jasonbirder

The Enemy Within campaign is by far the best available (Operation Piercing Fury was great but no longer supported)

That's only 2 weeks away - I wouldn't hold your breath!

Only if we get a Sakhalin map too!

Because SPAMRAAM/PvP balance Or we could remember Pvp is a small subset of multi-player which makes up a tiny, tiny fraction of the DCS base and forget about "balance" (we're not playing PUBG/Fortnite) and just model a great aircraft for us all to enjoy.

Truegrit, please, please focus on A2G capabilities (Brimstone and Paveway iV would be especially welcome) The Eurofighter has only used A2G capabilities in RL scenarios...and do we really need another jet just to lob more and more active radar missiles towards furballs in PVP in the complete complete absence of a realistic A2A environment (AWACS/Datalink/IFF capabilities etc)

Given that many people have purchased this campaign and it is no longer for sale (as Ranger 79 cannot support it) Is there any mileage in getting it "unlocked" so owners can make & save (and indeed share) changes to the missions to allow play through of the campaign? I'm someone who bought it before Christmas and "parked it" as it was reputedly the very best A10C DLC campaign to play when i'd finished Red Flag/Stone Shield/Enemy Within So I haven't had any use/value out of it...(There was absolutely NO warning when I bought it...play within the next couple of weeks or you're flushing money down the drain) To paying customers - it does seem a fairly trivial courtesy to "unlock" it - so we can create/save/share changes to the .miz files to allow continued use... If its not for sale - there is no potential lost revenue if (a tiny minority) abuse that privalege and share the DLC is there?

OK, we're into the 4 month since an update to stable...everyone seems pretty cool about that so far... At what point will the majority consider it an unacceptably long time to have even the simplest and most critical fixes for the stable branch... 5 months? 6 months? 1 year? Just what do DCS users think is an acceptable update cycle for a game many (most) users will have paid hundreds of $s for across multiple modules?

As long as the tiny in number but very vocal on the forum Multiplayer Community is getting updates they shouldn’t update the stable, even if it takes another 6 months. Too bad about people who have paid hard earned money for certain modules but that’s the way it goes if you're not one of the golden users...You could always p*ss off back to an older unsupported version...who cares...ED certainly don't Corrected that for you

Open Beta is the version currently supported by ED. Ironically enough (given the name) it looks like stable is no longer supported - no bug-fixes this year/none planned for the forseeable future, users of Stable cannot install and play some of the DCS Planes (though suprise surprise the website still allows you to purchase them)

If you have TACAN in Rec mode you'll only get bearing information (Transmit/receive needed to get range information) You're supposed to change to Rec once you have visual so other aircraft can get ranging information

Thanks for your feedback Bignewy communication is always appreciated (even if I guess it doesn't feel like that sometimes) It does seem a little like "We've always done it this way" therefore "we cannot do it any other way regardless of circumstance" though... It is what it is and I can see that no amount of pointing out how simple or helpful reconsidering that (in exceptional circumstances) would be, will change the current update/release process... After all we're just Single Player/Stable release slugs...we should get with the program...right?!?

Indeed...so why the difficul;ty in doing something else completely out of the norm IE: releasing an interim update to Stable of those LOWEST LEVEL changes that will not affect the core game? (Documentation/changes to .miz/.cmp files) It would have no effect on version controls - as there would still only be two versions Open beta and Stable. It would have no effect on stabilty as those changes would not effect core game files... Not "sense checking them" bundling them into a stable update and then releasing them just seems like pig-headedness at his point...

So, what...4 months to get some simple fixes to .miz/.cmp files that third party developers have already written... For something that won't mess with core code anymore than a user downloading a user-created Mission or Skin would? If changes to 3rd party DLC campaigns could affect "a stable build" there'd be no User created Missions would there? its a change to a text file in your Users/yourname/savedgames folder...how is that going to affect a "stable build"

Really? EG: New User Manual wouldn't work in 2.5.5? EG: Removed unused units and replaced them with static models wouldn't work in 2.5.5? EG: English and German Documentation added wouldn't work in 2.5.5? Etc etc There is no reason they and many others couldn't be added into stable other than inertia....

Well obviously - but the question as to why 3rd party changes to .miz/.cmp files, new documentation etc couldn't be bundled into a new Stable Release Version, whilst you're working on the issues to the 2.5.6 Core remains... Your release schedule doesn't currently work like that...why can't it work like that in the future? Historically your release schedule to stable has lagged only a short way behind changes to open beta...if that process can be changed to reflect current difficulties ...why can't the other?

I don't disagree...but why can't ED release these fixes onto stable - there'd be only 2 versions...and changes to .miz/.cmp files wouldn't in anyway introduce bugs/changes to the game itself. If you've got 2 versions: Stable & Open Beta there's no golden rule that Stable has to equal the previous Open beta is there? Its quite possible for ED to release a newer version of Stable with a subset of the Open Beta ffixes without any negative impact on version control

Yet again, the eternal question... Why do users on Stable have to wait months and months and months for simple fixes like Is it absolutely necessary to get the updated Night Lighting/Super Carrier module etc working before that huge chunk of your user base gets some simple DLC fixes?

So it'll be an absolute bare minimum of 3 months (probably will be more) for an update to stable... Is there any reason some of the less problematic changes/fixes couldn't be tested for stability and then bundled into a stable release... IE: Fixes to 3rd party DLC etc?

Looks like sun light/reflections to me...I get that in the morning when the Sun comes in the study window...try closing some curtains or moving anything shiny behind you...otherwise you can alter the threshold down until you only have 3 green/1 red cross showing (might not be possible if its really bright)

Like the overwhelming majority of DCS Players i'm Single Player - and like many I get my Warbird fix from IL2 BoX I suspect i'm far from alone in this so "Eagerly Awaited" Definately has to mean Single-Seat (sorry Tornado/Aardvark/Intruder Fans) and probably cold war or modern. The new A7E fits that to a "T" (but is third party) so maybe an F15C/Mig29/Su27 My personal desires Mirage 3/Kfir/Jaguar/Super Etendard are certainly too "niche" to be described as eagerly awaited!

Rightly or wrongly...its essentially a ponzi scheme isn't it (Not necessarily a critisism says the owner of many modules/theatres/campaigns) ED need money now...so early access is essentially taking less money now (EA discounts) instead of more money in the future (Full-price for finished modules) That enables them to fund new product development out of self-said same products revenue streams... The only question is...will "cash cows" (Single seat, modern Jets) run out and what will happen when they do?

BUT (barring DCS) CAS isn't the only game in town...against a peer level adversary (or in a game sense) on a "proper" sized map wouldn't you be spending alot of time going after Bridges/Rail Junctions/Fuel Depots/Maintanance Repair yards/Road junctions etc etc rather than merely chucking Mavericks/JDAMs against the odd BMP/BTR ? Which would then bring AG radar back to prominence.... I don't have any professional experience so could be way off beam...but wasn't the doctrine that you couldn't kill enough Tank/Motor Rifle Units quickly enough to make a difference by engaging them at the FLOT and that the only way to slow them down sufficiently was to degrade their ability to reach/operate at the front with deeper strikes on transportation/rear echelon targets (And presumably a doctrine that applied vs Warsaw Pact numbers in the 80's applies doubly so vs Chinese numbers in the 21st Century)

To me the question is...why do simple "bug-fixes" I'm thinking principally of 3rd party written fixes to DLC campaigns...take so long to make their way to "stable" release? EG: Baltic Dragon has written a couple of mission fixes for the A10C TEW/M2000C Red Flag campaigns... What is the logic behind having to wait for ED to sort out the new lighting system 2D & VR performance issues etc...big complex problems that will likely take weeks to fix before they're rolled out to the overwhelming majority of users (IE: those not "beta-testing") ? I'm not a purchaser -but the same argument could be made about people who purchased the JF-17 and don't have access to it...why are they waiting for substantive issues with the core modules being fixed...when the Plane itself could have been added to stable some time ago... If the policy wasn't - until every single thing we've put in the latest Beta release - no matter what/ no matter how complex or how trivial it is works...then nobody can have any of it (except beta testers) Broad brush it skews/degrades what Open Beta is...99% of people on open beta aren't "Beta Testers" by any stretch of the imagination...its just become the de-facto release for many...

Its not that I think its a "killer ap" its just I'm from North-West Europe, and as a "gamer" rather than a RL Tactical Aviator...what I'm interested in is peer level conflicts (a la Red Storm Rising or Arclight) in "clagged in" European Weather rather than circling an IP then dropping a JDAM on an accurate co-ordinate against toothless opposition in zero humidity conditions. I always imagined in that scenario - exacly what we used to do in Falcon 4 BMS/Janes Strike Eagle/Super Hornet - things like loft attacks from low-level with LGBs or laydown attacks with CBUs - guided by A2G radar, Interdiction/Strike Missions on "deep" targets etc etc I certainly didn't imagine western airforces would just "go-home" if it rains (assuming a no/degraded GPS environment) In fact...thinking about it - forget my simulated fun...that thought is more than scary enough in the real world!

Jesus! I didn't realise it was that bad...given there's only 1 spare satellite in each orbital plane...does any adversary merely need to sling a few ASATs and then walk over whichever conflict it chooses to engage in?