Buzz313th

IMHO, if development followed the time line of... 1. Finish functionality of Dynamic Campaign and AI. 2. Finish Spherical World Map 3. Logistics support 4. Multicrew functionality 5. An increase in private servers hosting long term dynamic campaigns on the "Spherical World Map" 6. Then longer Bomber (Strategic) and logistical flights might be more enticing for players to engage in. The flow above might create profit incentive for 3rd party devs to develop the bigger aircraft.

For my own selfish reasons, I hope you're incorrect. A survey wouldn't hurt anyone, except those that aren't prepared for a negative outcome.

Fingers crossed for a 3rd party to do this.. It might help to do a survey of those DCS players who would absolutely purchase an F15C FF module, no questions asked, even if they owned the 15E. If that survey comes up extremely positive, it might persuade a dev to take on the project. Especially with rt units getting the EX at this point.

I had to go pick up my daughter and stepped away with 50 min left. I'll have a listen to the rest, sounds like a good topic.

I hope a 3rd party dev takes the opportunity.

1. Wombat got Delta to host a visit for Wags to get sim time at the training center. 2. No F15C FF planned 3. Dynamic Campaign is being worked on 4. No E2, no P8, No Recon aircraft modules planned 5. Some DCS users/fans have sent classified info to ED to try and help further development. ED's stance is to shut down the effort and they don't want anything to do with it. 6. ED will not be attempting to develop 5th gen or any current frontline assets as they can't confirm systems operation 7. Roughly 170-180 people working for ED worldwide. 8. The F4E is gonna be pretty cool, with new module features not seen in DSC prior. 9. The P8 flyover of the football game did not impress anyone. 10. ED is working on a DTC function for FF modules. Gonky believes they should leave this out of a "Fun" sim title. 11. No planned flyable B17 12. No bombers planned 13. ED is still planning to make a full spherical world map. 14. C-130 is still work in progress, developer and ED are working on cargo system. 15. Chinook Logistics will come after aircraft completion, cargo system and dynamic campaign. 16. Development priorities for ED are centered on products and features that satisfy the largest DCS user demographics. 17. No Viper A, B or D planned 18. F-5E update question to WAGS reveals that there are secret plans for an F-5E update in the future and WAGS can't talk about it. 19. VULCAN API is a huge project and it's in the works. 2024 and beyond. 20. ED is currently working on WWII assets and more specifically for the Marianas map. Naval assets mentioned for WWII Naval Aviation. -----I might of missed a few points, but interesting listening. Had to walk away halfway through video.. ----- 21. Lots of talk about Aliens. Mostly doubt that the congressional hearing had any legitimate substance. WAGS feels we will find out soon enough that there is financial gain somewhere. 22. Why no F-18D? WAGS, says resources are elsewhere and now is not the right time to start the "D" when the "C" isn't finished. 23. User request for a kneeboard you can write on and is available in F10 mission planner. WAGS agrees it is a good idea. 24. User asks, why is the bomb frag damage so small? WAGS says they are actively working on a higher fidelity fragmentation bubble. 25. Wombat brought Gonky to an A-320 sim and Gonky kicked too much right rudder and freaked the sim out. More picking on Gonky. 26. User asks if current Maps will be merged into the Spherical map project. WAGS answered no, that the technology is the limiting factor. 27. User asks about small diameter bombs. WAGS answered if the aircraft would carry SDB's, then it's an option for the future if they can get the documentation to back it up. 28. No planned Japanese aircraft modules or assets for WWII period. 29. Talk about "Mass Effect", "Cyberpunk" and "StarField" 30. Another request for an F-35. WAGS, says absolutely not as there is no legitimate info available. 31. User asks about a Vairo Aero fix and WAGS says they don't have the headset and the company can't afford to buy every piece of hardware. 32. Somebody wants a "TurboCat" Module. Nobody knew what it was. 33. Question about the "AI Texture Controversy".. WAGS doesn't know what they are talking about.. 34. There are some "Century Series" fighters in the development pipeline. Had to walk away again.. with about 50 minutes left..

You can also load Harms instead of Mav's, or give one of your flight members Harms.

So did I, but in VR the is a large frame hit at the higher resolutions. Why can't ED address this issue so the Mav WPN display works in all DCS cockpit screen resolutions? @BIGNEWY, I can only assume the devs are busy with bigger fish, but have you had any response?

Thank you.. subscribing

Yes Please... Maybe a huge project that covers them all and brings the NTTR into a big Southern California Scenery Project.. Add to all of the above... Naval Auxiliary Landing Field - San Clemente Island, March AFB, China Lake, Point Mugu and all the class B,C,D and E civil airports.

Thanks for doing this. Assume this was a flat screen test, not VR?

It's surely not the "Off" setting you want as they are still rendering a Spot Dot before the model renders in. I know that they explained in the patch notes that this "Off" setting will just revert to the previous logic, but it doesn't feel or look like the 2.8 logic. Whether it may be redundant, it would still be cool to get an official answer to whether the "OFF" setting is truly the old 2.8 spot system.

Quest3 4800x2600, Oculus Link cable on Oculus Link. No VR tweaks or 3rd party apps, DCS system setting @ 85-90% sharpening 0.6 Since the last beta 2.9 update that has allowed me to turn off "New Spotting Dots", I can confidently say that with this option "OFF" is the most realistic spotting dynamic both distant and within 10nm that I have experienced with DCS world. I understand that some people feel that by turning this option off, that it reverts to the old logic of 2.8. Personally, I am not experiencing what I saw in 2.8, as the dots at distance with the option off in 2.9 seem smaller and harder to spot than they did in 2.8. There is one thing I have changed settings wise around the time I went from 2.8 to 2.9 and that was one step higher in resolution in oculus link. I think it was from 4700x2500 to 4800x2600. With all that being said, I am curious if any developer or ED rep can comment on whether or not turning off the "New Spotting Dots" in 2.9 beta is reverting to the logic from 2.8, or is it the same logic at the new dots, just with an adjusted dot size for VR users? @BIGNEWY and @NineLine Thanks

With the following workaround the native handtracking in the Quest 2 and 3 will work in DCS. Unfortunately it is extremely "Raw" and IMHO not good enough to count on. So my question is... Have the Dev's considered adding official support for the Quest Native Hand Tracking? Cheers

Are you on VR? VR magnifies the spotting dots compared to flat screen.

True that... Which Module has TFR? 15E?

I "Think" I see what you did there..

Wow.. I was looking for a video in a wind tunnel to show WTV and found this... Pretty advanced if you ask me.. It also must use up a good percentage of system resources to calculate. https://www.google.com/search?q=wake+turbulence+in+wind+tunnel+video&sca_esv=584304970&rlz=1C1VDKB_enUS1071US1071&sxsrf=AM9HkKmK50OwLJHQxQDzfjAIKyn84gSdaA%3A1700579634723&ei=MslcZYfPK87DkPIPptSWcA&ved=0ahUKEwiHsKjosNWCAxXOIUQIHSaqBQ4Q4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=wake+turbulence+in+wind+tunnel+video&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJHdha2UgdHVyYnVsZW5jZSBpbiB3aW5kIHR1bm5lbCB2aWRlbzIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKsCSNgRUPQGWOIPcAF4AJABAJgBcqAB9wSqAQM2LjG4AQPIAQD4AQHCAg4QABiABBiKBRiGAxiwA-IDBBgBIEGIBgGQBgU&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#vhid=c_DeWZtZ6UzevM&vssid=videos-3a33d53a

Thank you for speaking up.. I've got tons of time in light cloth skinned civil acro birds in formation flight as well as a bunch of time in Marchetti's doing mock ACM. Yes, if you get in someone WT while they are under load it will feel like it is trying to flip you. When in formation be aware of Wingtip Vortices and how they diverge from the tips. The precision military acro teams, TB's and BA's are used to flying close to the WTV's of the lead ship and will tuck in as close as they can until they start to get a hair of rough air. That's their slot. No Spit time unfortunately Just commenting on general wake turbulence.

The "Ground Attack" and "Pinpoint Strike" Group Tasking options are missing the waypoint actions "Attack Group" and "Attack Unit". Is this a bug or by design? As a new player to DCS, I am trying to learn all the different aspects of the sim and was experimenting with the editor to try and get the AI of individual flight members to attack their own chosen units within an enemy group at the target waypoint, without wasting ordinance on units that other group ai members have already targeted. The only way I could get them to attack different units within a group is to use the Advanced Waypoint Action "Attack Group", which is fine, but this action along with "Attack Unit" is only available if you choose either "Sead" or "CAS" as the attacking group tasking order which is confusing since the more appropriate tasking order would be "Ground Attack" or "Pinpoint Strike"... Is this issue a bug or a design feature? Was it always this way, or not? The Actions "Attack Unit" and "Attack Group" are one of the only two actions that seem to give the mission designer any real granular control, why is it only included under CAS or SEAD? Cheers

Fair enough, I see your point. Seems to me, it wouldn't be a bad idea if ED tried to find a retired F16 Crew Chief and put em on payroll as a part time advisor.. As a matter of fact, lets make that a "Crew Chief" for each aircraft module.... I highly doubt the operation limitations and safety logic for the landing gear is classified. Cheers

Lol, I have no time in a viper, nor am I privy to any documents, classified or not, but I do remember seeing, reading or hearing someone mention in official ED documentation, training mission or one of WAG’s videos, that VLO was 300KCAS and that exceeding this with gear out would damage doors or cables. So I assume if true, that there is a possibility that simulated door or cable damage could cause the simulator to throw a failure in the gear and I’m curious what that failure is.

That makes complete sense. So is the entire simulator running at the rendering limiter if set? Or could other parts of the sim be running faster? I am assuming the rcntrl+pause FPS indicator is only showing rendering frames.

The vector is roughly to the IAP at TPA.. Which is a bit laughable..

In minimums, It's not altitude while established on the ILS that could be the issue' It's the altitude along the adhoc approach path to the ILS that will be the issue. It shouldn't be that hard for ED to add a bit of logic to the minimal ATC they have now. Let IMC conditions trigger two vectors with reasonable altitude clearance. First vector takes you to a 20-30 mile point at MSA+3000/4000 feet then next vector turns you onto a 30 degree Localizer intercept course with a clearance down to route MSA+1000 feet for glideslope intercept. If conditions are well above Minimums, then a vector should take you directly to the field at Traffic Pattern Alt +1000 to expect a circling visual. How hard could that be?