Pâte

Morning pilots and devs. Thought about a details could be VERY interesting to add to the AAR in DCS. The basket rupture. Would increase the challenge and level of immersion during those phases. As well as adding a collision between the basket and the aircraft, causing damage to the aircraft & probe. It could be based on a very simple preset : During contact - If relative speed between tanker & aircraft > limit = basket rupture During refueling - If relative vertical speed between tanker & aircraft > limit + if didn't disconnected = basket / probe rupture - If relative lateral speed between tanker & aircraft > limit + if didn't disconnected = basket / probe rupture What are your thought ?

If also the LSO GRADE could last more than half a seconde ^^. Don't even have the time to note it to then 'traduce' it.

Hi Folks. Little suggestion Would be very very very useful if ED could add to the Hornet the same feature that propose the JF-17 (and Tomcat / Harrier ? ) about pre-planning the MC from the F10 map. Being able in game directly, prior the rampstart, to manage all the WPT and SEQ. It would save a lot of time wasted when you need to replan manually everything from the HSI on missions that you didn't created, mostly in multiplayer. Have a nice day.

Hello. In MP the ATC stacking control quickly start to be completly screwed, if there is too many players aircraft, or if a player aircraft do a mistake etc ... It end up having people waiting during endless time before to receive their Charlie signal. To the point they run out of fuel. Or people that did just join the stack, with more fuel, receiving their Charlie way before people that were already here and loosing fuel. I don't know what's the current logic behind the scripting of this, but it seems to not be working for MP at the moment if the ATC is stressed. So here is a proposition, for CASE I. The same logic can easly be applied for CASE II & III but would need to be slitghly changed on the numbers. _________________________________________________ RADIO MENU 1 " 219, Marking mom's x for x angels x, state x " IF stack empty = assigned level 1.5 IF stack not empty IF level 1.5 available = assigned level 1.5 IF level 1.5 not available = assigned last aircraft of the LSO list level + 1000ft " 219, Mother's weather is visibility ten plus miles, scattered clouds at [...] report see me at 10, at level x" " 219 " (automatic) ==> Radio menu 2 _________________________________________________ RADIO MENU 2 (don't hear tower) " 219, see you at 10, level x" IF > 10nm " 219, Mother, you are too far, report at 10 " IF < 10nm IF given level not respected " 219, fly level x, after state switch tower " IF given level respected "After state switch tower " " 219, state x" (automatic) Player < 5nm the stack is 5nm wide max, not 3 " Tower, 219, overhead, angels x, state x '' (automatic) ==> added in the LSO list, and ONLY now, not on the first contact. Place in the list assigned depending on the fuel. Less fuel = top of the list | the more fuel = the bottom of the list ==> Radio menu 3 _________________________________________________ RADIO MENU 3 (don't hear any more mother) Possible to do a call to update fuel state " Tower, 219, state x '' ==> Place in the list updated regarding the fuel IF player > 7nm = player left stack = removed from the LSO list " 219, tower, you left the stack, contact mother " ==> Radio menu 2 _________________________________________________ Previous aircraft in the list is in the approach for the KISS OFF " 219, Tower, Roger, BRC is x, signal is Charlie" " 219" (automatic) ==> Radio menu 4 ==> Change the 7nm limit to 15nm IF player > 15nm = player left recovery = removed from the LSO list " 219, tower, you left the recovery, contact mother " ==> Radio menu 2 _________________________________________________ RADIO MENU 4 (don't hear any more mother) Continue as the current system.

Check the entire post. Second point is addressed too

This being said. I appreciate a lot ED move. Wags interview. Their new communication about the WIP on DCS, not just modules. The preview showing indeed their work on the core game ... You guys indeed listened us, and are showing it. Looking foward to see the futur of this :)

I kind have to disagree a lot with those And few other in the same type i missed. Products have one purpose, be sold. If your target is starting to be frustrated with your products and a voice start to raise saying we are not happy with A, and you are trying to sell me D No way. Then you can be the best developper of the world you made the worse mistake to do in a business : loose your client thrust. If you don't correct the path it can quickly ruin the company reputation. And especially in a niche market. People complaining don't always complain for the pleasure of it. It does exist, it's called troll. But if you sit down and listen of all the complains raising regarding DCS atm, it make sense. There are problems. And it's good that people do it because you could be sometimes very surprised by things you didnt expected (cf the second part of this post) But indeed, there is the question of which portion of your clients are not happy. I don't know the numbers for DCS tbh. I only can say that for sure more and more people are raising the same concern. However it's probably a very small portion of their clients. Seems mostly the hardcore simmers that suffer the most from the problems pointed. And understand if they are not their main source of revenue. They are looking at democratising more DCS (exemple with MAC & FC). But would kinda ironic then that a sim that like to say is the best high fidelity combat sim is loosing their hardcore players thrust. ___________________________________________ Second point is that. Beeing a project manager if there is one point i learned immediatly. It's that more often than you would admit the best advises and ideas come from people that are not at all in your business. You may have years of experiences, them, they come with fresh eyes giving them unexpected but good and fresh ideas. Their ideas or visions wont always work, but it's worth listening them because you can learn a lot. For exemple i don't know if ED thought about removing the F2P aspect and sell the coregame. Raising funds to dedicate more ressources on it. And offer limited in time free try to people to interest them into DCS. But if you think about it, it's not that stupid. And worth at least thinking of this option.

If it's indeed the case they are decades late regarding the new should not be named sim back in the market. A DCS 3.0 looks like an obligation if they want to go that way. The current sim is buildt with so many old pieces bellow the new ones, i have hard time understanding how they could compete with a decent worldwide environment with decent FPS without almost starting from scratch a new one ...

Yep would be a good question to ask to ED. Is maybe reconsidering the F2P a solution ? Welcome to the club ... ^^

Perfectly summarized +111111

Let's clarify a little point. Persons such as X-CHECK, Jabber, people sharing their point of view such as me and many other. We are not looking for a confrontation. We are not here to kill ED by pleasure and say look how bad it is run away quick they are not working. If we didn't enjoyed DCS we would not be there. X-CHECK said everything, the problem is that we love DCS as much as we hate it. The pleasure of a flight can be ruined in few minutes airborn because of suffering form years/months old problems not fixed. We have the feeling that problems are just stacking on each other. And releasing new unfinished features seems to only making things worse. Adding new problems and slowing down any solving. We understand, it's hard to announce a project and having to deal with a lot of things to do, and people asking non stop for a release (maybe projects are announced too soon ?). We understand ED need to make money to keep running. But the stacking of problems killing the experience is reaching such a point ... i can be very wrong but i would be curious to see for exemple where would be the coregame now if all the ressources puted into the Hornet for exemple, were placed into the coregame. Maybe the F2P coregame is not working ? Maybe it need more ressources than a free plateform can receive ? Maybe selling now DCS coregame could unlock more ressources to dedicate to it ? I don't know and i wont pretend that i know. But i'm afraid of seeing very important things never fixed or in another 10 years. As well as coregame key features never added. As X-CHECK said, you are doing wonderful aircraft simulation, but what about all the rest, what about the coregame. Because having the best plane possible in a dead environment is sadly quickly useless. And the environment seems to have a massive lack of progress since years now. So again we are not here to kill ED. But at a point it seems that a kick in the ass and reminder to make ED open the eyes seems required. I got my ass kicked many times in my profession, sometimes with much harder words that "this is a joke". But always for the same reason, i was blind on my mistakes. And kicking my ass made me open the eyes. So yes more videos like that pop, yes more people encourage to don't purchase anymore anything from ED until we see focus on the coregame and no more futur promises / futur aircrafts. This is the only way we can us kick your ass.

Of course there is, i didn't said i agree with that specific comment. I'm just saying if we take 2s to understand the point of view of X-CHECK, yes his comment can make sense. It's maybe not that ludicrous so killing his entire video that has some very good points just on that ... it's a bit over the top.

Says the guys that doesn't know that i was yet recently part of a virtual squadron too ;)

Well i can give you a very simple exemple. Early begining of the Hornet dev when Wags was doing a live video about it. I asked very nicely in the chat how this would affect the fixing progress of the coregame and why they choosen to go for the Hornet now (3rd aprty could focus on aircrafts) before fixing it. Instant banned from the live ... ? So please, do not tell me at ED no one never banned anyone because of not agreeing with what you guys do. It's well known, we are a lot. But again as i said it's been improving the few last months/years, so looking foward to see the futur of DCS and ED :thumbup: Let's be honest 2s. All the problems he spoke about have been raised and explained on the forum multiple times, even all thoses that he didn't spoke about. Since years they are raised non stop. So almost a decade later now (for the older bugs), yes we it's normal to say sorry but this, is a joke, or this is ridiculous.

Well matter of point of view. He says himself that in a way he doesn't care that much about this aspect, myself too. He is spoting a logic from ED that he doesn't understand. Think about it : Digital COMBAT Simulator. As he says the Su 25T it make sense. But an unarmed TP51 ... ? The FC3 Mig29 or something lile that maybe would be more logic isnt ? Remember that DCS is presented as a F2P plateform.