NineLine

I have passed along feedback there are some scenarios that are missing key aircraft, and I agree ALL should allow access to all.

While there is some optimizing to be done, you can expect longer load times depending on what you are changing. For example, if you change the map, especially to one of the newer, more demanding maps, the load time can be longer.

Not sure what you mean?

I'll pass along the feedback to the team. Thanks

Please include an example track, thanks.

Based on your original questions, we would not be able to ask a SME for comments on this, based on how it works in the game is how we see it to be working. If you have more documented and valid evidence, please DM it to us and we can take a look. Thanks.

Thanks I will mention to the team, I noticed this yesterday as well.

The QAG doesn't support mod flyable aircraft, sorry.

Thanks all, I will report this to the team and see what they can come up with.

Ok, I have reported this, I have a feeling they are being placed outside the map area, and then the game cannot deal with the location. Thanks!

For those of you experiencing this, when you select say a SEAD mission on Cold War Germany or Ground attack, are you seeing the player icon and the target icon? I am thinking this might be related, like its placing these off the visible map.

Thanks all, I am experiencing the same freeze. I will report this.

Will check, thanks.

I agree a 'Scramble' type intercept makes a lot of sense. That I will suggest.

They are aware that most anything can be cracked, it doesn't mean you should still not have protection on your stuff. Should we not have protection for our paid modules because people can crack those? Should we not have locks on our doors because someone can break in through the window? The bottom line is we have addressed that we will try to find a better solution when we have time. I know that doesn't make some of you happy, and I wish I could tell you what you want to hear but this is how it is and will be for the time being.

It is not up for discussion here, we have already stated what we are going to try to do elsewhere. Please keep the discussion on the MiG-29 FAQ here, thanks. Let's discuss it here then (or the F-5E thread)... I'm still not clear what the projected solution is from the team. I can say that the overwhelming majority of Livery makers want a Model Viewer revision that will read the encrypted files. Most (myself included) think that it is entirely possible. If you say that it's not possible please explain as to why not. It seems that y'all consider that being able to refresh the skins in game will be a solution but that is simply not true as a number of us have explained in the past. I have bumped the issue several times with @NineLine and @BIGNEWY @tags without response. It may be that you don't know or are not ready to share but the lack of response feels like gaslighting. Please note that I have previously purchased the F-5 upgrade and have also pre-purchased the MiG-29 as a token of support. I am sure it is possible, but it will not be priority over other things on going with DCS right now. A majority of our programmers are working on things like Vulkan right now and cannot just stop to create whatever may be the final decision on what we do here. While we understand its important to a number of people, there are a lot of things important to people, and this one may not be at the top of everyone's list. So its not gaslighting or anything else if I do not have an answer or news right now, there is simply no news to share, and when we have something to share, we will. We cannot have this reaction each new model, this protection is here to stay, and we will look at things to help out the livery community when we can. Thanks.

Yes, it is the mission type that decides this, in order to make a quick dogfight mission having the player start from the ground would not be ideal for example. With a stationary target such as for ground attack, it makes more sense. Because the F-15C doesn't have any sort of ground capabilities, it has no mission for ground start.

Thanks we will take a look.

It is not up for discussion here, we have already stated what we are going to try to do elsewhere. Please keep the discussion on the MiG-29 FAQ here, thanks.

So with your track, I was not able to reproduce, nor was I able to replicate on my own. I am still investigating but wanted to update. This one I also had not luck in reproducing, but I again continue to investigate. With both of these ones, the differ in that the elevation being used was feet over ground vs feet over sea. So it wasn't 900 feet above sea level.

This could change with a number of things coming, such as more advanced system modelling as well as better force feedback support, which I hope to see improve as we get access to devices like the one from WW. The issue with just having a real pilot jump onto DCS and try it out is that there is could be a number of things that impact that experience, such as quality of controls, the quality of the computer, etc. If they feel they want to help out, they are welcome to reach out to me via DM, or support ticket and we can see what they have to offer, but, respectfully, we have seen many "real pilots" over the years. We need to verify their experience before considering it especially if and when it contradicts already verified SMEs.

Most likely, you will see some differences in how the aircraft flies based on the systems being more detailed, but this would be more about how those systems function and affect the aircraft; the FM would be under all that.

You can still make liveries, and we are looking at ways to improve working with the encrypted models.

That is in reference to the autopilot systems, if you posted the whole quote it also reference the MiG-29 FM as being one of the most advanced we have.

I will send it to our team, but please understand we have our own SMEs, verified, and we are very happy with the current FM, thanks.