OneBlueSky

Gorgeous so far! Can't wait to see the end result! :pilotfly:

This. The C doesn't carry them because in real life, it doesn't carry them. The ZA is a different animal and was designed with carrying more in mind. It was upgraded in the necessary ways to add this capacity. The C is not structurally capable of safely doing it. So, since the module simulates the real aircraft, it follows suit with reality. It's not about giving it a chance or not, they just made it true to real world. It's like when people wondered way back why the variant of the Su-27 in game didn't have a refueling probe. If the real life variant of a plane can't do it, the one in game is modeled the same.

Very welcome! Happy to help. They didn't give a timeline, but here's hoping it's the next patch! Happy flying mates! :joystick:

Glad to help! I figured they knew about it, but anytime you experience an issue in game it pays to let them know just to be on the safe side! Sometimes you find things they weren't aware of.

Just got this response: Subject: L-39C and L-39ZA Graphical freeze From: Andrey Filin Greetings, it's known bug with DCS: L-39 and will be fixed as soon as possible. Good luck! Best regards, Andrey Filin Eagle Dynamics IT Team So rest assured they're working on it :pilotfly:

The soonest it would be addressed would be the next patch. It'll go to the beta client first, and then 1.5 proper a few days after. If you all haven't, file a ticket about it with your specifications here to make sure they're aware: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/?login=yes

This not only looks like an actual photograph, but like it should be in a high end aviation photography magazine/book. Top level stuff!:thumbup: That's just awesome :D

Looks to be fixed here as well. Seems I had tried with the canopy open in the past and it still didn't work. Glad they got it taken care of.

Yes. But like the modules, every so often once you use them all you get another, and you can always deactivate before major system upgrades or uninstallations and you get a key back. For example, I upgraded my processor and RAM recently. That would require a reactivation and burning one. Anytime you change hardware or majorly upgrade your OS it causes a need to reactivate. But I thought ahead, deactivated all my modules and campaigns first, and Nevada, didn't lose an activation when I re-activated it post hardware upgrade. And on this campaign in particular to any on the fence - it's brilliantly done, and a lot of fun. A steal for the price. In the space between modules I wish more campaigns would be created. They are a lot of fun. :pilotfly: We all wish for dynamic campaigns of course, scripted is always too short and re-playability is lessened, but it's a good price for the hours you get out of it nonetheless. Well acted and the weather/triggers/missions were great for what they had to work with.

Just tested. Still there for me, though not surprising as it looks like this patch was to add compatibility for the A-10C BFT training campaign by Maple Flag Missions (I have bought their Su-27 missions before, top notch stuff). Not sure if anything else was addressed in the patch, but this issue doesn't seem to have been.

I've wondered about the costs too. I know the Super Bug is no joke, but it's still a "Do everything pretty ok, but nothing spectacularly" where the higher specialization of the A-6F and Super Tomcat were extremely good at their particular tasks (obliterating ground targets at longer ranges in the A-6, and fleet defense for the Tomcat), and the Tomcat also a pretty good "jack of all trades" if need be. Maybe the "do everything ok but nothing brilliantly" saves money in the long run, but couldn't it also cost more in some areas since it's not specialized? I've always wondered if it would have cost more or less in the long run to have greater capability between the two older birds/updating the airframes for fatigue rather then upgrading the Hornet to be "just a little bit more ok" and giving up that greater capability between the two others. Though I guess better weapons eventually (or maybe already) counter the Intruder's longer range, and advances in defensive weapons will (or maybe have already) eliminated the need for the far superior capability of the Tomcat for fleet defense.

+1. If one has technical knowledge of the plane or how certain things affect it, that's the place to be. They're always open to people who have knowledge about those things in efforts to make the sim better.

Incorrect.

Su-33 is being worked on right now, last I heard :) ( Last entry here http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/newsletters/newsletter08012016.html ) As for FPS, I play 1.5 and 1.5 beta, I don't really use 2.0/NTTR right now. So in 1.5, I get a minimum of about 65 fps, and a max of 120 or so. That's with everything graphically maxed out besides depth of field (BOKEH or whatever it's called). NTTR it would go a bit lower as I remember, 35-40 over Vegas with busy air traffic, max was the same. But it's been a while, that may no longer be accurate. As it was explained to me in the past, the GPU, RAM, and a good SSD are the most important performance bits for DCS as long as your processor meets minimum or recommended specs.

That part is fair enough. I don't bother with 2.0 as the map has literally less than nothing to do/see except flying around looking at sand, and it's alpha. So expect things to change a lot over time with it. I'm sure that particular point will be looked into.

The P-51 was and is a challenging plane to fly. It had pretty difficult characteristics that made it almost as deadly to the person in it as the enemy if they didn't know what they were doing. The same can be said of any plane, certainly, but the P-51 was a handful. Like anything else, you have to make the other guy fight your fight. You cannot expect to go up against a 109 pilot for example that roundly knows their plane and how to use it, try to fight their fight, and expect good results. The AI is pretty terrible to go from. It makes the most ridiculous choices (in every aircraft) at least 95% of the time. So the fact that an AI 109 shoots down an AI P-51or vice versa is meaningless as a benchmark. They fly on a simple model, and you can get an AI 109 (or 51) to shoot down more modern jets. It means nothing. The 109K was a superior plane on paper. By that time in the war, Germany had lost so many experienced pilots that it's advances were marginal in practice, but ace to ace, the P-51 would have had it's hands full even on the best of days. But that stands to reason. It was a long range escort. It was heavy, had to fly high and efficient and the 109K was designed to go up and knock things out of the sky in a hurry. It didn't need to cross vast distances and worry about efficiency. It had more power, it was lighter, it could out turn the P-51 any day of the week, it had a superior armament. It was a hot rod. The P-51 was faster top speed for top speed, but also a damn sight heavier, couldn't turn with the 109 at all, and had horrid stall characteristics compared where thanks to slats and other advancements, the 109 was easier to manage at higher G's or lower speeds. The P-51 requires a specific style of flying to meet with success. If you try to turn and dogfight with a 109, especially a competent 109 flier, you're going to have a really bad time. There's nothing wrong with the flight model. It's been vetted by real world P-51 pilots and more than one at that. It's just not meant to be flown how people seem to want to fly it. Learn to make the other guy fight your fight. The P-51 isn't poorly modeled because you or others have a hard time with the 109K or the 190D. That's history, it was outmatched. They were better performers. Much like heroic P-51 pilots of the war, you have to learn to make them do what you want, because you cannot under any circumstance compete with them doing what they want. Unless the guy you're flying against is new or bad, or you're flying against AI. Then of course it's easy enough no matter what they're in.

I would suspect that once they get 2.0 fully out and get a few other things tied up, they'll do some refreshing and reworking of modules including the Flanker. New capabilities exist, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's on their roadmap to add/tweak some things, make a few things a bit better. Right now though like you said they have a lot going on and I'm sure it's pretty far from the top of the list.

I think he's asking if there's one coming and complaining that the current one isn't good enough. OP, they updated it already like Devrim said. It's my favorite aircraft in the sim and I'd love to see more detail added and more love given to it, but they have other aircraft still needing the love already given to the Flanker. It had a big refresh already and others haven't even gotten that much done yet. I'm sure over time everything will be polished more and more, but they have a lot on their plate right now. I wouldn't expect them to touch the 27 much for quite some time.

Yep. At the end of the day, more quality releases coming more frequently will bring a much larger player base. That's what DCS needs most. Nothing compares and I want to see it grow.

Finally had a chance to test it, can confirm the same thing happening. Barely noticing it, seems to skip just one frame and only the first time I input any of those commands... But it's there.

Absolutely. In a sim, we want to have fun and to have a challenge. In real life, the goal is to make things easier and put as little risk on the crews as possible. Something like the A-6 will provide a much more fun experience in game than something like the F/A-18 for us. And for those who want to come in and never be at risk, never get dirty but rather press a button and fly away without a scratch, the F/A-18 will be more fun. Different strokes for different folks, and I look forward to the day we have the option of both! :pilotfly:

I use the DelanClip as well. No issues at all, not sure what is going on in the case mentioned in this thread with the z-axis issue. It worked out of box for me, no tweaking necessary, but it's a much better piece of hardware than the pro clip from Natural Point. Much more accurate and well made. The original hat clip with the reflectors was fine, never had any trouble, but it's not nearly as fine or accurate.

Right. It's a sim, and prides itself on being as true to life as humanly possible. The very nature of sims require that you study and practice... They're not meant to be something you just pick up an XBOX controller, read a 3 page PDF and immediately become an ace. So something being hard is no excuse to not have something more real to life put in. If realistic things being implemented are hard for them, they'll learn and adapt, or not put it to use. It's no cause to not implement it.