nickos86

It's fair to put a 'THANK YOU' post a sticky. For a ridicules 10$ we've got a ton of features - models, avionics etc. It's easy to see the amount of work the devs put into it. Gladly the coop with USAF gave them relevant docs and brought us a SUPERB aircraft. ED - THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!

Hi, After releasing the A10C-2 with it's crazy good APKWS the plane became deadly as s**t. While they are super capable weapons they are probably not as deadly as they portraited in DCS at the moment. Same for the weak MK20 for F18, Harpoons against ships and more... The damage model for ground/sea units should become better - hit zone, not just a 'health bar' but rather 'systems health bar' and more. ED, please consider making it a priority. Thanks!

Even so - Just as with the SC. I guess most of the community would prefer to postpone if needed instead of a buggy product. The only rigid thing should be quality... Would be cool to get the new toys tomorrow... But I'm willing to wait if needed.

So how does the pilot know when can he release the weapon? I guess, flying at 20K will let you shoot further than 5NM?

I find it very hard to see the logic in this. You have to be able to change the code in the safest configuration possible. It makes no sense to put the L ARM for changing the code

Hi, Looking at WAGS video I couldn't understand how he knew when to shoot the rocket. Simply assuming that getting inside a 5NM range sounds un-realistic. The range depend on altitude, speed, angle ,etc. The CCIP algorithm should perform the actual estimation and give the shoot cue, no? In case the 'shoot' given by the plane is based on both the ability of the rocket to get to the target AND it's probability to actually hit - then the CCIP should give the SHOOT cue relatively close to the target. If it should consider only the 'get to the target' part- we should see a 'shoot' cue the moment the rocket is actually IN RANGE (ballistic calculation show the rocket will get to the point on the ground). How should we know when to fire? Another thing - the penetration ability of the rocket depends on it's kinetic energy. Shooting from the MAX RANGE should reduce it's anti armor penetration capability. on the other hand, shooting a MBT from 70 dive angle and close range - will probably kill a M1/T90 tanks in real life. When a more complicated damage models will arrive - will it be taken into account?

Take a look at pictures taken at the F16V simulator from Athens Flying Week-2015 (pictures from Panos Valasis facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150407825179015&type=3 ) Notice the proportions between the 'A6' and the '25' of the altitude in the AAR page or the HSD page. It's actually readable there. I've got Thrustmaster MFDs. If i put them in the same distance as they should be away from me i can still easily read the 'GAIN' or 'SUM' writings. Therefore i should be able to read the '25' as well...

I've also heard this feedback from multiple real life F-16 pilots. I think that for the sake of the game the scalability should be reviewed again by ED. There should be some king of a solution...

The F-16 MFDs got around 4.2*4.2 inch (~10.7 cm) of usable area https://www.astronautics.com/pdf/product_brochures/F-16_4-Inch_MFD.pdf The A-10C got a 5*5 inch (12.7 cm) usable area (at the moment the easiest MFD to read in DCS) https://www.scribd.com/document/320356499/A-10C-MFCD-Dimensions The F/A-18C got 4.93" x 4.97" (~12.5 cm) usable area (number 2 in readability in DCS after the A10) http://pdt-usa.com/DDI_2003.pdf The size differences of the useable areas are quite small. If the readability of the MFDs was bad in RL as it in DCS right now - it would be a huge design flow. If the pilots could not read the LINK data, or radar data or HSD data - what would it be good for? In DCS at the moment you can't read the MFDs without an intense zoom in with the TRACK IR or in VR... I have to extract the MFDs to an another screen in order to understand what's written there. That a huge problem for the sim. It's seems that there is a big difference in the POV and the way the cockpit was modeled between A10/18/16. The "sunk" F16 MFDs cause the font being tiny and unreadable (maybe a scalability solution should be implemented). ED - please address/comment to this issue. The rest of community - what are you doing to be able to read the MFDs?

Bumping. That could be awesome to get a small progress update... Anything new with SLAM-ER or other features? Thanks ED!

There are different approaches regarding how a sim should let you experience the felling of being a ‘fighter-pilot’. Some would claim that the best option is a dynamic campaign where you’re being just a ‘little screw’ in the system. On the other hand, there would be those who’ll say that a ‘scripted’ campaign where you’re the ‘center’ of the plot and the results of the entire war depend on you – is the way to go. While I find much sense in both approaches, Baltic brought the latter option to a whole new level. The coupling of a great naval warfare novel and the assets of DCS allow the player to live the characters adventures for real – and that’s is awesome! I find the collaboration of Baltic Dragon and Kevin Miller and an inevitable progress. I vision that in the future we’ll be able to read an article regarding an operation (a wiki or a novel) and have a MIZ file attached allowing us to re-live the experience. Baltic done a great step towards that by demonstrating the huge potential. So, for the ‘experience’ we’re getting as virtual pilots, I’m giving Raven One a 5/5. The voice overs, the plot, the briefings, the multiple scripts making us feel ‘a part’ of what is actually happening – AWESOME. In my personal mind It would be pity not read the book before running the campaign. You’ll enjoy playing FLIP much more after learning what a great character he is. On the other hand, you’ll understand much better the behavior of SAINT right from the beginning... Just like going to see a movie after you’ve read the book – but without the ‘disappointment’ part (movies are never as good as the books :) ). On a ‘technical’ note – well, there are some DCS limitation – The AI had to be scripted in order to behave properly. It got it’s up and down sides… Moreover, the scripts obligate you to ‘hit’ certain mandatory goals in order to work properly (get to the waypoint, be on time, do exactly what you’ve been asked without ‘taking the calls’ completely on your own). I find it to be acceptable. You still got enough freedom to do the things your way and worst-case scenario – you’ll have to redo a mission. Not fun, but not a big deal. Of course, as it was just released – expect a few small bugs here and there. Baltic already addressed most of them (and very quickly I must say), so again - not a big deal. Lastly – there are some mismatches between the briefings and the kneeboards. Nothing dramatic, but it would be cool if fixed. Due to all of what I just wrote, I give it a 4.5/5. Regarding the ‘difficulty’ level – it would be a hard experience for a newbie. The campaign requires you to know how to employ A-G ordinance, A-G radar for looking out for ships in the sea, be proficient with A-A (bullseye, radar, dogfight, missiles), using the FLIR, aerial refueling, CASE 3 landings and more. So, if you just bought the F/A-18C – don’t rush to buy the campaign. Wait a bit, learn the systems and then give it a go. You won’t be disappointed. You’ll get a ton of satisfaction by successfully completing challenging missions. With all of the above said – it’s not a SUPER HARD campaign. It balanced really well in my opinion. You’ve got the option to ask your wingman to attack a target if you’re unable to find it. It got a ‘save and progress’ feature for missions where AAR required and overall – it’s reasonable. 4.5/5 What could be done ‘a little bit better’? Well, I would love to see it in every campaign actually– if you were given an instruction (switch frequency, do something, attack something, etc.) It would be great if could ask for ‘Say again’ and the voice-over would repeat itself. Or, it would stay written in the F10 menu until you ‘acknowledge’ it. Maybe its just me, but I think it could be nice. Moreover, I think the mission briefings should start with a debrief regarding the last mission achievements. A picture from the ‘CNN website’ with the destroyed target, an interview with a high-ranking figure from the BLUE/RED side giving their insights, a HUD footage with the gun piper on the targets plane… That would be cool and immersive. Lastly (and I know it’s a bit of a de tour of the main subject) – it would be cool if more multiplayer content be available. I’d really like to run some of the missions with a human wingman… :) Overall, the campaign in a 4.9/5. Easily the best for the F/A-18C and probably one of the best in DCS. Worth every penny! On a personal note - I would recommend to buy this campaign (and actually every campaign) not during the ‘sale’ periods. The enormous amount of work that was invested in creating it – damn, it worth much more than 15$. It tons of fun, it’s re-playable and it brought the DCS experience to another level.

+100

Hi, Without putting "hidden' on every SAM, I'd like the ME to hide only the yellow "detection" circles without removing the red " engage" circles. Is it possible? Thanks.

Seems like the update made EXP3 useless. If before you could see white point representing armored vehicles, now - nothing.

I've opened a thread about the same question https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=283850 I think the correct statement is not:"The ATFLIR offset makes a lot more sense" Rather "The current implementation is probably wrong". Again, ED- with most respect (and believe me when I say that! You showed a VERY professional approach toward the AIM120 and FM) - please show documentation or explain the logic... The offset and PTRK - make no sense

Hi, Perhaps I'm missing the idea of "why" it was implemented the way it was... but in my mind it make no sense. At the moment, if i want to track a moving target i have to anticipate where it would be, put the tracking gate and wait for it to enter. If it change direction- i need to restart the process (which take crutial time). If I want to track the third vehicle in a column - i can't. It's very hard to put on the target itself... More likely it will "lock" the vehicle before/after. The offset cursor make no sense as well - no benefit what so ever. I know no other system that works this way. All work like the "A10 TGP" - slew the cursor to the target and it start tracking. That make sense... Look at minute 9:28 in the following video: Note how the offset cursor moves the camera pov while track is kept (btw, track= an updated TGT point for the mission computer... at the moment the TGT waypoint won't change while the target is moving, resulting in a wrong drop point calculation to LGBs). ED, can you please provide document/information regarding why it was implemented the way it was? It make no sense and actually make the point track inefficient. Same for ATRK but there it's less important.

Can you please setup the hardened shelters as additional parking spots? Thanks and great job so far!

Dear ED, It would be very helpful if you could create a tool to extract a DDI/MFD/relevant instruments. At the moment we need to setup a lua file + do some calculation. While it's doable -it's annoying and time consuming. Moreover, the limitation of keeping the main view on the "left" screen in the multi-screen setup in annoying. It would be superb if in each modules special tab we could have an option to choose certain instruments to be extracted (for example: F/A-18C would have at least - "left/right/central MFD"), when the relevant screen button is pressed a blank square would appear on the screen so we could simply resize and drag it to wherever we want and then hit SAVE. When entering the the game in that specific module- the MFD view would simply be projected in the saved location. It would make the users life SO MUCH easier! Please consider creating such an option from within the game... Many users who use multi screen configuration would thank you. Thanks in advance.

"We wish our team, their families and all the Belarus people fair winds, health, safety and peace." +1000000

Hi, In the video below (minute 9:28 ) you can see the ATFLIR operator use what seem to be the ATFLIR OFFSET mode. The main difference is that while the pod keep tracking the object, the POV moves ALONG with the OFFSET cursor. I think it makes a lot of sense - the offset should allow the operator to move the CAMERA around in order to look for additional targets while keeping track of the designated object. At the moment, we can't move the camera rather just the cursor while the object stays in the middle. Personally, I find it hard to see the logic of the offset mode as it implemented at the moment. Can't understand why and when you should use it... Dear ED - although it's different pods - maybe the feature itself is identical? Maybe the offset mode should be implemented as in the video? Thanks!

WAGS, thank you very much for the update!

Bumping. Enough time passed since last the 18 update. WAGS ( OR NineLine/BIGNEWY) - please share an update regarding the current development status. We are eager for some info. All who are not ED personal - this post is not for you. Keep the comments to yourself. Thanks.

What is RSBN?

+100000 ED, this small improvement was asked for more than a year! Thanks for finely implementing it! Highly appreciated!

Hi, looking at the latest Syria map video by WAGS I've noticed that the alt of the Sea of Galilee was set to zero instead of a ~-700 feet below sea level. I guess it designed on purpose by UGRA due to DCS limitation? Is it really a core limitation? Is it a bug that should be fixed? What's the plan for the release- to release it with wrong altitude? Will it be corrected? Thanks!