Schmidtfire

Overall the JF-17 is in a pretty good state, but it can be improved in some areas. There's almost always problems with the following: *TGP *802AKG+MIL *Any type of smart munitions and glide weapons I guess it's difficult for the developers to fix, but it's always an issue with one or more of the items above. Long term they need to figure out a way to fix it and make it robust enough that it stays fixed. On a secondary note, sound can be improved. Mainly voices and warnings where there's some sound of mouse-clicks of the recordings etc. It a minor issue but I've heard several friends complain about sound quality. Sound is a big part of DCS World aircraft and first impressions matter.

1983 is a bit early for MIG-29 over CW Germany. Unless you're aiming for a scenario where a couple of the very first Soviet aircraft is put into action. From what I can find the MIG-29 was declared fully operational around 1985 and East German Air Force received MIG-29 between 1988-1989.

This is a part of an open post from one the guys in Polychop (regarding lack of Gazelle updates, posted on the Polychop Simulation Discord, 2025-07-23) As previously stated, the devs are in a Crawl > Walk > Run phase learning module code by essentially reading it backwards and deciphering it. Learning two entirely different sets of code at the same time and trying to manipulate both does not fit this model of learning or progression. The 58 is the more recent module to be released, therefore it is going to receive the attention. Sorry if you don't like that, but that's how it goes. The 58 has more bugs that need addressing (yes we have a list for both modules and this is in fact the case) so they will be ironed out before tending to the Gaz. The 58 has been and continues to be the module with more consumer utilization by a considerable margin since it's release, therefore as previously stated, it is going to receive the attention (and again sorry if you don't like that but that's how it goes). Now, that DOES NOT MEAN THE GAZ IS DEAD and or will not receive work in the future. Nobody go running to Reddit referencing this post, claiming that it is dead and wont receive updates because that simply isn't the case. It will receive work in the future, just not right now, and no I can't tell you when no matter how creative you all get with rephrasing the question of "When Gaz Update." I hope it's okay to post it here on the ED forums. Not great news for Gazelle enjoyers, but it is what it is. Getting the new team up to speed with unfamiliar code is not an easy task. Duplicate that by two modules. It will take time, no way around that.

Maybe.... commercially it's a given hit, but the ball is really in Magnitude 3's corner now. I have a feeling that they are a bit sick and tired with the MiG-21 and wants to work on something new. Also, a true "2.0 edition" would probably mean to start over from scratch. The code is 10+ years old by this point. Perhaps wishful thinking, but a partnership with another 3rd party for a "2.0 edition" might get the ball rolling.

I'm hoping for a Mach 1+ attack helicopter.

I kind of understand it. The big commercial booths and Racing Simulators looks exciting. On top of that there was big Flight Sim cockpits with an asking price of almost 30.000$. From the looks of it, the ASC C-130J was also seated in an area that looked more like a LAN party and less of a booth. It's probably difficult to get much attention other than DCS enthusiasts who knew the C130J would be at the event.

It's not possible. However, you can add AGM-88 to the current F-4E by creating a custom weapons loadout (mod). If you don't know how to do it yourself there are downloads available. This is one example https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3338090/

Video with DCS: C-130J in action. Very brief however, seems like most content creators cover the big booths and Sim Racing. 1:26:55

Any word on the next video? It's over a week since the latest one in the series

A short update on progress would be nice

That’s just gonna make em look choppier, ruining the immersion. It’s ok, it is what it is. Just wish that ED would be more considerate when it comes to adding options. And don’t even get me started on the non-adjustable NVG mask sizing/placement

It’s not normal to fly with the mirrors folded up. But it’s currently the only way unless we want to take a heavy FPS hit and deal with low quality rendering in the mirrors. So the static reflection adds a bit of immersion for those who don’t use the mirror rendering. I have played DCS with a large group for over 10 years and none of them has the mirrors turned on in any aircraft. The tradoffs vs gain is simply too high. Would it be nice to be able to enjoy MiG-29 without the look of folded-up mirrors? Yes. I’ll guess we have to wait for the mirror improvements. But it has to be at least double the performance and visual quality from current standard to be worth it (in my opinion). Anyways, it’s just my take on the topic.

Can we pull the mirrors down but with a static reflection/reflective surface? The animated mirrors are: 1. FPS hungry 2. Poor picture quality/resolution RB, Heatblur and other developers has solved this by having a generic reflective surface when mirrors are not activated. Will this also be available for MiG-29?

While interesting topic, it doesn't really matter. Unless you can convince Eagle Dynamics to spend hours and $$$ updating the fidelity on a Flaming Cliffs level module, that's intended to have simplifications and some inaccuracies with the real counterpart.

This video shows some of the testing with R-77 symbology clearly visible at about the 18:27 mark.

Strangest decision was to leave out the Iraq and Iran liveries, while selling the Persian Gulf and Iraq map. Nothing against North Korean or Kazakhstan liveries, but it does not make much sense.

Working CCIP for S-24 rockets and the 30mm grenade launcher would be nice to have...

IF a Vietnam map happens, I wouldn't be surprised if ED releases a refurbished UH-1H. But I think it's more likely that they will go for a modernized UH-60 or a CH-53 before spending more time on UH-1H...

I think it's more important to get much more AI aircraft and units into DCS World. We have plenty of flyable aircraft. But that's perhaps another discussion

Almost every DCS enthusiast has waited a long time for the Mig-21bis 2.0. But I don't know if Magnitude 3 still has the skillset (or interest) to pull it off. Lets hope.

If I recall correctly, it was mentioned that Deka Ironworks Simulations has lost a developer and has limited time to fix bugs until things are back to normal. I don't know if the 802AK falls under Deka or ED, but it might explain why this issue is still ongoing.

I have not heard anything of this. From what I know, they hope to make the Lantirn pod, but no rework of the current Litening (not enough data).

Keep in mind that the Germany map has a highly detailed and varied terrain mesh, with small slopes and inclines everywhere. Have you tested George over flat water in the north part of the Germany map? Obviously George should function properly over land, but it might get us a clue if it's a reaction to an object or something in the terrain mesh.

It's not only about AI flying the tables perfectly. The AI SFM is simplified compared to a PFM. Perfect AI table flying + SFM = UFO result. It all adds up, making the end result unrealistic. And this not only goes for the AI MiG-15bis, it's a global shortcoming within limitations of the AI in DCS World. The many players that has complained about this issue for over 10 years are not wrong. Hopefully ED will resolve a lot of these shortcomings with the upcoming GFM model. And while I admire the investigative enthusiasm, I can't help but think this might be the Dunning-Kruger effect at work.

Thanks! I'll give it a try