Dagger71

A little more than tiny variation. Potentially almost a 50% improvement on range, using digital, re-programmable system that is going to be used solely on latest gen fighters. It is certainly going to have its own pylon as well. (this is the only info you can find online about it anywhere) There is no available fact sheets on specification on this missile available anywhere. ED being a russian company wouldn't dare release a russian weapon system without express permission and data on it. Not saying it won't ever come to DCS but at this point nothing is known about it.

It's still in development. I don't think its been in use in actual flights outside of testing, but again the Russians are much more secretive, so even it is in use today, ED has zero data on it.

is it even out of testing? there isn't even a NATO codename for this missile yet. I doubt ED has any info regarding the K74M data.

So you want the SA2 to be the most realistic SAM in game but want it to have a "basic" 1st person module? It's not how DCS works. Basically you want it to have two completely different types of functionality. 1) as a SAM battery which works with all units within its group obtaining various data from each unit and firing as historical as possible 2) a basic 1st person shooter modeled after other completely different single vehicle SAMs. If the SAM is going to be "the best modeled SAM in DCS" I would expect it to be modeled historically and no shortcuts be taken to be player controlled. Also nowhere did DCS ever mention this would be player controlled. I highly doubt such a complex player controlled multi vehicle SAM battery will be added to the game when current player controlled vehicles need so much work done to them. If it means we need to wait another 6 months, I'm good with that.

Looks fantastic!! Just installed it and I'm using OvGME. Retried first mission twice so far and the SU24 has russian tail marking. Iranian F4 is iranian. Wondering if there is something on my end.

The AV-8B N/A was never designed to be a hard turn fighter, let alone while fully loaded. As explained the info on its limits can be found in the manual. Every aircraft ever made has specific limits, that will lead to complete catastrophic failure of its air-frame components and finally the AV8B is NOT a FBW (fly by wire) design so it cannot limit pilot control.

Fair enough. My choice of words might have been too harsh. But there are no less than a few dozen posts since 2.5 was released stating exactly that position.. It is a confirmed "beta public test build". Here's hoping for fixes.

"Why not solve the bugs first on OB and then release the fixed updates on Stable? It's not a stable version if it has unsolved OB bugs." This has been discussed forever! ED made a claim that 2.5 was OB and everyone is supposed to be quiet and enjoy the bugs. Release version is just an older OB version. That's it.

you are not understanding. No military fighter aircraft is designed to be flown with no engine power. They haven't designed any backup hydraulic system, because they can't glide.

Pretty much most any fighter that lost engine power in the past 50 years crashed BUT of those engines dying out due to running out of fuel would be insignificant as pilots in any modern conflict would not allow this to happen. Fuel management is as important to the pilot as his weapon system. In combat simulators, most players, including myself don't really adhere to strict fuel management. Pilot gliding a modern military jet to touchdown on an airfield is such a rare occurrence, I don't even know when the last time it was done successfully.

I don't think there is really any (I'm sure there are some exceptions) modern fighter that can land with no engine power. I've been there many times myself trying to suck every last gram of fuel but in real life this would never happen. The fuel calculations are very specific right down to wind calculations and of course all stores on board. At bingo fuel you RTB. Fighters are streamlined for weight and most have unstable flight dynamics. GA and some airliners on the other hand have a much much greater glide ratio and, with lots of added extra weight, do have back up power in event of engine failures. cool story of an F18 through a series of events, 2 miles from a carrier ran out of fuel. ejected as soon as he lost power to second engine. https://pilotonline.com/news/military/article_b6d39b36-57d6-5142-96d5-568f1d58f764.html

hahaha vote on priority???? That's not how development works!

WHAT?????? You've never heard of the highway I76 Squadron? Of course Harrier squadrons operates from a base! Who would suggest otherwise? But once deployed, they were designed to land/take off pretty much anywhere and have even used roads deep in enemy territory.

You're unrealistic! You do realize that is EXACTLY what they were designed for???? The aircraft carrier VTOL landings came long after the fact. (I didn't see any Harriers in this video, but it just shows how the military can use any roadway when required) https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/san-carlos-fob/

You mean version 2.5.2.19273.411?? Try joining the discord channel to see if you can get any help there.

Server is up 24/7 running latest Open Beta build. What version you using?

What servers?

One way to test is to open the mission in the ME and re-save it as a 2.5 version. May or may not work.

Previous patch (06/13) seemed to fix the F10 map, but did have slightly too much clutter at certain zoom levels, but was vast improvement in F10 map (probably the best F10 map since DCS came out!) Yesterday after patching, I noticed that the town name clutter is gone, but doesn't give mgrs zoom levels anymore and MGRS grids now move off course when you move the map around! Neither patches make any mention of map fixes, but the latest one is a big step backwards since if you move the map at anytime, all grids are now off and cannot be reset to actual position. Now you have to use the cursor and read the map coords on top instead of using the grids.

THIS +1000!! I got heavily attacked on here when 2.5 came out as it was unplayable for me and so many people, and I suggested that the 2.5 "Open Beta" version was in fact the release version since there was no other version !!! But I and many others were told if we had issues then we should be going back to 1.5 "release" since this was OB and if we couldn't run it too bad! Then 2.5 release finally came out, and it was the exact version as OB! Today OB is essentially release version with latest updates. Back in 1.5 days I did have both versions, but today it really makes no sense to have both. As stated by BIGNEWY in another thread, release version does NOT mean stable version, so there is no reason to stay on release.

It is. Azrayen corrected me. STT to TWS with lock (AA mode) button as well.

I foolishly stand corrected! Haven't played in a few days so tried to explain from memory. STT to TWS is simply lock key (Which is also Air to Air mode in key binding).

Issue that's been around since 2.0 Open alpha days (mid 2017 at least) This is probably going to take months possibly years to fix. No hotfix is going to stabilize the entire netcode. Daniel I thought you were told multiple times to just report bugs and NOT place time constraints. You obviously have no coding/programming experience, so you have NO idea how long it will take to fix a bug/issue. counter25, I also use process lasso and recommend it to anyone having issues. However it will only help the client side, not server lag caused by various units in game.

It was actually the easiest way to install since 2.5 came out. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/world/beta/ Always do a complete re-install (uninstall 1.5) , keeping your input files, as so far there really hasn't been any conflict between 1.5/2.5

I definitely agree on a lot of what you said. But to clear everyone's head and achieve Nirvana without pulling your head off, repeat these words: "2.5 Beta IS Release version (with the latest updates and fixes)" Pretend the word beta does not exist. The way they do things is a bit different from pretty much all other companies, and I've learn to accept that. Currently "Release" version is several important updates with bugs fixes behind. The Open Beta IS the stable release REGARDLESS of what ED says or whatever labels they use. As you experienced, ED uses the term Release and Beta interchangeably since 1.5. If you can wrap your head around it and not get stuck on the term "beta" everything will be fine :P "2.5 Beta IS Release version (with the latest updates and fixes)"