can target a target. This is different than your Swedish antiship launcher I think. Don't know if that has something to do with it, or if it's just operator error. null

I'm torn on my feelings for the westernized version. On the one hand, I'm all about that realism and authenticity. And getting a redfor take on avionics design is always interesting. On the other hand, I get more use out of aircraft that have a western feel to them. The Jeff is in my permanent rotation because of it's western feel. I'd love to say I have the time to learn all the aircraft I purchase, but I don't, and without trying, I lean to aircraft that are easier out of the gate to understand (aka western aircraft). So as a practical matter only, I can get behind this choice largely because it will mean the plane is more likely to be a part of my hanger rotation.

Thanks so much currenthill for these additions, especially the HIMARS. Your work is very appreciated.

Was looking forward to this video for weeks now. Always love the "And Beyond" videos. And this one was packed full of upcoming modules. I hope many of the ones previously announced and showcased in the video can squeeze into 2023. Pretty excited for the Chinook. First heavy lift helo. This combined with the Herc will make for great logistics missions, especially when the dynamic campaign comes online. The Hellcat (and Corsair) will be great fun to fly in. Though this only makes me want a Zero more. I'm also looking forward to the La-7. Seems like it might be an exciting year for DCS.

Thanks for the fun here ED. I appreciate putting in some fun for the holidays. Don't listen too much to the naysayers who want to extract light hearted and temporary fun out of everything. I look forward to the next Easter eggs.

A-1H is a presale buy for me for sure. I don't need Vietnam to make that an enjoyable module (doesn't mean we can't get it, but what a fun COIN aircraft for fictional scenarios). Best of the new announcements since the Kola map. I think this is fair. So many announcements lately I can't believe all of them (or maybe most of them) are anywhere near ready for OB. I'm in the minority, but I do prefer announcements made closer to when a module is near completion to avoid the overhype.

I look forward to picking this one up.

Well, there's Vietnam and Korea, but other than that, I don't see too many other theaters that I find a better fit. Pretty stoked about this theater. Great for the Viggen, naval ops, mountain flying, and (sadly) as relevant today as it was in the cold war. Would love to see a bit more ocean included in the north if possible to ensure you have enough room to maneuver those carriers, but otherwise I'm totally onboard with this choice.

Yes, this matches my efforts for the most part. I'm not sure I get terrible hits even around the towns and cities as I fly through them as much as getting on or near runways/airfields. These really drag down the FPS. These are mostly empty map tests as well, I'm not throwing assets on the map for these tests. But right now take offs and landings are near a slideshow, but once I get a few hundred feet airborne, everything smooths out.

Don't use VR, but I feel the drag of performance once getting close to cities or/and especially some of the runways. I'll admit to being surprised, given the wind-swept nature of many of these areas that performance drags so much. I think I had unrealistic expectations that because the map would be more "empty" than others, that performance would be substantially better. Hoping for some improvements/optimizations as time goes on. It's still beta, so plenty of time to see improvements.

I think comparing GR to other content creators or getting in the weeds on whether or not GR provides good or bad content isn't really productive. GR produces content that a sizable portion of the DCS community likes, and brings players to a sim we all love. In general, they're not my cup of tea, but that doesn't mean they don't have value to others, and that those others help to fund MY love of this game. But this was a choice made by Cap. And if he doesn't like doing them anymore, then that's certainly a choice he can make. He should have the freedom to do what he wants to with his channel, and he has. Respect the decision and move on, or maybe ask him to reconsider if you're a real fan of those tutorials. Where I get off the train is where it seems that Cap or GR feels it is owed something by ED. As I should respect Cap's decision to move on for whatever reason he feels he needs to move on with, I will also respect ED for choosing to work with content creators they want to work with. The reason Cap gave doesn't sit well with me, but it is his choice. But it's also ED's choice on who they get to work with.

To be fair, there are people on the AH-64 video he posted claiming they won't buy another module until Cap is respected the way he wants. Most are probably not going to actually follow through with that, internet bluster is such a fun thing for so many, but who knows, maybe some will follow through. So apparently there are some people who are bigger fans of GR than of the game.

Reading some of the comments in his latest video, I find it sad the way that's all gone. I was never a huge fan of GR for a variety of reasons, but acknowledge Cap's videos were helpful for those first steps to get things started and going. A launching off point without burying in the technical. I figure content creators do what they do for the community, and for their own enjoyment, not for some kind of pat on the head or exclusive access from ED. Maybe that's naïve of me. But if Cap doesn't enjoy doing it for those reasons, then it's the right call not to do those videos anymore. It's just sad that the community he has and the recognition he gets from it isn't enough for him. Equally sad to see the posts being salty towards Wags and ED.

I'm sympathetic with the core idea of this. I've always thought ED needed to create a buffer for the community on anticipated releases. I remember when the release estimates for the Apache originally came out, I went "Yeah, that's not happening, this module is too complex for this year" (unfortunately I did start believing them as time went on and they stuck to their release date.) Under-promise and over-deliver really feels like an approach they should adopt. I, for one, would never be disappointed with a module that came out earlier than estimated. I'm sure someone would complain, but I would imagine most wouldn't. It just seems like good sense to surprise the community with early releases on modules they internally predicted the development time for, and a buffer for those that are a surprise in how long it takes. Having said that, I'm also one of those who gives it a shrug at this point. I don't think it's worth a whole lot of drama and recriminations. While I wasn't one of the pitchfork people, the F-16 release taught me that a release of a module that unfinished was worse for the community than a delayed release with more quality control. So holding off till the Apache is in a more solid early access state is the right move. And I can see the challenges of COVID being an unanticipated contributor to the problem as well. Wags' video on the "why" made sense to me. I'll keep advocating for ED to go with an under-promise/over delivery approach, but if they don't take that up, I'm not going to burn them at the stake for it or demand a refund. I wish they would adopt that approach for their sake, to reduce their own headaches. For the old timers, we know the way it works. It's disappointing but not surprising, and for most, not the end of the world. For the new timers it's an unpleasant shock. But either way the Apache's coming, and it'll be the best Apache sim to date.

Earlier in the year when ED seemed to be suggesting it'd be done by the end of this year I just couldn't believe it. But then I got a little belief in me in these later months when it seemed it was all steam ahead and vids were coming out and release months were announced. Ah well. Truth is, ED tries to be ambitious with their releases and often misses the mark, but if you go in knowing that, you can stave off disappointment. I'm a bit disappointed cause I didn't listen to myself, but not angry at them. I always thought this was a complex module and getting it done in the time they were saying definitely felt like record time. Better a delayed release than having to hear from the pitchfork crowd after the F-16.

Because if it's modeled correctly it increases drag on the aircraft. But more importantly, it's just ugly. Mossie is a good looking aircraft and that thing sticking out is just an eyesore.

Saw this today for the first time. I could sure do without it. If it's historically accurate than....you know, I deal, but I'd also be fine with having the option to remove it.

Just adding my voice to this, I'm glad they're taking a look at this. Just did a mission with only 4 88s in the area. Came in low (below 100 ft), fast, (above 250 knots), and weaved for my life while trying to be on an attack run. Didn't even make the turn-in before it was over. I made sure the 88s were on their absolute lowest skill level. So I definitely look forward to some major changes in this area.

Hey thanks for the info Mike. Sometimes these things happen, just glad to have the solution. Thanks!

I also have this issue. Wondering if there's a fix that doesn't involve redoing all the keybinds.

I'd like to second this. Along with the short vids, the latest update Wags gave really gives me a sense of where they are and what is left to do. I think it's going to be pretty amazing if they get it out before the end of the year, as the aircraft seems incredibly complicated, along with the multiplayer aspects. It'd be a pretty great Q4 present if they can make it.

Me too. I was kind of hoping they'll include water-dropping for the Mossie. Or maybe I'm just dreaming.

Going to add my two cents to this. I've very much enjoyed and have been impressed by 2.7's release. It's not perfect, but with a massive update like this I didn't expect it to be. What I also didn't expect was how much of a difference and gamechanger this was. I didn't think clouds were just eye candy, but I wasn't prepared for the scope of how major the change would be, even after flying MS2020. The lighting, the new props, and most of all the performance increase are also stellar. I can really see the hard work and love put into this patch. Not too get too fanboyish about this, but we're lucky to have ED out there pushing the boundaries of realism and keep pushing this game/sim to new heights.

I was curious about this as well. I went ahead and fired a good 40 or so rockets at a single tank, and did 0 damage. Indeed, these are not anti-tank weapons, but in real life would a host of rockets do no appreciable damage to a tank? That's a legitimate question, not trying to be "gotcha" about it. I went into this knowing APKWS wouldn't be great for tanks, definitely not the weapon of choice to take on a tank with. And if you fire at the frontal armor and the rocket hits at a shallow angle, I don't think it would do much of anything. But I thought with side or back hits, it might shave off some "percentage" points and with enough rockets, might take down a tank. But I'm open to being wrong about that.