Fri13

What comes to progress reports I believe that it is better to inform customers with progress without schedule with them. They can be as simple as "We are again proceeding on X in good pace, we had some problems with X² and X³ features but they got solved". As that will nicely inform users/customers that progress is being made. Then when it comes to schedule announcement, good ones are years, quarters and finally months with possibly date when guaranteed internally it is ready (in other words, work is already done and just waiting one to push upload). Like estimations in quarters is good enough, I would even avoid "end of Q2" or "early Q4" kind ones and just stick "Q2" or "Q4" as it gives good amount time to people think it can be anything in 3 months, and hence can be more easily shifted if progress requires. Once the schedule becomes more accurate, a specific month and week is possible be used. But then needs to be very sure and avoid "if all goes fine" kind statement with them that symbolize uncertainty. So either being very assured about release, or very informative about reason why it might be delayed, as uncertainty is bad. If a confirmed release date is required to be moved, like again 31st to 7th, it needs to be with good reason. It needs to be with explanation why it is better for customer/user that way, so it is very solid reasoning why no one would have wanted it to happen on earlier date. Personally I am okay for the 7th for release (AFAIK it is the latest release day...) but that is because my situation. I would have not been feeling differently for 31st either, because there are many other things in life than sit and wait a update to an game. The feeling to wait something nice is good one, but it shouldn't cause kid like reaction when something doesn't come that was dreamed upon... As at some point in life everyone should learn their priorities and who they can trust, even on small things. And if a company receives a such status on someone's values that it product release problems cause anger or hate, it should be worrisome signal.

Pre-calculated ray tracing is not marketing. It is a method to get properly moving reflections without requiring to do ray tracing and so on hardware to do it. When you have limited view points and fixed objects that will be reflected from fixed surface, you can pre-calculate the reflections and simply avoid all wasted ray tracing. It will have some lighting effects simplified that real ray tracing would offer, but they are so minimal that it doesn't really matter. So if example we get with 10% performance requirement a 80% of a effect, it is a great trade.

You do know that A-10C is in DCS because US Army contracted ED to make them a desktop simulator to train pilots in conversion from A to C? That later on many things has been improved where militaries use these days these "games" for training, not just as desktop system modeling but actually to fly. https://www.defense.gouv.fr/air/actus-air/cap-160-reinventer-la-formation-des-equipages-d-helicopteres?fbclid=IwAR3jUN0l2wY2lCARH1uNTaFvb4oWilgSxk_Y-l7Z8u-xCXHBDZxzgBAckoM The Razbam M2000C module was assuming (wrong) many things before French Air Force officially gave their hand to make M2000C more realistic and proper for their flight simulator purposes. And militaries do not just build something like this for a fun: Or train their pilots in conventional simulators from decades as: HL-10 flight simulator Photo Number: E-18900 Photo Date: June 4, 1968 NASA As shown in this photo of the HL-10 flight simulator, the lifting-body pilots and engineers made use of early simulators for both training and the determination of a given vehicle's handling at various speeds, attitudes, and altitudes. This provided warning of possible problems. Or normal civilian aviation airliner companies. The internet forums for various flight simulators has a lot of examples how civilian pilots has learn to fly in them, homes their skills and shorten their training times and become better pilots. And they have been flying at home, front of a display without any moving platforms or VR etc. And that just 20 years ago. There are even certifications for flight simulators from FAA to be used officially for flight training. ED main business is not consumers, it is governments and private companies to build flight simulators for them. Same thing is with some other module studios. Pilots are not usually engineers (there are some who are qualified engineers for aeronautical). They do not really know why or how plane flies as is. That is the test pilots job with support from the engineers. But pilots do learn the basics and the main information to fly, but they are not required to know everything or the theories why and how etc. They just fly them and maybe in time on their career they learn thing or two from engineers and ground crews etc. Pilots are not rock stars or the masters of universe. They are human beings trained to fly and to do what is expected, nothing more. But when a gamers come to simulator that tries to deliver as real as one can get without being in a cockpit with real forces, they need to either accept that either simulator tries achieve that and it is the goal, or they can accept anything that simple game industry provides them in movie style without requirements to be even close to reality and try to call any simulator as "not suitable for a training because X". And it is even bad to try to defend a completely wrong modeled flight modeling in one module by trying to claim that all others are as bad as well... "Because pilots..." Without engineers pilots would kill themselves even more. Engineers are required to understand the flights and build a safety features for pilots do they wouldn't exceed the limits. Write the documentation and guidelines to pilots. Time and money is invested to pilots training that they do not fly by visuals but by knowledge that what instruments say and what they should do and what not.

When you fly helicopter, you always feel the cyclic position. You do not look at it, as you don't need to in normal cases, but you feel it's relative position from its movement range. You will feel the wind, weight, speed and all by the collective, cyclic and pedals that in what position you have them and you will translate that all in your mind to outside conditions and helicopter attitude. Example, when you want to fly straight and level but you feel you are holding cyclic almost at maximum right, you know that you have almost zero capability to roll at the right,l. You don't have authority to perform a right turn or apply any more roll toward wind etc as your cyclic is near maximum. So without looking the cyclic, you feel it and you know something is wrong or something can go wrong. Why you will know that you need to perform a left turn or something else as you have authority to there. When you fly in DCS simulator with a a centered and extended joystick like a real cyclic in a helicopter, you will get that proper feeling like in real. If you have a joystick without extension, on table or side mounted, then you are not going to get the proper feeling. Gazelle was made for a desktop users. Who can not hold a joystick off-center for long because you get tired. In a real cyclic you don't get tired as you rest hand on your leg and just gently hold the cyclic. There is no spring trying to center your cyclic, as center is not a important position in flight. When flying in reality, you will feel the controls and you will feel the forces that how helicopter starts to behave. Your body is your primary sensor that you feel when you roll, when you turn, when you raise etc. You learn to fly the helicopter by these feelings and what you see. With experience the helicopter will at some point just "click" and you get it. It can't be really explained easily as you just get it. It is like trying to explain a element of balance when driving a bicycle. You don't get it until you experience and learn it and suddenly you just get it. The helicopter controls are not fixed. You can't say "hold it 21% right to keep it steady" as all three controls positions and external forces affecting to all three controls positions means you fly it by feeling and visual. You have controls at different positions based weights, wind etc. That is still something that documentation shows that what is relationship with specific weight, conditions etc to the controls position. That how much it was required to move each of them and to what direction. While with matching conditions there would be little variation in them, in a different conditions there would be a lot variation. To get a same flight conditions like 120 km/h ground speed at 150 meters altitude and level flight, it all depends many variations that where your controls will end to be in reality. And you will feel that, you will just use the controls to get to those parameters and hold there, as there is no visual indicator or rule that where they need to be hold to get to it. But when you compare real world controls data as position, and you compare it as much possible similar conditioned flight in DCS, there is such a differences that just are impossible. In a simulator we have the red input box for analysis, while in real world you would need to install instrument for that if black box wouldn't record it, but anyways you would need to have special external display to show you same in real time, what is useless in reality as you don't need to debug controls or flight modeling as you feel it. The facts are simple, in real helicopters you are constantly balancing helicopter by moving all three controls and they don't stay center at various speeds and maneuvers etc. But in DCS that happens in Gazelle, you don't need to move controls positions at all same manner as in real one for same flight parameters. Like to get to max speed you dont need to hold cyclic at fully at forward position, but just at the center. The Gazelle is nice to fly with a spring loaded table joystick. It doesn't mean it flies properly or correctly, but that you as a player has easy relaxing time to hold on joystick and input just what needed and return joystick to center. But when you take mentioned centered and extended non-centering joystick, it becomes obvious how wrong it is as you always just return cyclic to center to maintain attitude you applied by moving controls away from center for a while. WIth a physical controls being different, you will receive a different feeling as well how you fly. in a other modules in DCS you get realistic feeling that you know by feeling where your extended and centered joystick position is, while in Gazelle you don't. the Gazelle doesn't obey the limitations in forces, you don't run out of authority same way as you are not required to hold controls in their corresponding range limits. like you don't never get to situation where you need to apply constantly full right cyclic to stay in level flight as regardless of anything it is enough to be required only have cyclic at center. Visually you can fly Gazelle properly, but the controls position don't match the required positions to meet the flight conditions. Example, if someone would wire a real Gazelle controls to PC running a DCS World Gazelle and put the real pilot sitting in that real Gazelle wearing VR and ask them to tell is it wrong by controls, they would come up obvious answer that Yes. As they wouldn't be required to move those controls like in real one. ORnif we would output controls position from real Gazelle wirelessly to PC running DCS Gazelle, from a take-off to end, the DCS Gazelle just listening those real controls positions would make it flip around even harder than simulation limits of same wind, temperature and altitude. You couldn't get the simulator Gazelle mirror by any means the real Gazelle flight with same controls positions in same environment conditions. This doesn't meant that other modules could either, but likely they would survive far further with much smaller incorrect inputs from real. Ultimate would be that simulator would mirror flight perfectly but that is impossible.

Quick answer, it seems that you are thinking in terms of A-10C where you play with two displays (left and right) as you want, with all sensors. The Harrier has by opinions of many pilots (Hornet, Warthog, Lighting II etc) a far better man-machine interface than those. https://youtu.be/rk-1cIu9XQs But it requires you to concentrate to the task on the ground, instead playing with displays on the aircraft. That is what makes harrier special that you work far better with the ground units and you are more accurate and timely with the attacks than with any of those others. The SSS is special in way that it is designed to ease the pilot workload by presenting automatically sensors you can select with it to proper sides of displays. Like example map goes always to left, the DMT goes to the right etc. The problem in Harrier currently as well is that it has many systems improperly modeled. Example the TDC doesn't work right at the moment. The TPOD we have now is 2nd generation from 1999 (same as A-10C) but is receiving in 7th day in DCS 2.7 update the 4th gen pod from 2009, making Harrier the most modern module in DCS (JF-17 IIRC is from 2007 as well like F-16CM) and systems logic is... Very questionable by many parts, meaning there are some functions that don't work right, like after an attack the DMT gimbal limit makes TV/LST display turn to compass rose (EHSD) to assist pilot to fly by showing where is target and own troops and all. And once pilot turns back to target point the TV mode will return and try to acquire a target again for re-attack purposes. The TPOD is afterthought and why it has own "sub-mode" to be controlled with SSS. So you enter and exit specifically that TPOD mode with 2x SSS down. As the TPOD is then primary sensor, you assign all controls to it that SSS does. So you need to handle the TPOD as individual SSS mode and all others as primary/normal SSS mode. It is best to first train to fly Harrier without TPOD. Just use the DMT and HUD/INS to do the fighting and when you get that, then mount TPOD and it becomes easier to understand.

And You keep doing Ad Hominems to avoid answering to a simple question.

Presumably? As everyone's else's? I didn't ask that what do You assume others think what is their definition of a bug. Simple question, what do You understand as "bug" in software product as a PC game or such? Simple question, very easy to answer if You know what it means to You. I didn't ask what kind bugs there are in Razbam products, but how do You define "bug". I didn't ask about other modules. I didn't ask about is Razbam only one having bugs. I didn't ask yet what is in your opinion the severity. You say that all "worst offenders" has been solved, yet you talk about a simple MFCD button to cause Crash To Desktop. Is it a only definition as bug to you? Again, you are not explaining Your opinion that what is Your definition of a bug... So You mean that it is completed and only requires polishing, and has been so for over a year (You saying "a while" meaning what is the Harrier patch history timeline as You talk about it)? Ad Hominems makes you weak, it doesn't make you strong and doesn't help your arguments at all but opposite. Sarcasm is not wit, and it is hostility toward other person (why I don't use it). If You can't answer direct and straight simple question that how do You understand a "bug" (as used in this thread) then say so.

Why so hostile? It is not enough that you start to accuse people from being sarcastic without even questioning that You might have totally wrong attitude to input the question, but that you start to threaten that if they do not act as your imagery attitude is that you will add them to your personal ban list, like as it is an honor not to be listed in such? Seems that as You are wrong, that You really were born yesterday... Ps. It was not even question about your opinion (unless you have multiple accounts).

I was not sarcastic, it was straight and direct question that what is in his opinion a bug.

What is your definition of the "bug"?

Except it is not a hot spot tracker. It is a Delta-T cuer that you program to point you the specific range of thermal ranges, and not the hottest spots.

Yeah but you can bind some other button for the TDC ACTION function. The point is, there is likely only the Warthog that has a axis hat that has no depress function. Why it should be default that you have ACTION and NO-ACTION mode enabled because that is anyways the realistic and required feature to be used in whole Harrier, regardless does one has a depress or not in the TDC movement.

With a two multiplier you have quadrupled the available bindings. Buttons Multi1 + buttons Multi2 + buttons Multi1 + Multi2 + buttons

I agree with that all. But I do as well like the idea of the most modern MiG-21-93/Bison/Lancer as it opts out the experience to see that what a old airframe can do when forced to go against 4th generation fighters, but with upgraded avionics and sensors. That is reason why I would take both variants as extra, something very old (MiG-21F-13) for the Cold War early days, but as well post Cold War would be interesting as well. Sure it becomes more like any other 4th generation fighter than like Bis is, but it is still the same old airframe with new toys, and at least 21-93 and LancerC would still be considerable as "RedAir" fighters and with a Metric instruments (instead imperial).

I think that you need to first enable the Action/No action real functionality in special tab in aircraft settings, and then you need to have binded the current "TDC Action" to something you want. Then it is about to just press that button as required with or without TDC axis hat.

Okay, need to check it once I get to fly in a week...

Could it be that clouds doesn't move, but shadows does? As I am certain that shadows does move, but not 100% that clouds does, but it doesn't make sense to have excellent lighting system that doesn't reflect clouds positions for shadow casting....

Mi-8 Kord shooter is nice to be. It is amazing thing when you have a competent pilot to circle around the targets at 1000-1500 meters and you get to nail them on the ground. In Mi-24P it likely will be as well a great experience, especially if we can switch the side where to shoot. The capabilities changes a lot when you can begin with the ATGM launches to take down possible high threat AA units like M6 Linebacker or Grotale, and then pilot switch to S-8 rockets to saturate the possible lighter MANPADS defense positions and maybe pick some APC's out that has 20-30 mm cannons with the 30 mm cannon while at the attack. Finally to become flying around the target zone where door gunner get to destroy trucks, APC's and some other lighter vehicles. Now think about the experience when six Mi-24P's are doing it, and you get to jump between co-pilot, pilot and then door gunner and have such control device in your hands. Didn't see in his photo that can he change the Y axis position with the "gun" so it could be possible be extended further from it for the KORD use?

Clouds do drift. And so on the shadows moves too. I have one NTTR mission that is based to shadows movement as it hides or shows the units based do you get them casting shadows or not. So attack angle is important as flying sun behind you means you don't see shadows as it is behind the unit. But sideways and especially sun behind the target reveals strongest shadow and easy to spot them. And if course when shadows moves as clouds drifts, you need to time the attack based the cloud cover opening that sun get between clouds, as under clouds shadows you don't spot then so easily. And this should get more challenging in future with new weather!

I hope that it is so, with possiblity to randomize the seed to generate different clouds by the preset if wanted. But otherwise it should be so they weather is exactly same each time and can be calculated from the mission start to future how to behave. Otherwise you can't sync across multiplayer, replays and mission loading. You want it to be constant. Like every time you load the mission the weather should look same. Every time you play the replay the weather should be same. Every client should have same clouds. From a mission generation perspective it needs to be to be possible randomize the seed for saving. After that it will again stay always the same at mission start and be generated same way each time. We could have in the editor a setting to tell mission seed be regenerated each time, but the starting one is recorded to replay. Now you can have different weather by template every time you start mission, but replays has always the correct but each replay looks different between play times.

Problems are the current game style. The future dynamic campaign should shake things up a lot. We do need more infantry, like for every MBT there should be 300 soldiers on the ground. But DCS at the moment doesn't model infantry. We don't have proper infantry benefits like capabilities to hide, as vehicles has all seeing 360° vision and reaction times faster than any human from such ranges that are impossible. This puts all ground units and helicopters in disadvantage. The air units has upper hand with unrealistic radars and targeting pods. Throw some SAM systems and they are good only as target practice and as speed bump. These puts helicopters in serious disadvantage as main targets to them are infantry, some transport vehicles for infantry and then maybe some tanks somewhere if opportunity appears. But mainly it is more against BTR-60 than anything else armored. But we don't have that. We don't have infantry clashing for hours/days to situation where shots are exchanged but nothing happens, until helicopter comes to shake things around and break the tie. We don't have concealment and cover for infantry as should. Same is for vehicles and even for helicopters. And as long there is a possibility for a random guy flying in hornet or viper around like on sunday drive, the war doesn't work. There should be high threat and risks to fly around, something that isn't modeled in air quake servers. A Hind will be eaten alive even if it has R-60 as it will be so easily spotted and engaged. And if there is no ground war to support, Hind offers little to warfare.

And analogy goes wrong... And if you would read my suggestion, there wouldn't be a "trampoline". It would fully require player attention, learning the procedure, knowing how to get to pre-contact, how to approach, how to maintain formation, control speed etc. Please go read the ideas and how to implement them and leave the analogies out. How difficult it is to understand that they can't manage it, no matter do they put there 10 hours or 1000 hours! They require assistance! It is not about will, about time, about skill etc. It is about simply NOT ABLE TO DO IT. Yet they want to do it. They have tried, they have tried again, and again and again... No one of you who is arguing against this do not get the fact that if they do not succeed in it even if they would spent their lifetime trying, then it means that they do not succeed in it and they need assistance! Different people have a skill cap at different things. They can have various reasons why they can not perform something. Just repeating to the nauseam "They can do it if they just do some training" doesn't change that fact. Sorry, but "Anybody can do it if they just put enough effort to it" is completely false argument in life. DCS World is a game primarily, not a real world. It is a simulator based to real world, but it is still a game. And games, are there to have fun. This wish is not going to take anything away from anyone. It is not "lowering the height". Anyone who want to have maximum challenge etc, can just avoid enabling the assistance feature. But before even having that maximum real challenge, Eagle Dynamics would need to actually improve a lot that air refueling basket physics....

Did you read what I wrote about the learning? My idea is exactly about assisting the player to learn, requiring player to play in his capabilities to be able to do it - with assist. What the opposition has argued against the whole idea is exactly that - that any assisting system would not be helpful and not require learning or training and just take away from "more important things" to do (they have not managed to explain what is more important thing to do). If they would have, then they would be asking the Easy Air Refueling as well here, not being against it with Nth excuse they can come up with (and lose argument time after time).

Please go and read this post again: There is no "special server" requirement. There is no "splitting the community" or anything like that. It is configurable. These things has been already answered in the early phase of the whole thread. Again you are not even understanding the topic or following it. That is untrue. You just made a claim that IFR is exactly identical same as landing or aiming a unguided weapons or generic formation flying (I assume you don't mean to fly in "Blue Angels Style").

This is not about You, and this is not about Me. This is about players who can't do it for various reasons and they require assistance. It is not difficult thing to comprehend. Do you know why we have these in various places? Are you the person who goes and say to elderly people "WORK FOR IT, BECAUSE I CAN!"? Are you the person who say to handicapped people "WORK FOR IT, BECAUSE I CAN!"? Are you the person who say to young people "WORK FOR IT, BECAUSE I CAN!"? Yes, you are.... You do not accept the fact that there are people who requires assistance because THEY CAN'T DO IT NO MATTER HOW YOU CLAIM THEY CAN! It doesn't mean that they shouldn't be playing DCS World at all or even consider to be able perform the In-Flight Refueling. It is not away from anyone to help these players who for what ever reason can't do it. It can be because they are beginners, because it is temporal, because it is how the life just is! I don't accept some solutions in the name of realism? Please, point out some of those to support now your argument...