sirrah

Never thought I'd say this, but yes, me too. Where's that hype train? Can't remember any recent module getting so little attention from ED, especially so short before release. (can't imagine it has anything to do with the Razbam situation, as someone here mentioned)

I'm a bit surprised to read this. Normally, before new EA releases, there is quite a bit more preview videos (call it hype build up or just informative videos). At least some videos from Wags/ED. Reading this reaction, it seems there's no intention of sharing/previewing anything more than what we have now: "a few fancy looking cinematic trailers and a general list of features". Not angry/ranting or anything, but that's just not enough for me, to spend €50 on. I'll just wait until we see some more (and with that, accept possibly paying a bit more later on).

Please @BIGNEWY or @NineLine, any word on this? We're not asking for video's right away, we just wonder if ED has plans to showcase a bit of what we can expect, before the actual EA release (end of pre-purchase) (I also asked the same question in the weekly newsletter post) Although I love helo flying, I can only spend my money once and even though there's a nice pre-order discount, I still have to make choices between the new upcoming modules. As I can't justify spending money on everything. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing the early access CH-47F being "p"reviewed by a few of the higher rated YouTube content creators such as for instance Casmo and Redkite. Or at least have Wags throw us a a few cockpit familiarization videos on what we can expect at release.

Last chance on CH-47F pre-order? Can we still expect some preview videos? Maybe an early startup YT video or some preview videos from a few selected DCS YouTube'ers? Aside from the recently shared EA feature list, I'd really like to see a bit more of what can be expected.

As @Silver_Dragon mentioned, definitely make use of the free 14 day trial and base your decision on that. That said, my opinion on the map's I own (see this as informative input from my point of view): First of all, make sure to check out the Syria map! (imho, thé best DCS map available at this time) Persian Gulf - Nice map. Obviously a lot of sand and little to no green. Good see/land balance, which makes it excellent for both land based and naval ops. Scenery is quite good/detailed. In my experience Multiplayer interest for this map is somewhat "medium". South Atlantic - Very nice map. Satellite textures make it look exquisite from high altitude, but imho, low to the ground it also looks quite good. Scenery looks very detailed. Note that this map is still being worked on (and still needs some work), which with current Razbam-ED dispute has become an uncertainty. I'd label this map as not popular in the MP community. There's also not very much SP user made missions for it unfortunately. Sinai - Very nice map. I'd say on par with Syria, but unfortunately (and I don't really understand why) far less popular in the community when looking at available MP and SP missions. Excellent land and sea balance Scenery is one of the best for the modern DCS maps. Mostly sand, but the Nile area is actually quite green. Syria - My personal favourite map right now. Mainly for its (unfortunate) conflicts history/mission potential and the terrain diversity (sand, green, mountains/valleys, sea, large cities.. Syria map has got it all). Scenery is very detailed. I'd rate this map as second most popular (after Caucasus) in the community. Plenty of MP and SP missions available for it. NTTR - My opinion (don't shoot me), this map is just too outdated for what ED is asking for it (even with discount). Scenery detail is similar to Caucasus, so, poor. It's also quite a small map compared to the other map dlc's. Ground textures are quite good though, especially from higher up. I know many people love this map for its potential for roleplay (realistic exercise location). No sea. Land based missions only (not sure about MP popularity, but I think it's quite low). Supercarrier (Not really a map, but thought I'd share) - A must have if you like naval ops. No issues with MP if you don't have it though (I think you can still land on it, but you won't be able to use the special SC ATC comms). I believe most of the larger servers add both the Supercarrier and the non-Supercarrier to their missions. I don't own Kola and don't play DCS WWII, so no verdict on those maps from me. Have fun mate and make sure to use those 2week trials and make up your own mind

Done a bit more testing and to further clarify the issue my new TDC has: When I check the game controller properties in Windows, the TDC X-axis is by default all the way to the left. So with a centered TDC, I see this in windows: (note that the "+" symbol is all the way to the left, whilst it should be in the center) I tried calibrating multiple times, both via Windows as in DiView, but result stays the same.. No "negative" X axis

So, I have an old but modded Cougar throttle, but I can't get the micro stick axis to work properly. Mods installed: mtwsims usb standalone mod (I think it's not sold anymore) Delta sim electronics TDC slew upgrade (bought last week) Calibration tool I now use: DiView (super simple tool that allows manual calibrating and can show raw axis output) The original Cougar TDC x and y axis have not worked properly since a few years. Erratic and inconsistent outputs. I hoped to solve the issue with the new TDC mod from Delta sim, but unfortunately, the TDC axis output appears to have gotten even worse. Y axis is to some extend giving a raw - and + output. The X-axis is only giving a raw + output so it seems. All other axis (throttle, range knob, ant el.) work fine. I've never liked Cougars CCP program (as too many time, the calibration results were not good and I just don't really know how it all works ) So, does anyone have any recommendations on a simple calibration tool for the Cougar standalone throttle. Something that allows me to at least double check if my new TDC slew is at all working. (could it be that my Cougar main pcb board is broken, causing issues only with the slew axis?)

I was wondering: When powering up AG weapons that require internal alignment (e.g.: JDAM's, MAV's), in the AV8B for instance, the weapon alignment process stops when switching to another weapon station. Am I correct that this isn't the case with the Viper? Will weapon alignment continue in the background when switching to another weapon station? So, as an example: I have JDAM's and MAV's loaded on my aircraft; When I add power to the JDAM (start its alignment), then switch directly to the MAV and add power to that weapon, will the JDAM continue to align while I have the MAV station selected?

Actually, not even! I managed to capture the current "click" area: As @draconus mentions, it should be more like this:

Which is very much appreciated sir! I must say I'm a bit confused though. I thought this ongoing (mysterious) dispute between Razbam and ED, meant that all Razbam DCS products were/are put on hold. Seeing this update from @Raz_Specter indicates differently. Or is there some sort of difference between aircraft and map modules from Razbam (map team still working and aircraft team on hold or something)?

Exactly, we're on the same page then

Did both the C2 group and non C2 group shot at you with the same reaction time?

Admittedly, I haven't had time yet to look into/test the DCS Web Editor yet, but what you describe they implemented, does not really match with what you ask in your OP. Isn't this option only useful for the mission designers to quickly swap between hot and cold start? (don't get me wrong; looks like what DCS Web Editor did is super handy and I really value all the effort they put into this, but I much rather see these kind of tools/mods/addons as part of DCS core). Personally, I think what you suggest in your OP is a great idea! In contrary to what @Exorcet says (no disrespect mate ), I think this additional option does belong in the ME environment. It should be up to the mission designer to decide what's needed or allowed (cold start, hot start, or "individual"), as the various choices can have major influence on mission triggers and/or balance. For missions where it doesn't matter how the player starts, all options would be just fine. But, for instance, I have created and shared missions, where I purposely set the player to cold start. If a player starts that mission and can then select to start in a hot aircraft, that will break my mission. So, I'd say, it's up to the mission designer to allow this or not.

Aside from what has already been mentioned above by Lange_666 and Nightdare: Winwing bases are compatible with TM grips, if you add the Winwing conversion piece (I think it's sold by them for about $50 The RealSimulator FSSB base is compatible with TM grips

I know it works, but the actual "click" box size has been reduced significantly. This was changed somewhere around September 2023 in some forum update I think.

As I mentioned before, in the taxi and take off Caucasus mission you are talking about in your OP, the only thing you need to do to have the caution light go off, is arm the seat. If the caution light stays on after arming the seat, it will most probably be another hotas binding issue

Any users out there with some long term (>1 year) experience with Winwing's Orion2 MFSSB? And additionally also experience with other force sensor bases (e.g.: Cougar/Warthog mods, Realsimulator, other?) I've read and watched many reviews, but most of them (if not all I found) were reviews after relatively short periods of trial. Does anyone have a more long term verdict on Winwing's MFSSB? Or is anyone from experience able to compare the quality/sensitivity of the Winwing MFSSB with one of the many TM Cougar/Warthog sensor mods? (I'm not so much interested in the Realsimulator one. I'm sure it's top of the league, but its price is just far beyond what I'm willing to spend on a stick base) Bit of additional info, on where my question is coming from: I've been forever searching and reading into force sensor stick options. It's mainly the steep costs that always held me back from ever pulling the trigger. Yet, now that our DCS Viper is nearing its feature complete status, I'm at the point where I want to invest in this piece of hardware. I'm pretty close to ordering the Cougar Force Transducer mod from Invictus Cockpit Systems, but with shipping costs and import duties+TAX from the US to EU, that mod will probably also near €400,-. For about the same amount, I can purchase the Winwing MFSSB. It's just that I see mixed opinions about their quality (especially several reports about poor sensitivity around the stick center). Edit: I just noticed that for my Cougar and Warthog grip to work with the Orion2 base, I'd also need to purchase the €50,- conversion kit . To bad these things are hardly ever sold 2nd hand..

@BIGNEWY or @NineLine, could either of you please pass this feedback to the website designer? This used to not be an issue. I have a pretty regular sized phone (Samsung A54) and my fingertips are quite small, but still half the time I try to press the button I mention in my OP, I get redirected to ED's website.

What happened to 3a?

ED has been working (or indicated that the work is planned) on improved/realistic AAR drogue physics. (I think it's safe to assume that includes proper damage modeling and wind/turbulence effects)

I know it's utterly pointless to ask for an update on the status of ATC improvements (I can already hear @BIGNEWY and @NineLine sighing and use their macro controlled answer: "As soon as we have news to share, we will share it" ) But fwiw: I too would really like to know what ED's general goals are in terms of implementing proper ATC procedures and comms. No dates, I understand they can't be given, but at least some general ATC goals they strive to achieve. Playing and enjoying Ground Pounder Sim's "Weasels over Syria" now. And this awesomely made campaign painfully shows exactly that which DCS core is missing, namely: proper comms. I'm really looking forward to DCS' announced DC, but even more am I looking forward to proper ATC procedures, as that is sorely needed to truly transform our beloved game into a "sim"

Which training mission exactly and which map? Assuming you mean the Caucasus "Taxi and Take-off" training: I just tested and here the Power switch is set to Main Power on mission start. So nothing strange there on my side. The Caution light is on, because the seat is not armed yet (yellow handle on the left front of the seat). If the caution light is on, check the caution panel on the right side to see what's wrong. In this case you'll see the "seat not armed" caution light) If you keep having issues with the power switch, maybe better post a track file here.

Just flown mission 1 and 2 (have to redo mission 2 because I already died ) I just love the radio comms! All the proper ATC in this campaign is exactly what DCS core is lacking. I've done my fair share of DCS mission editing, so I can imagine what a massive work it must have been to add all the manual comms in these missions. Truly impressive! (By the way: "Forrest's" voice really sounds a lot like Wags ) Only at mission 2 right now, but I already know I'm going to replay this one. (And also the secret extra missions embedded into mission 1 )

As I explained in my OP; I have MP automatic track saving disabled. Also, I don't have Tacview. I know, not ideal, but the main question I asked, does not need a track file: "can an aim-120 ignore the target locked in the cockpit and after launch on its own establish a lock on a different target" As I read the replies from other people here, the answer seems to be: "yes, it is possible"

Ok, so that means it is actually quite possible/plausible that I had indeed locked the correct aircraft and that (after launch) the AMRAAM's internal radar locked on to the nearby friendly? I assume a NASAMS air defense would suffer from the same risk then. (The same 4YA server I was on, also had a NASAMS on one of our airfields, which was spamming AMRAAMS towards enemies, whilst there were many friendlies around. Didn't see any blue on blue accidents happen there though)