Ashilta

Silver Dragon, Thanks for that, but I'm afraid you've really just emphasised my point. There are many 'official projects' but very few 'official updates'. There's a line of developers waiting to develop multi-crew aircraft (F-14 and Gazelle being the most popular I'd imagine), but no update on progress or an expectation of how complete this is. There's a metric tonne of hearsay, but nothing actually official that says "we're working on X but ran into a problem with Y. After we resolve Y and fix X, we can work on Z. The next items on the list are A, B and C, and we're starting to plan D."

Dear ED Team and community representatives, For the last few days, I've been discussing the state of DCS with a number of pilots, and we're all a little puzzled. The release of 1.5.2 has been seamless and we're very much enjoying the functionality it provides, however there's no clear definition of what's coming and when. Whilst we all read and appreciate Silver Dragon's roadmap thread, it's un-official and a little ambiguous. Is it possible that, in the vein of the 3rd Party Developer's updates, Eagle Dynamics can prepare and provide an update which details the current progress of what's being developed, and the order in which we can expect things? As a software developer myself, I completely understand the desire to not provide estimated release dates, I do think it's reasonable to provide a product backlog and an estimate for the order of release of things. Currently, thanks to various leaks and official updates, the list of things that ED are believed to be working on comprises: DCS World 2 Dedicated server The F/A-18 Hornet The F-16, as suggested by a leak of a completed cockpit model The NTTR Dynamic Campaign Functionality Multicrew functionality The Strait of Hormuz A Western Front WW2 theatre Porting the Black Sea to DCS World 2 Other things that I can't think of, can't find or don't know about Providing support for a growing list of third party modules (VEAO's list is massive...) For any development team, this is a huge, huge undertaking, and there is a lot of expectation in the community as to what will happen and when. I'm not asking for pictures, release dates or progress reports, just an indication of what's definitely planned for release and an indication of the order of priority from ED. Is it possible this can be considered? Best regards, Ashilta

Hello team, I flew a number of ILS approaches yesterday and ran into a couple of bugs which I've reported, however it struck me that there appears to be no 'conventional' indication of localiser and glidepath on the approach. Are these not yet modelled, or in fact not present in the Mirage? Ashilta

Ho hum. And there was me thinking that laser range finders worked by bouncing a laser off a target. To my knowledge, the Russians have not yet perfected a laser that can get through a tank...

Well when I say it restarted I mean that I got the 30 minute warning. Unfortunately I was busy rolling the Huey down the mountain I'd just climbed so couldn't RTB :(

GOOD JOB RAZBAM! Really looking forward to payday so I can pre-order :D

That moment when you've literally just put EWR down on a pinnacle in the mountains and the server restarts...

Team, Potentially a little bug for you - twice now I've landed at Tiblisi after a sortie and there's been an F4 parked on the runway! I THINK it's one of the Enfield call-signs that have RTBd, landed, turned their landing lights off but still occupy the runway. Ash

No we don't. Or at least I didn't have a test flight that included Nav or Brevity.

Nice to see that things have, or at least appear to have, become a bit more even.

It died again :(

Hello, The server went down for a routine restart and seems not to have come back up. Is there a problem or am I just being impatient?! :pilotfly: Adam

This explains why SA11s routinely get the better of me!

Are we essentially saying (conditions depending obviously) that the max engagement range of an A-10 is something like 7 miles, that being the distance at which the sensor picture is clear enough to identify a target by contrast?

What you perhaps don't realise is that I'm a member of TAW. I don't necessarily agree with passwording our TS channel on BlueFlag but that doesn't mean you'll find me squirreled away in there. Some of TAW do come out and about and collaborate; other have young children around and no headsets and so to avoid the swearing they've gone into their own channel. As for your comment about people taking up slots for Squadrons and not using them; Sochi was getting battered last night, and so rather than take an F-15 from a nearby airfield, I took a TAW slot from VZ and flew it up. Over 200 miles, I spent more time in the cruise than I did fighting in order to allow more lonewolves to come and join the fight rather than take a slot they could've used. This atmosphere is becoming toxic. Just turn up, fly, and have fun doing so; what other squadrons are doing is by the by, but certainly let's not tar everyone with the same brush. In other news: Nice to see REDFOR striking back - Vody is becoming a point of contention again!

Ladies, please. Handbags down. This is about collaboration and having fun together.

I agree, either more time for choppers work to pay off, or the location of deployed units needs to be maintained between restarts. A chopper might fly two hours to put EWR in a good place only for it to disappear an hour later...

Just had a very enjoyable time flying with others defending sochi. Never seen so many flanker in one place! Disappointed to see members of a squadron locked in their own channel...

From the contrast issues you've described, it sounds like the Sim is more limiting than the real beast! As an extension of my original question, is it more typical to pack a rack of (D's or G's) and a second rack of (H's or K's) or is it entirely mission specific? Ash

Cheers, Funk - I guess I just have to play more and find the limitations within the Sim. Forgive the direct question, but are you a driver of the beast or just particularly knowledgeable?

I agree - I wouldn't say it's become mundane but certainly more secular. Despite agreeing a plan at the start of day 1 it was disappointing to see so many individual groups chasing after things; I almost think that perhaps if we'd stuck to the plan the war might be over already, or perhaps that's wishful thinking. An appeal to everyone: this is a simulator, not a game. A massive part of combat strategy is communication and teamwork. I don't think I need to say any more...

I wonder then if I've simply been coming about this wrong... I typically load two racks of K's, force correlate my way through long range missile threats and then rely on a combination of TGP SPI and Slave Mav's to SPI to identify and Maverick any remaining AAA threats. I guess my problem is that I'm expecting to lock on further than I actually can, because of the contrast issue you've suggested. I frequently find that with the K, at ranges of seven or eight miles, I simply can't lock onto a target with Mav. I was wanting to blame the sensor but maybe it's just my expectation!

Folks, I've been picking the 10C up a lot recently and I've found that on occasions, the Maverick is particularly bad at finding targets and so I end up over-using Force Correlate. It struck me that the sensors on each Mav might be different, and so the question is raised: are the 'better' and 'worse' missiles for a given tasking, or are the sensors more-or-less the same? Ashilta

I think last time I saw the map look like this the war was over 36 hours later. Hopefully red can hold out a while...

CRC - In the profile explorer there's a DCS Black Shark interface, and in the properties of that is a 'Black Shark Setup' box with the DCS install path. It says the config is up-to-date; is that correct?