KingKenny04

Similar issues here. Upon reaching the slot selection screen it takes about 5 to 10 minutes to select a slot due to lag. About half the time the selection screen just locks up and I'm forced the ctrl alt del and end the DCS task. If I am able to load in, I get about 1 frame every 3 to 5 seconds for at least ten minutes. About 9 times out of 10 the game eventually locks up completely and I have to end task again. On one occasion I've been able to get back to normal frames on a server with 2 other people, but it took me about 15 minutes to get there. So far it has done this on about 10 different servers I've tried. 1060 6GB, 16 GB RAM, Core i5 3.4 Ghz, DCS is installed on an SSD.

+1, getting this bug as well. Tried getting four Harriers at Creech AFB loaded with bombs to do a conventional takeoff. Once they hit the runway, the throttle up then immediately rotate the nozzles down. The aircraft eventually roll to a stop mid-runway and then sit there forever (since they are too heavy for a vertical take off).

Getting a similar issue. LHD will only spawn one aircraft at a time regardless of how many aircraft are set to take off. Also, regardless of whether its set to takeoff from runway, hot spot, or parking, it only spawns a single aircraft and only in the same spot as the lead aircraft in OP's photo (i.e. floating over the water off the deck). I also noticed in the editor there are only four spots listed under all categories. There should realistically be 10 helicopter "hot spots" i.e. can take off from that spot, three "harrier" spots for Short Take Off, and 12-14 "parking" spots. I understand this may be hard to implement since many of the spots on LHAs/LHDs are T/M/S specific, but at a minimum we should have the ability to spot and launch a full complement of helicopters at once i.e. the six hot spots on the port side of the flight deck.

Any chance we can get an update to the roadmap? I know actual release dates are impossible, but can we get an idea of which aircraft are next in the pipeline?

Over the past week, we've seen a lot of backlash and controversy over certain modules and the manner in which they are marketed. People are going back and forth in various discussions and communities, wondering why certain aircraft are being made and others ignored, or whether certain modules "belong" in DCS. I've seen the word "entitlement" thrown around a lot. What we all need to remember is that these modules are a business, and we are customers. A developer may start out making a module they genuinely care about, but the key to staying in business is matching market demand and ensuring a positive return-on-investment. Making modules to the quality that DCS expects is an expensive endeavor. This means that developers need to be very careful about choosing which modules to create. What the DCS community needs to understand is that "market demand" does not mean "demanding" certain modules be made on a forum. It can only be quantified by sales figures or market research. The number of people who post regularly on these forums and other communities is far, far less than the total number of DCS users or potential customers. As such polls, begging, and pleading on forums can never be considered a gauge for market demand. Sales figures are the only accurate rubric for determining what the community is willing to pay money for. Every module sale is a message sent to that developer that that type of module is in demand. If you hate trainers but buy them anyways to "support the devs", the only thing the developers see is that sales were made. Given that trainers don't cost nearly as much to develop, this only encourages developers to make more trainers. Posting on a forum that you plan to buy a module despite not actually being interested in it, and that you expect that developer to make something else in the future, doesn't accomplish anything. The developer is only able to look at sales, and sales alone, as an accurate figure for market demand. How does this connect to getting your favorite module into DCS? If you want developers to stop making trainers, you need to stop buying trainers. If you want developers to make combat aircraft, you need to buy combat aircraft. If you like a module, buy that module. Don't buy a module you don't care about because you think you're "supporting the devs." Don't buy a module in the hopes that it will make a developer like you more and make your plane. Don't buy a plane because you think you need to "complete" DCS. Sales of modules that the community do not actually care for only produce an inaccurate picture of community demand, and thus results in more of the same. This is not a call for a boycott, or a call to put any developer out of business. Developers are only able to produce products that they think will sell. As customers, we need to do our part to give the developers accurate information on what we demand. This means buying modules we actually want, and avoiding those that we don't. If you like trainers and want more, buy trainers. If you like civilian aircraft and want more, buy civilian aircraft. If you want your favorite aircraft in DCS, you need to let the free market work as intended, and stop buying planes you don't actually care about.

People really need to stop doing this. If you genuinely want an aerobatic plane in DCS then fine, go ahead. But if you're buying a module purely to "support the devs" you're shooting yourself in the foot. This is a business, and development decisions are driven by market demand. Not forum posts. Not wishlists. Not asking "please make this plane" in a developers forum. Not complaining when a module is released that you don't like. Its driven by what will and what will not sell. When you buy a trainer or a civvie plane or something you don't actually want, all you're doing is telling the developer that those planes are in demand, which only encourages them to make more of those planes because they cost very little to make and will sell. You aren't "supporting the developers", you're just ensuring we won't get any interesting planes out of them. If you want combat planes, buy combat planes and avoid this completely. The clearest message to LNS that we want combat modules would be if this biplane doesn't sell at all. If you want to "support" LNS, go buy the MiG-21. A lack of sales of this biplane and a spike in sales of the MiG-21 would be the clearest message that they need to make combat planes.

Dude I hope you're right. What was the stuff about the ZX Spectrum about?

They managed to come up with something worse than another trainer.

Okay so here's a thought, there was a game made for the ZX Spectrum called MiG-29: Soviet Fighter. The last hint mentions the Spectrum console. EDIT: Didn't notice firmek's post

MiG-29 first flew in 1977. I'm not gonna get my hopes up but there's that.

Really hope all the speculation about it being a G4 is wrong. The hints all seem to indicate its a G4, which would be a massive disappointment.

If ED were willing to negotiate a license with BAe, you could make it work without it needing to be non profit. That's probably why they stipulate it being non-profit, because otherwise they would be required to charge for a license to use their IP. Maybe you'll get lucky and ED will both give you a license and allow you to put this out for free? Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

It seems to me like pretty soon here there will be an urgent need for a western tanker capable of P&D refueling. The Mirage is out, and we have the F-14, F/A-18, AV-8B, and Mirage F1 in the pipeline. The current KC-135 is capable of doing either boom or probe and drogue refueling, but that requires modification on the ground. To my knowledge, the current 135 in game is only capable of boom refueling. My thinking is that the KC-10A would solve this problem, as it can do both methods in the same flight. So has ED given any thought to this issue? In the grand scheme its probably not nearly as big a problem as a lot of other things ED has going on, but I'd like to think its something that's been talked about.

I'm seeing this, the Mirage IIICJ, the MiG-21, and I can't help but think...give us an A-4 and and F-4, and Sinai, anyone? Yom Kippur War? This is very close to perfect. Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

They mentioned in an earlier update that differential braking is not possible with the SFM. Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

The nice thing about the desert areas around NTTR, NTC, and 29 Stumps is you dont need a whole lot of high poly objects for them to look great. A few base facilities and some of the "villages" on the training ranges is it. The rest of it can just be mostly flat textures and still look fantastic, since its mostly just open desert. The issue with trying to add something like Los Angeles is its a huge area with a TON of very distinct objects. You can't really "cheat" it with low res textures or low poly objects because with buildings and objects like that the low quality would really stand out.

I would think trying to cram in the Pacific and LA area would be pushing it. I understand the only map limitation is filesize, but to my knowledge NTTR as it is now is already like 20 gigs, so I'm not sure how much more they can cram into it and still justify the size. I think something like 500x500 that includes Fallon, NTTR, China Lake, NTC, and 29 Palms is plenty for a nice big map with lots if interesting features and possible scenarios i.e. Red Flag at NTTR, Top Gun at Fallon, Green Flag and Decisive Action at NTC Fort Irwin, and Mojave Viper at 29 Palms. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

I've seen people mention Fallon in the past. I did a little calculating with Google maps. Expanding the map size to 500km x 500km leaves enough room to include NAS Fallon, NAWS China Lake, NTC Fort Irwin, MCLB Barstow, and MCGACC Twentynine Palms. I figure most of that map would still be lowres open desert, with detail only around the airfields. Just a random thought. Maybe something to consider after Normandy, the F/A-18C, and Straits of Hormuz are done?

Why is LVMS flat? It's really highly banked in real life. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Yeah connected to the ts shortly after making that post and felt REAAALLY stupid haha. Great way of encouraging people to use comms I guess

I haven't been able to find the 104th server in the 1.5 client? I didnt know they had one? Is it down?

Getting the same error. Happened on the free flight instant action for the L-39. Hit escape, clicked End Flight. The screen locked up, background menu music came up but the game would not leave the frozen screen. Here is my system nfo and DCS log http://a.uguu.se/dhgmkm_LogandSysInfo.7z

What sort of capabilities should the -67 have compared to the -45? I'm assuming the -67 will be on the -B and I'm curious how that'll balance with other aircraft on the "open" servers like the 104th.

This one's not in the film, but I feel like it fits the "feel" of 80's air combat perfectly. I will definitely be making videos of the Tomcat and Hornet with this song.

Actually that upcoming Strait of Hormuz map might make a pretty perfect F-14-centric fictional scenario map. There were a few times in the mid to late 80s that the US Navy and Iran faced off over shipping lanes in and out of the Persian Gulf. It wouldn't be the most 100% realistic thing ever, but one could definitely make a semi-plausible US F-14s vs IRIAF F-14s scenario on that map. Imagine: IRIAF MiG-21s launching to sink the US carrier, with IRIAF F-14s as escorts. Meanwhile, the US carrier launches its own F-14s to intercept and defend the fleet. Maybe the carriers launch their own A7 Corsair IIs or A6 Intruders (if we ever get either of those) to take out Iranian SSM sites and naval assets that might threaten the fleet during transit of the strait of Hormuz, with US F-14s as escorts, and the IRIAF scrambles its own F-14s to intercept. There's a lot of really fun stuff you could do with that map and late 80s/early 90s naval aircraft :D