Buzzles

Totally valid request. However, it wouldn't take more than a week to knock up an app with an angular/react front end and a dotnetcore/node backend that lets people upload a miz to the actual server. Drop in OpenAuth for logins, and something for storage like sqllite for user management purposes, and you'll pretty much cover all bases yourself.

Axis controlled brakes are still much easier to work with though :)

A dynamic kneeboard with just radio freq's on the planes that have them as ground set only (mostly WWII birds, early Jets) would be fantastic. Would save having to write them out in the mission notes section all the time. Anything above that would be a bonus.

Incorrect on the bold part. DCS applies it progressively, if very quickly. You can confirm that yourself with the control indicator. With that known, you really don't need axis controlled brakes. Tapping or very briefly holding a button/key works fine during initial roll out.

I mean, I've got plenty of space so it wouldn't affect me, but I know others don't judging by the recent spate of complaints in other sections. That said, so far each skin in F-14's CoreMods averages at approx 175MB. Currently there's 23 in my coreMods/f14/liveries, which totals ~3.8 GB. The F-14 coremods folder is already the biggest at ~5.2GB, which is a substantial jump over the next which is ~3GB (Mig-21). Compare that the F-18, which totals ~2.3GB with ~2.1GB for liveries. It has a lot more skins, each one a fraction of the size (generally either ~25MB or ~50MB). Looks like ED are using some diff files though, so if HB can investigate that and bring their coreMods livery sizes down, it'd be absolutely fine after then to add more.

No thanks, because CoreMods is already big enough, no need to make it bigger by adding more default skins.

Learn what a "Military overhead break" landing pattern is if you don't already, just to set yourself up properly. As for the bounce, you only bounce if you have too high a sink rate or you're flying it into the runway. To fix that simply spend some time practicing flying about a foot or two above the runway at slow-ish speed, but not trying to land. Once you get the hang of that, just fly into that position and then cut the throttle, and let the plane land itself. You won't bounce then.

Why are you guys going on about the Mig-31? This isn't a wishlist thread. It's about the announced or at least mentioned modules that the various devs are looking at. No-one is doing or has ever mentioned a Mig-31, unless someone's dropped a big news bombshell recently that I've missed.

So it's been 6 years since this thread was started. The last time Aviodev posted anything on their FB page for the Mirage, it was showing it in game (at least a 3d model). That was in 2017. Is it still in development? Are we actually going to see it at some point?

Would be nice, especially if ED ever get around to implementing SaR operations.

Xplane is the better comparison, and from those vids the landscapes look worse. Dropping a MSFS 2020 video in there isn't fair, considering it's not out so we've no idea what it's actually going to look like on consumer machines (those demos will be on top spec machines running at full pelt with everything cranked to max)

I thought everyone knew the DCS UH-1H wasn't exact to 1H specs, but a mish-mash model? It was discussed to death after launch.

Buy another SSD if you can, and keep one for system and another for games. You can do sim-linking as above, but you're gonna get horrific load times moving from SSD to a HDD.

I've done a wishlist thing: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=278106 Add your thoughts if you like

A couple of years ago there was a split in comms/radio functions: PTT being used for the aircraft radios, and can be used on air or ground. Comms menu key (/) only 'works' on the ground, as it is supposed to represent intercomm/shouting at ground crew/waving fingers/etc... so you get no responses if you try and use it in air. This quite often results in a lot of confusion for people (there's a lot of forum posts about it) owing to the fact they currently show the exact same options, so I propose a change. Comms menu (/) should behave like the following: On ground: only show the ground crew options. In air: be blank and show no options, or show options relevant for multi-crew aircraft (ie, shout at co-pilot/rio). Half way house in case the new ATC is around the corner: just make Comms key only show the Ground Crew options at all times, as at least that's obvious, even if it just defaults to the sub menu and the f-11 option to go back is still there. PTT would be left alone, obviously. Aim is to remove confusion. Thoughts?

But it's true. ED changed this a few years ago. Comms menu is supposed to be intercom/shouting out the window/waving fingers, and PTT for the radios, hence using comms menu key actions doesn't result in any responses when you're in the air. Now, you'd be right to say the current implementation is incomplete, and I'd argue it was likely a stopgap change until they redid ATC. Obviously we're still waiting for the new ATC. Ideally the coms menu wouldn't open, just be blank and have no actions, or just show the ground crew actions only, to remove confusion. That might be a nice thing to add to the wishlist tbh.

Already being done by another 3rd Party dev.

The biggest problem was ED pushing OpenBeta onto Steam imo. Nothing against the Steam users, aside from there was a bit less rage when OB was non-Steam users, but it's resulted in a large portion of people shifting to OB as their default branch for the new toys, and therefore pushing the obvious moves of server owners to OB. I'd be quite interested to know how the %'s stack up on people using OB vs Stable tbh.

Does it actually matter? Even on the airquake servers, no-one in DCS is hyper competitive, and the rest of us should be flying what we want to fly to have fun. And as evidenced by the online community, what you'd do IRL and what you do in DCS when having a scrap are wildly different things, so direct comparisons are a bit moot. People are happily taking the Mig-21 out against statistically better aircraft, and getting a few kills here and there. I'm going to fly it as it should be *fun*, regardless of it not being the best.

What, why? Hg or Git, due to their design, are simply so much more productive and conductive to actual dev practices. Branching in TFS is horrible, as it's a full blown deep copy. It's also gets painful for check-ins as team size gets bigger. I'd never go back to TFS tbh. There's clearly a source control problem though, maybe not directy the platform, but how it's managed, although the 2 are coupled. There really shouldn't be any instances of things "slipping in" to branches during merges. That said, I'd still urge ED to move to git/hg, considering they've got ~100 people on dev.

Quite the opposite. The performance changes are the exact reason a benchmarking tool which runs the same test consistently is great, as you can then track performance increase or loss between versions.

Prolly because they found a show stopper or critical bug: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4370856#post4370856

Doesn't matter what you get in particular, but there should be stats on how what it's rated for hours wise to sit on (aka hour rating). Dunno if that's a thing in the 'States, but it is here in Europe. Ideally you want an 18 hour, preferably a 24hr. I also highly recommend mesh backs. Not getting a sweaty back on long sessions is fantastic. Don't cheap out on a chair, but equally don't spend silly money either. You should be able to get something decent for $300-400 that's rated 24 hour. At that range, it'll be durable enough to last a decade if you don't abuse it.

As Phant says, next rotary from ED is now the Mi-24 Hind, as BST were doing it before they got merged back into ED. ED have talked about the Apache before as something they'd like to do, so it might have been on the back burner for research at the time, but it certainly isn't being worked on right now. ED have been very clear Hind is next. Quoting that post from Wags really isn't helpful as it's close to 3 years old now.

I'm assuming it's because the sim engine's never had to support non rigid bones before, so it's all new stuff that needs to be fit in with existing stuff, rather than just extra features bolted on top.