NeilWillis

Look down - shoot down is always going to be testing for any radar. Try different tactics, and maybe you won't feel so frustrated by the issue. I'd certainly not demand things in that manner, you just look like you're throwing a tantrum, and that will never win you any friends here.

Steam might widen the scope of EDs products but fundamentally, Steam holds back access, ED doesn't. I also find the constant pop ups whenever you log on to Steam to be annoying, and intrusive. Steam are dictating terms to ED, and there is no bias whatsoever regarding release dates - apart from the conditions laid down by Steam themselves. I really can't see any advantage to using Steam, and if possible I'd only buy free standing games. Unfortunately that choice is being taken out of our hands. So the bias, all comes from the Steam end of things, and not from ED. And the OPs answer will be no, it will be delayed on Steam probably by months.

Curves just change the sensitivity in one part of the input by amplifying it elsewhere. So no real solution at all. I disagree too regarding the travel of the rudder pedals in comparison with the real thing. There will be no real difference there. The only real solution to joystick sensitivity is a long joystick - extension tubes are the real solution. As for the nose wheel steering - the subject of this thread, I maintain it is a matter of using the right technique, and nothing is wrong with the sensitivity - if you're accelerating down the runway, ANY nose wheel steering will get very sensitive. It's called physics.

That map plan also lacks any press to talk and radio selection hat. I use the CMS hat for sensor select, and the coolie switch for the TMC. The TMS Switch for A/A selector, and DMS Switch for countermeasures. I have also installed the 3 way switch code to make the flap switch work properly and use the boat switch to select water as a 2 way switch. LH throttle as the nozzle, RH throttle as a throttle, and the throttle friction control as the nozzle STOL stop. Finally, I have mapped the parking brake, fuel cock and DECS switches to toggle switches on the throttle base too.

The fix is only required for the latest updates - which affected only the Release and Beta branches of DCS World. 2.2 wasn't affected.

This is probably the most misquoted quote of all time. Read it again, and you'll see that he actually said "in the coming weeks" The difference is very significant. As it happens, the end of January is still "in the coming weeks". As for getting it out sooner, unless you're all at death's door, why on earth will waiting a few extra weeks make such a huge difference to you? Clearly ED have weighed up the options and reached the conclusion that they need a bit more time to get things ready. Just accept it, and move on guys. They won't be changing their plans just to satisfy some very childish impatience on our part.

:( :( :( :( :(

If we wanted it easy we'd fly another flight sim! :music_whistling: :music_whistling:

Radar.

You may have noticed that a lot of systems are still to be modelled, so I dare say this is one of them. We get physical degradation in the way the engine power fades, but I suspect there is far more to come on this subject before the Harrier reaches it's final form. It's just work in progress, so hang in there.

Definitely need to have high fidelity for all aspects of AAR. You can add position lights to the list too, and we badly need a working TACAN for the KC130. I suspect Razbam have an enormous to do list, and I'd be very surprised if this stuff wasn't already on it.

Good work. Thanks!

You need to add sensor hat forwards as the final step to achieve a lock.

A-10C if you want to stay over the battlefield for more than a few minutes - it has endurance. Harrier if you want to strike once and get out quickly. Your best approach is to study the real things and their specific roles. They'll be doing the same in DCS World. Just remember that the Harrier s very new, so it lacks some essential systems right now, but that ought to change over the coming weeks and months. Then of course there is the F/A-18C - but that's a whole different matter, and it is yet to be released. Add into the mix either conventional airfield operations, unprepared strips or carrier operations and you have a few difficult decisions to make. Or just get the lot and have even more fun!

The remark was about fighters. Last time I checked, the C130 wasn't a fighter, but am happy for you to correct me on that!

It's not a recent quote, but draw your own conclusions.

It's more than likely BECAUSE Eagle Dynamics takes the trouble to do things as accurately as possible from reliable and accurate data that you came to DCS World in the first place. It is unfortunate that the P-47 has some holes in the necessary date right now, but that's life. Fundamentally, they're still plugging away at it. I can safely say that in the entire history of DCS World, no one has ever complained that a module was released before the client base was ready for it. When you demand the levels of accuracy that ED aspire to, second best won't cut it. They'd sooner not release a product than release one that was based on pure conjecture - which says a lot about what is deemed acceptable elsewhere.

You're right, the AI use a simple flight model, and can do some pretty outrageous stuff. It definitely needs more attention, but of course, until 2.5 is out, I don't think we'll see movement on anything else apart from individual modules owned by 3rd party developers. I'm sure ED will have a list as long as your arm regarding bug fixes and improvements for many years to come. We can only hope they share our viewpoint on what matters most.

Wags stated that all the Caucasus missions have had to be updated for 2.5. That was one of the reasons for the delay in it's release. It is therefore safe to assume that all our home spun missions will be in need of a lot of updating too. I'm assuming that we'll first see 2.5 as an update for 2.2. It makes sense to release it into the Alpha platform first. It may of course be a case of updating via the Beta platform, with 2.2 just becoming obsolete, and once it has had some exposure to the wider environment, the release build will follow a week or two later. Again, unless and until someone from ED says something, we're only speculating. Will 2.5 be faster of slower? Every released update so far has resulted in some saying it's faster, some saying it's slower. What makes you think 2.5 will be any different when there are millions of permutations of hardware, software, and software settings in the DCS World user environment. Will 1.5 still work? Of course it will. You can still run the earliest versions of Flying Cliffs and DCS World. All you will need to do is not update the older versions. Is it going to be CPU or GPU critical? All DCS Worlds so far have been CPU critical as they use just 1 and a bit cores. The GPU aspect is dictated by what resolution monitors or devices you want to display it on. If you have VR, it's always going to be on the limits until GPUs advance further. How does 1.5 compare performance wise with 2.5? Probably not a lot different to 1.5 in comparison with 2.2. Some say one is quicker, others say the other. Again it is like asking the length of a piece of string. Unless you can state exactly the spec of the PC you want it to run on, it's anyone's guess how anything will perform. So really, we have a bunch of questions, some lacking relevance, some asking based on inaccurate data, some simply unanswerable, and no answers at all will be forthcoming from ED apart from via their usual releases - merely speculation and guesswork provided by forum members themselves. Nice try, but fundamentally a waste of pixels wouldn't you now agree?

No, I'm not saying they'll answer all questions, but I can be very certain that if helmet mounted targeting was a feature, they'd have mentioned it. It would be a major factor, and definitely in the features list, wouldn't you agree? If in doubt, see the F/A-18C blurb. I also think your extract confirms that there hasn't even been one developed for the real thing.

Well that's pretty unanimous. However, we definitely lack a basic trainer with the flight fidelity that DCS World can provide. How many here actually fly a plane correctly? Hardly any is my guess. So I say yes.

For the specification of the AV8B NA, read the information provided in the module data in the e-shop post.

This advice might be more useful if you let everyone know where to find the file, wouldn't you agree?

Given that - at least in the multiplayer environment, the most flown servers are all aerobatics and unarmed, I'd say civil airframes have a bright future in DCS World. The bottom line is the bottom line. If they sell, we'll get more of them. If they fail to sell, they'll fall by the wayside. The problem with forums is that we hear from the noisy minority in a lot of cases.

Just remember the phrase "work in progress", and assume it is simply a way to allow bombs to be deployed without the full supporting infrastructure.