YoYo

Btw. And BTW2. (dev update of AzurPoly for MSFS) +1 for this for DCS!

+1, I need it too.

Everyone will agree on that.

What planet are you from? Pre Order and EA are the main, main and again main policy for DCS. This policy is also focused on pricing strategy for Pre orders and EA. 2/3 (or even more) producs for DCS are EA still. Secondly, "not EA" status - does not guarantee anything (Kiowa example, issues are present too) just. EA only serves to make the developer assume that there may be bugs, and the customer accepts it and waits, it is convenient for the developer and safe (we have a discount for that, which is fine). It was also never the case that EA's policy presupposed failure to meet the deadline and it was not specified (maybe the F-15E exception). EA assumes bugs, but not lack of release. As far as we know, it is the changes and improvements are that cause the patch to be moved, not the new module (there are exceptions, of course, e.g. CH-47F), but that is understandable. However, I think the Afghanistan map is ok and ready for release, just like other things (new content), and the patch causes the whole thing to be moved.

But postponed SU15 didnt affect World Upade and new content notice (+ in Marketplace as well) and all it was on the time, here is a biggest problem. Generally, I had no problem with SU15 being postponed and tested (like patches for DCS), but I would be more angry if I didn't receive my product from pre order on time. Also modules cannot contain anything that the DCS SDK does not allow btw.

For ED - maybe it's worth considering whether the current policy is good, because as you can see, it simply doesn't work. Unfortunately, for the last 2-3 months, basically everything has been postponed (I think only Kiowa was on time). Maybe it's better to adopt the strategy that is in MSFS, so: 1/ SimUpdate - patches, 2/ World/Content update - maps, new content, new modules, but not improvements (based on the current SDK from the last patch) Of course such a „World Update” requires a new version of DCS, but it does not contain improvements that can break DCS and other things. This approach will allow for more flexibility, while not affecting the release of an expansion, campaigns, or anything else (new content) that is bug-free. Personally, I understand that some improvements could have messed something up, but this just shows that the current policy is bad, because it causes ED to miss the deadline, and it causes frustration for people who bought something and don't get it on time. So, maybe the strategy proposed by Microsoft is better - in the other times new things come out, and other times there are patches with fixes. thanks to this, the patch does not affect the timing of new modules which are ok. A request to consider whether it can be separated into SimUpdate and Content update (without improvements) for the future. I think the division in MSFS (SimUpdate / Content update - the first one contains engine fixes and is released less frequently, the second is new content.) suits me better, at least it's a bit more predictable and less painful if you have to wait, and on the other hand it gives more flexibility for the publisher.

It doesnt sound good .

Surprise? This sounds promising!

I wonder if today's Patch will solve the RADAR problem. Does anyone know if ED took care of the problem and solved it?

Yep, it was this (Pri/Alt codes): Thx!

Oh, ok, I'll check, with the Hellfire settings on this page, it might actually be there. I'll back soon ;).

Hi, any idea where is a place to change Hellfire codes? In Kneeboard I see possibility to change of codes for APKWS (LAlt+LShift+2/3/4) but I didnt notice this option for Hellfires, also in ME. Thx.

Of course, it's a pity that CH-47D didn't come out on time as announced, it's already a postponement one time, let's remember, but I'm more worried about the fact that today's patch turns out to have been postponed as well. Everything is being moved lately, let's notice...

No, did you use any mod? Also your screenshots arent visible.

Missions for KW named as "Once Again Closer" are quite cool too. If anyone hasn't tried them, I recommend them. I even slightly modified one into the MP version along with some extra stuff. In fact, you can fly all day there.

2TB? I bough in May 4TB disc … only for DCS. Kola, Afghanistan, Iraq, new modules etc will take many Gb fast and soon. Fortunately, drives have become quite cheap (compared 2-3 years ago) now and even 4TB NVMe drives can be purchased at a pretty good price. I think difference will be the same like with Normandy 2.0 and Normandy’44 about the rest of this map. You can use those airfields, but textures and buildings will look like from Minecraft game.

I only fly in VR, so generally I can always forgive some inaccuracies in modeling as long as it results in good optimization and good FPS. Please remember that it must be a compromise between appearance and performance. You can certainly do everything in more detail, but this will require more requirements. People sometimes forget about this. @RealDCSpilot made quite a good analysis here and, in fact, it is worth paying attention to it because it will affect the optimization of the model as well.

2 days only!

About the "low poly model" - it's not bad, in fact the current state doesn't bother me at all. I would focus on other things.

What does it mean Module, not mod in this situation? It will be part of free DCS World like F-51 and Su-25T? Notice that Veco istn 3th parties developer as well, so ED will take this model and will give it as free module in official way?

That's the problem here, all this would be forgivable if it was admitted that it's EA (very short, for 2-3 patches but EA). I agree with those issues too, Im waiting for 3 July patch. I hope most important (playgame) for users will be solved.

I think the first step will be improved external textures, the next Paintkit (template), I hope.

Axis, I have this: https://deltasimelectronics.com/products/thumbstick-slew-sensor-adapter, no any issue on every TPOD, great, very precise, high resolution controller.

I checked, no any issue, every APKWS rocket hit the target from the distance (one miss but it was my foul). Track: https://www.sendspace.com/file/a9e6gh