gavagai

The lack of flight test data slowed down progress on the DCS P-47, and that's a WW2 aircraft. For WW1 just about every scout is missing comprehensive flight test data. Don't even get me started on the German scouts and the flame wars that rage over French/British flight test data of captured aircraft. Rise of Flight was great, but for 6 years they had the Fokker Dr.I flying faster than the Albatros D.Va, among other foibles that no serious historian of WW1 would ever allow.

They use a mod for labels that puts a little dot on top of the aircraft. For me it is still too hard to see in 4k. The size of the dot changes depending on your resolution, which is lame.

I would make a gentleman's wager that Wags' statement was a red herring, or just premature. If I'm wrong then they need to do something else to fix it. Telling my friends about DCS is like this: "It's a great flight sim. It has technical accuracy and amazing graphics." "Can you see other airplanes flying?" "Errr...no.":doh:

Model visibility is the weakest feature of DCS. Aircraft just vanish at medium-close range. Please, please, can I dig up the old threads where we were told to stop bringing up smart-scaling because the model enlargement sprites were a better solution because they were newer?

ACG Cold War is a good one. The only DCS module they don't have is the Mirage 2000.

I was going to restart this campaign, but sorry to see it won't work with 2.5.1. FWIW, the graphical evolution of DCS has made starting up in the dark almost impossible for me. I couldn't see anything at the start of mission 2. I tried adjusting monitor settings, but nothing helped!

Don't fly on servers that mix FC3 with DCS modules.:thumbup:

I think 2.5 is OK for the modern aircraft that tend to be a bit bigger, but the engine doesn't draw the small WW2 fighters correctly. Lots of posts have demonstrated that the engine draws them smaller than they should appear.

Remember how awesome the model-enlargment sprites were going to be? How they were better than Smart Scaling because Smart Scaling is an algorithm from the '90s? New must be better than old? Remember all that? I seem to recall someone replying to every post that didn't agree model-enlargement sprites were the answer...:music_whistling:

Yeah, trigger zones aren't necessary. The 40mm bofors will fire, but their aim stinks, even when set to a higher skill level. Better to set Bulgaria to Blue and use the German AAA units for airfield defense.

My vote would be for the Fw 190. In my opinion, the big difference between the modeling of the three is cooling. The Spit overheats excessively, the 109 is near impossible to overheat. The 190 offers the more credible operating experience. This could all change once the cooling systems change with the new damage model.

My thoughts? The F-16C is a must buy.:beer:

Here is a mod of the label mod for hi-res displays. I've found that with 4k even the label mod isn't enough to make it possible to spot aircraft. For example, I can be scanning the exact piece of sky that has the aircraft in it and still not pick it up. Thank you to xcom for sharing the label mod here on the forum. All I've done is to change the tiny character to a bullet symbol: • Tell me what you think if you're running 4k. The zip file is JSGME ready, or you can copy it into your DCS World folder. Backup config/view/labels.lua if you're going to install it manually. Big Label Mod.zip

ED will deliver on the F-18. It might take longer than we want, but it will be excellent. Some of the 3rd party modules are great, others not so much.

I really hope so. I was just reminded of the Spit overheat after not flying it for a while. Good advice in the thread and other info, but the ease with which you can cook the Spit's engine is eyebrow raising compared to the other WW2 modules.:huh:

The 109 has the shorter clip. Both the 109K and Mk IX are heavily armed, and the Mk IX's high velocity 20mm should be more practical for shooting down fighters, but the Mk IX is really hurt by the poor visibility over the nose. It's hard to hit what you can't see.

The condition isn't taken into account. 1. Create 3 groups, A, B, and C. 2. Make group C delayed activation. 1. Create a trigger zone so that only A or only B is in the zone. 2. Create a trigger with the condition that A OR B must be in the zone to activate C. 3. If A is in the zone, C does not spawn. If B is in the zone, C does not spawn. C will activate only if A AND group B are in the zone.

When setting up trigger conditions, you can no longer separate conditions with OR. The mission editor just ignores it. This bug is repeatable.

Yeah, it went away on its own. I've never had a DCS login problem before.

I had the chance to watch F-16 and F-15 pilots practice a BVR "grind" over the gulf via satellite at Egland AFB. These were simulated engagements with the Aim-120C against other pilots playing adversary. You could see each pilot's HUD on the display screens, about 6 at a time. The grind consisted of approximately 20nm separating 2-ship teams, about 6-8 pilots total. They took turns launching 120s and covering the other's egress. The adversary would be faced with a wall of amraams and be unable to enter the airspace (or die). So, the professionals practice with the idea that they need additional support to "launch and leave" while keeping an acceptable pk for the missile. That kind of teamwork (and discipline) is pretty rare for your typical multiplayer server, but it would be interesting to see what can be done with the F/A-18C once it has the capability (with the F-15's boy-scout radar I don't think it's worth basing opinions on it). Another difference is engagement altitude. Your typical multiplayer engagement is close to the ground because of the absence of SAMs. Missile range increases with altitude, and while DCS missiles might be short-legged, the vertically challenged combat of multiplayer exaggerates the effect. :thumbup:

Welcome to DCS. :) The wait for 100% is going to be even longer than the most pessimistic person here thinks, but it will be worth it.

What the heck is this? I've never seen it before. Now multiplayer is unavailable and I have 2+ days to play offline. Internet connection is 100% OK, obviously.

The Mig-29 doesn't carry 10 missiles, and its FM feels wooden compared to the Su-27. Those are the reasons why you don't see it in multiplayer, I guess. I own FC3, but rarely use it. If you like DCS modules you will get bored quickly, unless you want to spam a single target with 4 missiles multiplayer.

Everything here takes twice as long as any reasonable estimate. It's going to be a long ride, so relax check back in 2019.

Ah, I exploded in midair today, too. Didn't look like I was hit by a missile at all.