Vähäkylä

Is it still the case that I can have hundreds and hundreds of statics and it won't much affect MP performance or lag? I presume static's are not sent as network traffic besides initial load?

Which one is more realistic: Scenario A: A fighter pilot sits in a cockpit and reads the labels fine (since they're in English) Scenario B: A fighter pilot sits in the cockpit and mutters "I can't read any of this <profanity>" (Because they're Cyrillic for _realism_) People like to tout "realism", but it isn't the case that it always means making everything as obtuse as possible. After all, in real life many services used this super weapon to un-cyrillic their cockpit:

Being able to restrict datalink and helmet mounted sights is absolutely needed to get earlier fights. And provides options for all kinds of scenario. Helmet mounted sight should absolutely be an option in ME, much like enabling NVG is for many planes. Because it is an option for M2000 and F-4, it clearly isn't beyond the game's scope.

Is it still not possible to group statics into a unit I can copy-paste and or move around? It makes moving static areas an absolute nightmare in a mission where areas move. Is it possible to create a trigger area, build a static unit composition into it, and then simply spawn a new script area that copies from a designated one?

I know, and it is nice, but as long as using mods is a difficult task in DCS for a large group of people, I will have to skip.

Is there any movement on this, or is it still being worked on?

It is absolutely ridiculous that we don't have some generic 737 or 747 asset in the game for scenarios.

Could we have the LHD deck as as a non-painted surface, too? It can be used to create faux roadbases and airfields, but the paintings are obviously misalinged. See example here: I would be really cool to use them to widen a road and land on the FARP. EDIT: it does also sadly create some steps, but it would be cool to have similar object be unpainted or have centerline, and have it four times longer. I could create all kinds of airbases. This asset pack is one of the better things to have happened to DCS and I love it. Looking forward to additions.

Furthermore, using Win+Home for autostart does turn it on, oddly enough. Which further makes it feel like an oversight.

When you select Solo Flight in Multiplayer, and you disable multicrew, it creates an airplane that does not have a rear seater. Be it using it for F-15E aggressor air, ferry flight, roleplaying D-model, whatever, it's nice to have and I like the option. The However, there's one vital function mission. The RWR can not be turned on, as it is not part of Front Seat Control Bindings. It is not accessible without .lua editing. It is clear that there was an intent to enable some rear seat switches to be turned on, presumably to simulate flicking them on on the ground. Yet, the RWR seems like an oversight. With this oversight, it means TEWS will never function. The desired button accessible from front seat would be RWR on/off. On Discord I received the "Solo flight would never happen, thus you don't get rear seat buttons". Except, you know, it is clear we get SOME of those buttons, so it appears it is an oversight. nullnullnull

The game is still in fun swing. null Discord: https://discord.gg/umMb2S4Bvn

Better trailer:

I don't think the missiles receive any mid-course syncing. THis is testable in multiplayer, as the missiles can be tens of nautical miles away from each other for 150nm+ cruise missile shots.

Home Page: https://sites.google.com/airgoons.com/underthenorthstar/home https://discord.gg/umMb2S4Bvn Trailer: UNDER THE NORTH STAR Will be a 50+ player co-op campaign with free join in progress and changing of roles with no commitment. Our project will simulate a virtual World War 3, focusing on Northern Europe, with players fighting for a hastily created Combined Task Force-North. DCS alone can't simulate all aspects, so we combine several different video games and mediums to bring the story alive, and allow players to participate in the way they most will enjoy. DCS World, Microsoft Flight Simulator, Arma 3, and Command: Modern Operations are what we currently use. You can see something similar in The Long Afternoon War, which I posted in here: Essentially, a team of game masters and systems we have built combine DCS with other games like MSFS, Arma3, and Command: Modern Ops, to create a military wargame that simulates a conflict over a certain area. It will be the 4th such game for Air Goons, and definitely a culmination of many tried, tested, and sometimes abandoned, processes along the way.

Cool! Thank you! That is exciting news!

I certainly like the new blended multicrew controls without a cumbersome "take control"-feature. However, when I do grab the stick and start flying as a WSO, the jet is sluggish. Everything just seems to be with a significant delay in the backseat. The stick in front of me in VR moves way slower than my real stick, and thus fine movements are almost impossible. Can we expect some changes to this, or perhaps a choice between old control handoff, and the blended multicrew?

We will now accept all public joining people from anywhere. Our campaign still has a few months of it left! https://discord.gg/umMb2S4Bvn

In MP environment, the placed TACAN units just stop transmitting sometimes, and occasionally never start. I have a bunch of them in the map, in our South Atlantic Campaign, set to match VORs that are at the airports. Example: Beacon TACAN Portable TTS 3030 Evidently it is made properly. Yet it just doesn't freaking work in often. It's completely inconsistent, sometimes getting a signal, sometimes not. Does not seem to have anything to do with distance. Is there some known bug with the placed TACAN units?

So does this mod work in VR now?

Is this bug still a thing?

And not the latest, either. I'd really love to get all the cool skins in the newer version of the jet, please.

We don't currently have A-10 in any of the campaigns since it isn't used in South America.

It is! We run Arma this Sunday, in fact.

Probably nothing's worse than someone on the internet having a problem, then editing their post to say "got the answer nvm".