Schmidtfire

I understand that things takes time... but 7 years and still not complete? This is an AI DLC pack. And now we're getting work in progress screenshots of a new WWII PTO Asset Pack? Make that make sense.

The Mosquito was released 4 years ago, so we're still much within Early Access timeframe (judging by other DLC modules). Ideally the work would be continued month after month without any pause until completion, but it's probably not sustainable in terms of resources or ROI. While not the perfect formula for the players, it has kept DCS World running for a very long time compared to other titles. It also keeps the players around because the urge of seeing what the next update might look like. Not making excuses for ED, but it's reality. What I however can be a little critical about is how the DLC products are not marketed as being 4-6+ years Early Access projects.

At the end of a day, we're sitting in front of different monitors (or in VR). NVG's should be adjustable to the players liking. The HMS in Ka-50 is adjustable in height and so should the NVG's. In real life, pilots can peek under the NVG's to see instruments. Problem in DCS is that goggles are in the center of the screen, to view instruments we have to look up (as supposed to down IRL). This can probably be solved by a keybind that quickly moves the NVG's up a bit. Or automatically if view moves downwards with X degrees within the cockpit then goggles moves up Y degrees. Simulating a "peek" to view instruments.

It's probably good that ED handles the weapons, but it has to be coordinated properly with 3rd party developers. I'm tired of hearing "it's somebody else responsibility" while we wait month after month for implementations...

And possibility to share DTC navigation with other players in a multiplayer session?

Not technically possible, MiG-21bis cannot use Kh-66 or RS-2US. It requires a different radar (RP-21). I respect your knowledge on the KA-50. But there's a lot of "what if" sort of solutions added to the KA-50 III. The MWS integration into the ABRIS, the firing computer etc. For all we know the wing could just have been tested for aero, without any new technical integrations. And that's okay. Creative licenses within plausibility of reality. That said. My preference is to make modules as close to reality as possible. But if a couple of minor options adds to making DCS: MIG29A a popular and commercial success I'm all for it. For fans of the Fulcrum and possibly future "Red Aircraft" we really need this module to do well.

For a symbology color comparison. DCS MIG-29 left. HELM symbology (from owner) center, DCS MIG-15bis right. Perhaps I'm being a bit nitpicky, but it's a clear difference in color (if the center picture is authentic).

Very interesting and rare photos of the real HELM! Have you forwarded those to the DCS MIG-29 developers? On an esthetic note. It looks like the symbology is less yellow and more orange in color (closer to what MI-24P sight looks like). HELM symbology in DCS also looks a bit small in comparison to the real life pictures. Edit: Seems like Adrián Caparzo nailed the HELM look in this trailer:

I don't think it's just the spotting dots. We did a few tests and concluded that spotting also is affected by head movement (using TrackIR) vs looking straight ahead in a static fashion. Seems like the issue is connected to FOV aswell. Contacts that was clearly visible would just vanish when we panned our head around at certain angles. Test was conducted at different ranges against AI with and without pause enabled.

https://discord.com/channels/542985647502393346/1402701497678168084/1427363998382162000 Development Highlights on official Discord

We all have our own preferences. I think it's a good thing that we're moving towards more realistic modeling of RWR's. The perfectly timed dance between missile launch-RWR warning-notch is such a DCS-ism and it makes the gameplay very predictable. Ideally, changes would be implemented for all modules, but it is likely something that will happen slowly over time. A few days ago ED made a post about Mi-24P SPO-10 changes. Aircraft like AJS-37 Viggen, JF-17 F-4E, F-14 already has complex RWR's implemented. Upcoming F-14A (early) and F-100 will also feature a more complex RWR. Modern fighters like F-16C, F/A-18C and JF-17 is obviously a little more problematic. But they are not really the main opponents for the MIG-29A Fulcrum. I am all for options. Don't get me wrong. Some players like a more accessible and gameplay-like approach. That's why I also suggested adding R-77 as an option if we're already asking for more SPO-15 options. Possibility to tailor the aircraft to how the players want to fly it.

This is a 69.99$ module. There should not be any doubt what the customers are buying into. On that note, I can't recommend a purchase.

Even if ED changes the SPO-15LM the end result will pretty much be the same. No launch warning and instead with false information in the forward hemisphere. So how to make the situational awareness better for the FF MIG-29A pilots? Proper GCI implementation. Not only giving steering commands but also radio the pilot with warning if a missile launch is spotted.

Since we’re already asking for a fictional/modified SPO-15, we should also ask for R-77. Name the option ”MIG29 modified edition” and call it a day. Not much worse offense than KA-50 with 3 pylons, MIG-21bis with Grom or F-16C with 4 Harms. Or we can accept the MIG-29 for what it is with the limitations it had in real life.

I think it's a brilliant module so far. A very solid release. No glaring bugs (that I have noticed) and a ton of fun to fly. The DTC implementation is also a big plus. We've done quite a few COOP flights and it's quick and easy to set up the navigation together. It would be even more awesome if we could send/receive cartridges between players within the DTC interface during multiplayer, but it's probably something that will be implemented at a later stage.

SA-5 is Cold War yes, but If I remember correctly the version in DCS is the updated Syrian version that is still used today. Same with the SA-2.

If you look at the non-WWII assets they are mostly 1990's upgrades to older systems. From what I have seen all newly added free assets are modern or have some form of modernization. From an economical standpoint it also makes sense, since more modern assets also can be used in the commercial "non DCS" markets. I would love to see some Cold War assets. But I think they will come in the form of paid asset pack or perhaps by Current Hill.

While I think ED should reconsider and adding proper nukes into the sim... non-nuclear versions of the Nike Hercules would still be nice to have. However, I don't think ED will put money and resources into a historical SAM system that is Cold War specific. Perhaps if it's included in some sort of asset pack.

What is a bit confusing, at the moment, is that the HMS sight symbology is displayed where there is no possibility to get a lock. What I have found during testing: The IRST (OEPS-29) has good upwards elevation capability. Keep the target above the canopy rail and you should get a fast and easy lock. For targets directly Left or Right of the aircraft: the limit to achieve lock is around the canopy rail* *This limit is a bit confusing if you are familiar with F-16C and F/A-18C Targets over canopy = good locking ability Targets to the side of canopy = limited locking ability

Yes I tried with and without it. The solution I have found: Keep clicking weapon release button very rapidly to empty out all the contents. Seems to work ok but the timing between releases can sometimes be imprecise if not doing it perfectly.

How do we properly employ the KMGU-2 canister? When I try to use it, it only drops a small portion of the submunition. Is there an option to drop all the submunitions in one go?

Another thing we discovered during a multiplayer flight yesterday. 1. If you have Native Avionics language selected (RUS) and units to Metric. 2. Switch between meters to feet on the F10 map (button on top bar) and then Spawn into a new aircraft, the avionics in the aircraft automatically will be in Imperial. While it might be intended to work this way, it certainly caused a great deal of confusion when a member in the flight didn't realize that also the units in his aircraft had changed

Adding to this topic. We did a few tests on a small private multiplayer server. Caucasus near empty mission. Perhaps not 100% scientific test, but with very low latency the host paused the server and then the clients then pushed F2 and F10 to compare data. We also shared screenshots. What we found is that desync mostly is proportionate to range & speed between clients and objects. For example: Two aircrafts flying in close formation. Nearly perfect sync between clients. We then increased the distance between aircrafts, the desync of altitude and position grew. Over long distances the differences was very notable on each client. With long range weapons the data difference was extremely noticeable. Harpoon, AIM-54 Phoenix, SLAM etc. Ground decals (craters) was not exactly synced but close enough. Iron bombs also seemed pretty good (at least when clients is flying in the same area). My best guess is that we're always dealing with some form of desync. Close formation flying is very accurate in terms of data between clients but the rest is so-so. And I get it, it creates an illusion of that we're seeing the same thing and the most critical aspect is synced up. If this is a design choice (performance etc) I don't know. But this is easily tested and can be replicated over and over.

Solution: Implement Nike-Hercules so we can enjoy launch warnings over the Cold War Germany map

It was just a FRIENDLY request. Not a demand. Many of of us has bought the Mirage-F1 and are interested in it's development. That's all. Im sad that a very simple request is seen by some users as self-entitlement or attack on the development team. It's totally unnecessary to go against fellow Mirage-F1 fans like that and create drama when there is no need for it.