Rotorhead

Agree to that, that's why I am looking towards the new update so much. Although you must admit that the Spitfire simply only looks "right" over green English pastures rarther than Nevada desert. While it is true that some Spits saw action over North Africa (probably not exactly "our" version, don't know much about Spitfire except it is a damn hot looking warbird!), downtown Las Vegas is still a far way from WWII Tobruk. And well, having dedicated anti-ship plane in a map that does not even allow you to place ships is, uhm... Although about that low level flight bit, I think I will even forget about those missing snow-covered fir trees at that moment. ;) After all, as I said earlier, main thing to me is that 2.0 runs AND looks far better that current 1.5. So until 2.5 or at least 2.0 Normandy, I think NTTR will still be my favourite playground. Oh and by the way, anyone else looking forward to doing short-field anti-shipping operations with the Viggen in Normandy? :D Three actualy. You forgot Poland... err I mean, you forgot the Open Beta. :( OW! That's a bummer. Still hope they will make it, but statements like that usualy mean one may safely assume the opposite. Is there at least any info whether the latest Mi-8 update will be in?

Thanks for the great info Sith! As I wrote in another thread, I know neither the Spit nor Viggen really fit into the Nevada environment, but due to far better performance and overall better graphics, i vastly prefer this version over 1.5 until 2.5 is out. So finally an oportunity to fly my two most favorite planes in my favorite version of DCS. Super excited for the update, another reason to look forward to Friday! :thumbup:

If you don't mind me asking any word on FFB implementation? I read in that other thread about you guys coding it but not having a FFB stick to actualy test it. So does that mean that the next (or some other following) update will have FFB implemented, just not guaranteed to work? Or just not yet? Funny, in one of my pre-release posts, I joked about volunteering to test FFB for you. If only you listened... ;)

Yeah, what razo+r said. Flying very close together might cause the enemy radar confuse entire flight with just one target (guess it works better with older radars), but other than that, there is no advantage in flying close together in air-to-air I know of (don't quote me on that, no big expert on aerial combat). Bigger distance gives you greater radar coverage, thus greater situational awareness, more room for maneuvering... In air to ground, however, if you're trying to sneak pair of Viggens through valleys under enemy radar though... Still, during actual attack phase (in range of enemy defenses), bigger separation again gives you more maneuvering space, and forces enemy defences to split up their firepower, instead of concentrating all in one place. Also, bombers during WWII liked to use tight formations - easier to hit, sure, but also providing lots of concentrated defensive fire. Hope that with upcoming Normandy map, ED will think of a way to make big planes act like that.

Hi! Another minor bug I noticed, the taxi/landing light on the nose gear does not move sideways with the gear itself when applying rudder. While the physical reflector correctly yaws left and right with the nosewheel steering, the light flare remains stationary (and the reflector sometimes protrudes through it), and also the light beam keeps shining straight forward. When the nose gear is depressed (for example while braking), the light source moves correctly up or down. It's only the horizontal axis that is broken.

Did I miss something? G940 here and it certainly isn't working, let alone great. All I am getting is the default fake centering spring effect that is not even close to the cheapest joystick with real spring. As I understand it (though I never owned the former), the difference between MSFFB and G940 is that when no FFB commands are detected from the game, MSFFB simply goes limp, while G940 keeps its centering force as set in the control panel. But it still doesn't make the FFB "work". There are no trim effect, no vibrations, no changes in stick forces or anything. Oh and Nick, thank you much for the heads up! Looking forward to see the changes make their way to DCS soon!

Wait, what? Aren't Viggen mirrors just static reflection texture now? That is, not working like real mirrors in other modules? Haven't tested it myself yet (didn't open the canopy, that is :music_whistling:), but you say that even this fake mirror effect has a noticeable effect on performance? If so, it's pretty bad... and surprising, at least for me.

So, as I allready wrote in another thread, my first attempt at landing the Viggen was rather embarrasing. Of all things, like I never landed a (simulated) plane before, I forgot to extend my landing gear. :doh: I was told in that thread (and confirmed that with manual), that I should get a master caution light, together with a LANDSTÄLL anunciator light while under 375 km/h, below 1500 m and with throttle no more than 90% with gears up. Tested it several times with and the indication simply does not show up. My altitude was low enough, and I flew as slow as the airplane allows me with throttle full or nearly full back and all I got was the stall warning sound. I even tried it in various modes, including both landing modes, with L1 or L2 selected as my waypoint, or without it (although I think it should not matter). During gear transition, LANDSTÄLL light behaves as advertised. I am still very inexperienced with this aircraft, so I am not sure if I'm not doing something wrong. If so, I apologize for this useless bug report. But can someone with more knowledge please look into the matter? Thanks!

So I did a series of a quick test and the LANDSTÄLL light simply does not show up for me, along with master caution light, despite my aircraft being inside all required parameters. It works as intended during landing gear transitions, though. Looks like I have to file in a bug report.

Yeah, not really sure about that "LANDSTÄLL" thing, but that's to be expected from a sleep deprived guy who just for first time sits in a complex machine he knows next to nothing about and decides to take it for a ride... Not exactly the correct procedure real pilots use, right? And yes, you guessed right, my swedish needs a bit of brushing up. :) But master caution is that two alternating lights on left top corner of the front dash, right? I am pretty sure that even I would notice them... Unles I was dumb enough to simply think "ah, that stupid airplane is bugging me again about something I don't understand" and simply pushed the reset button. :poster_oops: Okay, it's gonna be the next thing I'm going to test, this time hopefully without actual touchdown.

I just looked at the poll you linked (didn't even know about this thread before) and, including myself now, there were totally 86 people voting. Hardly a representative sample to say "there are more people, who use a FFB Stick than people without a FFB stick". I would simply say that most people with non-FFB stick didn't vote, or simply didn't even know that this thread existed, just like me. A quick glance at the gaming hardware market should give you a hint - how many types of FFB sticks are produced? And how many of non-FFB ones? And I am sure that LNS will add FFB support in due time - after all, they have it in MiG-21 and they even addet it into the "known issues" list. If they didn't plan to change it, it wouldn't be issue for them then, would it? Only thing I hope for is that it comes as soon as possible!

Ever since the Tomcat project was unveiled, I knew it was a bad idea just for the obnoxious amount of worn-out Top Gun memes that will plague the internet at and after release. We're not even nearly there and it already shows I was right. :D Oh and for the tape selection, I will certainly take some Roxette before ABBA. "The Look" sound somehow very appropriate for the Viggen. :)

Pretty much the above. Came from work last evening, could't resist and downloaded her, assigned at least the most essential controls (will add the rest later), created a fast takeoff from runway mission (really, Leatherneck, how much effort would it cost for you to add one like this to the Quick start menu? :ranting:) and took her for a quick spin. All went pretty well, I even managed to put her in the visual landing mode (one of the few things i remember from the videos), only I wondered why she wants to stall so much and why can't I achieve sufficient AOA. Screw it, I thought, so I will just come in a bit faster for a landing. Only after a (very uncomfortable) touchdown I realised one "minor" flaw in my approach procedure - i forgot to put my landing gear down! :doh: (which also caused the canard flaps not to come down I suppose). I mean, really? I'm flying completely unfamiliar type of aircraft without any problems, I succesfuly landed other types hundreds time before, and I forget about damned landing gear?! C'mon, man! Only thing to say to my defense, it was in the middle of the night after a really busy working day and I already really wanted to bed. Oh, and I could still walk away after that, so I guess it constitutes a "good" (just not "excellent") landing - only my crew chief would probably not share that sentiment. But thinking about it today - while I alone am still completely to blame - the cockpit layout is not exactly pilot-friendly in this regard. What other post-50's plane has gear handle located like this? Come on, even the Russians put it in the left front dash, and they do EVERYTHING differently than the West. And the announcement lights didn't help either - every other plane I know has three big, green lamps arranged like a landing gear (well, in A-10, they aren't really as big either), so even somebody completely unfamiliar with the airframe (or with aviation in general) will notice them. Only the Viggen has three random labels (which could really mean anything) light up, on an anunciator panel where all others warnings, advisories and misc information are located. I mean, every other aircraft I know has different indication for things like "your windscreen heating is on" and "YOUR DAMNED LANDING GEAR IS EXTENDED". Not the Viggen. You must think in Swedis I guess. ;) Oh, and one thing is missing in the poll options. The thrust reverser. I am fully proficient with it. It's a fun little thing. :) Well, enough talking, time to go flying!

Indeed, where is the FFB? Kinda surprised by the lack of it, MiG-21 came with FFB on release (as did all other modules except maybe two?), so I expected nothing less from LNS this time. Honestly, it quite ruined my first experience with this (otherwise very well made) aircraft. I can do wihtout working mirrors and other smaller things (that's whi they call it early acces, after all), but for us FFB users, this is pretty much game breaking bug. SimFFB it is for the time being, I guess. But I must admit, I don't like this solution. Not only it doesn't seem to be actively developed anymore, it's an external program and any DCS update can potentially stop these two from working together, and also it's only one-way switch, meaning if you turn it on to fly the Viggen and then want to fly anything other with default FFB, you have no choice other than restarting entire DCS:W. Kinda ashamed that my very first post after release is a complaint, so let me say I really like what LNS did on this bird, it's a true work of art and I am sure it will bring me months and months of enjoyment. But this issue really sucks, so I hope it will get adressed very soon. Good luck LNS team and may the bugs be easy to squash! :)

On that account i fully agree. I only find it unfortunate that this beautiful module will be released with an issue, out of control of its developer, which will impair its visual quality. But guess I will have to put up with it. Hopefully, it will get fixed soon! Off to work now, Rotorhead out!

Yes, I know, but then it is probably 1.5.5.something with everything just like the previous 1.5.5 plus the new module, as opposed to 1.5.6 with the new module and a lot of new stuff including some new graphics that mess up cockpit shadowing. Yeah, but would it not be possible to release both stable 1.5.5 with Viggen (which, by Cobra's words worked just fine) and 1.5.6 as open beta with Viggen and all the other updates? I don't know, I said I know nothing about the logistics of said things, so maybe it would just cause more headache for ED to maintain two branches both being updated at the same time (each with different content), so I will probably just shut up and leave as it is. To end on a positive note, I just got a call that if everything goes right, maybe, just maybe, I won't have to work today (gotta love my company's project planning, the situation changes each minute there - just like a real battlefield :)), so if I am lucky, I could be flying the Viggen next morning!

Alright, I'm not a member of that "Waah, they will release Viggen for the Beta branch only!" crowd - I've been keeping all three versions in paralel, so it's really no matter to me (although my SSD is running out of space at alarming rate, I'd surely welcome the anticipated 2.5 merge rather sooner or later to finally do away with 2.0 for good), but still, this makes me wonder: So 1.5.6 has a "significant issue" (although certainly not game-breaking, apparently very visually unpleasant judging by the wording), and yet they decide to release the Viggen on that branch? If 1.5.6 were LNS' main development platform, I would understand it - they marketed it to be released on the 27th, they charged money for it, so even if there are still some issues standing, they have to release it anyway (whis is likely the case for all the other remaining bugs). But from Cobra's post, we know that they focused their work on 1.5.5 mainly. So why not release it on that branch if we know it works okay with it? Now, I know it's ED's decision for sure, so don't take it as a rant against LNS. Actually, dont take it as a rant agains anybody. I have no idea what's behind the development and logistics of DCS, what led ED to that decision and what all other circumstances might be. And I really don't like bitching about things I have little or no knowledge about. But as it stands, it sounds rather counterintuitive and any clarification from anyone competent would be welcome. Also, and now I am getting far beyond the topic of this thread, but what's the deal with 2.0 lately? It's haven't been updated, like, for ages? I know that bothe the Spitfire and the Viggen (the two airplanes I want to fly the most right now) look rather out of place over the Nevada desert, but thing is, my performance is far better in 2.0 than in 1.5, so I'd rather want to fly them there than over the (slightly) more fitting Caucassus with poor FPS. Not talking about having fully updated Mi-8 in 2.0 too! EDIT: Man. I've been battling with this horrible illness for like three weeks now, and all it got me is that I have to work today afternoon and then immediately tomorrow morning (after a week of overtimes due to training with a new piece of equipment). So my nearest chance to enjoy the Viggen is some 24 hrs after everyone else will already have their dirty hands on it :) But I guess if i were a real combat pilot, I'd have to go through much hardship and be available at inconvenient times too, so let's pretend it's all part of the role :D Plus, now I have two highly advanced pieces of tech to learn, and that real-life one's manual is actually much thicker than the one of DCS Viggen. It will be interesting to know which one i master earlier. Hopefully the one that provides me living :)

"So Professor, would you say it's time for everyone to panic?" "Yes, I would, Kent." :megalol: You guys are complaining about having to switch to Open Beta while childern in Africa... aw hell, while I have to work Friday afternoon and then immediately Saturday morning, so the earliest time I get to download the Viggen is around Saturday afternoon (pretty ironic, considering it's the first module I ever pre-ordered on the very release day). And you call this a problem? Bloody hypocrites! :ranting: Also, in B4 the lock! :D

And having "killable" soldiers does not? I mean, does that make difference if that guy has a rifle and wears camo pants? He dies the same death as a simulated civilian would, i.e. falls over without any blood and you know, soldiers are people too. No expert on gaming ratings but I'm not sure it works like that. EDIT: Also, we have airshow crows as a static object now. Never tried if it's destructible or not, but clearly you CAN shoot at civilians in DCS! It does? I wasn't aware of that. Sure, I only recently switched civ traffic back on (played for years without it), so maybe it was changed in the meantime. If so, great, but you still have no control over how the vehicles behave. Having them as placable units would get us around that issue nicely, and unlike that hypothetical dead civilian scenario, it could cause no moral dillemas, as nobody cares about destroyed vehicles / buildings so far it seems. Also, being able to add civilian air traffic would be nice - there are few planes and helos that would fit that role perfectly, but still can fly only as member of either red or blue coalition - meaning as long as it doesn't show as a friendly on your radar, you are free to engage without any consequences - sure, skilled mission designer could probably find a way around that, but it's again making square peg fit into round hole while civilan faction would solve it ellegantly without any effort at all (from the mission makers perspective I think, of course ED would have to invest their effort into it :)).

Yes, that's exactly what I want in DCS too, for a very, very long time. And I'm not asking for childern and torn off limbs and whatever else was mentioned in this thread either. All I want is a non-combat faction with all the civilian vehicles already in game (like buses etc.) as placeable, AI-controlable units (plus maybe some plain clothes people too, but that's optional, really). It's a simulation supposed to simulate real life, and in real life, pilots often have to cope with the issue of civilians being in the AO. All we have now are those ghost-like civilian vehicles aimlessly and carelessly rolling right through the battlefield, which, even when hit, have no impact on the missions outcome. Having actual placeable civilian units would not only allow the mission designer to make them behave more realistically (not drive straight into battle anymore), but also to make us virtual pilots plan our missions better and think twice before pulling the trigger. (Is it a military supply truck I see on my TGP or just a regular civilian lorry?) So anyone please leave morality out of this (like if dropping bombs on random city buildings as we can do right now was any better - guess they are all empty?), it's not about blood, it's not about gore, it's actually all about enforcing right weapon discipline, which is a good thing by the way. Also, it would alow us to fly peacekeeping missions in the style of "defend village X from attackers until ground troops evacuate all the civilian population, avoid any non-combatant casualties" etc. Oh and since we are actually talking civilian faction, another great thing would be adding a third combat faction, which could cooperate with any or none of the current two coalitions (see Arma series for example). This would give mission makers even more creativity, as creating a civil war scenario for example, where third party intervenes to stop the violence (or achieve its own goals) and gets into crosfirre from both alienated sides. Without wanting to go to real world politics, see Syria right now, where it's basically anyone vs. anyone else

THAT. WAS. INTENSE. There's not much else left to say. You know, if I haven't already pre-ordered the Viggen on the first day, I would definitely do it this very minute. Thank you Wags for this great video! :thumbup:

Not a terribly bad idea, I must say. But as others have already pointed out, it would just lead ED's efforts away from finishing the "real" Normandy map. After all, IF they manage to meet their projected deadline and stick to their usual business modell (I know, I know, everything is subject to change etc. etc.), we should get our hands on it in no more than two and a half months, with pre-order starting near the end of February at latest. Not that long away to release "tech demos" or "teasers" or whatever in the meantime. Besides, if video haven't teased you enough, I seriously don't know what will. And more will come in due time, that am I sure of. :)

Yeah, this setting should really be forced server-side :D

Then you should clearly have issues with people who sent them there (as I do), but hardly with the aircraft itself. I admit I never liked to fly Nazi planes (or generally play any game where I am Nazi soldier) for exactly the same reason, but blaming WW2 horrors on an airplane, simulated no less, and attack its developer (who will surely put many efforts into faithfully recreating it) in the process, well, that's ridiculous... Anyway, waaay off topic now... Back to the P-39 - I certainly don't have any good knowledge about the aircraft and its performance, but how I understand it, it had some revolutionary features that are worth mentioning - like engine placed near CoG, tricycle undercarriage etc., and in my opinion, these are enough to make the potential module interesting and unique. Who says all planes in DCS must be top performance ones? (If so, I'd like to know who will buy P-40 then... Good luck against those K-4's :music_whistling:) It's a simulator, and its purpose is to simulate any given piece of equipment, with all its advantages and downsides. I'd buy a well-made P-39 for sure! :thumbup:

Great, thanks for your quick reply! :thumbup: