Czar66

I would quite happily leave DCS if a subscription model is introduced locking me out of my modules until I open my wallet every month to pay in USD from my currency and DCS asks for constant connection on my PvE experience.

As a nVidia gpu owner that wants options in the (near) future, also there should be FSRAA in the sim. I use DLAA and it is much superior to DLSS as that one wrecks image quality. FSRAA is analogue to DLAA. Both doesn't downscale the image while looking better than MSAA 4x, but with a bit of ghosting, and having the weight of MSAA turned off. You guys should be pushing for FSRAA as well.

Hey, no problem. These kinds of issues actually makes me scared if there is a bug for my next flights like this. I can't think of a solid possibility other than another unit illuminating you for the missile guidance as the Sa-11 is capable irl, afaik. Some script on the mission might do that, not necessarily DCS itself. My plane was tracked by SAM missiles through mountains a few years ago but the issue was fixed, iirc. I was afraid it was it once again.

In a quick test. I got track then a launch warning. Sa-11 Buk "Gadfly" Fire Dome TEL Missile smoke at the right middle portion of the image before those ridges.

Forgot about VR:\ No zoom command there. ED needs to step up the AAR visual references and quality indeed. Best of luck!

Approach the boom at the same height of your pilot POV after 'clear pre contact' message received from the tanker. Once the boom moves to point at the refueling door, change reference to the reference lights/deviation lights. Align first the up/down deviation lights to its middle/neutral. Approach slowly until the longitudinal lights gets into the middle/neutral position. Stick to both lights at neutral for a bit and the boom will automatically connect. Always reference the yellow painted line bellow the tanker to center the aircraft. Tiny inputs on throttle at a time while giving time for the consequences of each input to take place. You have a bit of play after each lights maximum deviation but take small actions to keep on middle. From what I can tell from memory. AAR is fun. Pleasurable. Enriching... and still is over simplified at the current state. Once you 'get it' it becomes second nature. A little zoom command can help, even though the lights are overly dim. Sadly. Put it is possible.

I view this differently also, not saying you're wrong. About the later part: I think PvE environments, at least the ones I'm attracted to (dynamic campaigns, mission generators etc), are not target rich that badly. Taking down as many aircraft you can instead of working with micro and macro strategies are much less rewarding for me personally. When I mentioned PvE-Co-op, it was more about strategy and tactics instead of killing spree against AI. My bad, bud. I remember early MiG-21 days. Hoping into that thing against F-15Cs and other fast movers was a thrill I think extinct. It was quite an event. I'm personally glad I got to experience Flaming Cliffs 3 golden era where you had Eagles vs Fulcrums and Flankers on 104th servers, after that, everything became weird with Hornets vs Vipers all the time. Don't we all? I believe that mission designers should commit to their 'artwork' and not external pressure as the later is the definition of 'artwork' death. The best type of missions and PvP environments came alive from the few to the many, not the inverse, imo. Is down to the mission designer. If they put the 35 in, their loss on the mission breaking and being unpopular. ED has already stated more red stuff coming after the 29A if that's a success in sales as that team needs to make revenue by itself. There are also external factors that we don't know all about. So I'd rather not worry about PvP balance as hoping for anything remotely close outside Flaming Cliffs is in vain. I'll stick to PvE and enjoying the sights that made me stick to DCS in a constant basis for 3 years straight now. Sorry to derail into a large post and the thread is not about this. All of you have a nice/blessed/delightful week and enjoy what you like the most.

That's the bottom line. A few people forget there is a lot of players that don't touch on PvP where crafted missions, dynamic campaigns, mission generators and co-op vs AI far exceeds enjoyment on hoping onto a server that once again is at noon, few clouds and is constantly unbalanced by player numbers let alone machinery specs. Kudos to ED to make an F-35 if it is their wish to do so. Many will flock towards it in many scenarios solo and with their friends in co-op.

The blame on this lies on the server/mission creator, not ED.

huh.......good catch! I recall it happening.

: ( yeah... The Harrier was the next in line for me, just before this stuff started. I'd guess there would be a hit on trust once again if older modules started being sunset instead of leaving anything towards the 'replacement' purchase. I'm not too pessimistic about this possibility... but again, "anything is subject to change".

I really hope no one makes that happen, and no one outside HB should have any authority to make that happen. This is fairy tale, imo. Messing with Heatblur's project schedule/flow to introduce a foreign body into their workflow should be forbidden. HB are currently the biggest beam of hope on 3rd party around and things get reaaally slow when projects are too much for teams to handle. The SE is nice, but I'd rather leave the people in charge of maintaining the F-4E and the Tomcat alone.

I meant it more about the Mirage, Harrier and MiG-19 than the F-15E. Yeah, I'm still able to refund the 15E at any time but the Mirage 2000 is something I've always wanted in a sim. Specifically this very variant and it bothers me that I'll have to purchase it again at some time. It bothers me as well that I made a friend get the 15E and he got it from Steam and there is currently zero chance he can get a refund. Not that he's asking one or bothered, but personally I feel gutted.

This thread shouldn't degrade itself towards being a CFT thread... I agree with any path forward out of the current 'stalemate' of the 'RB/ED situation'...but the paying full price twice thing. Customers that already had the modules of the same variant supposedly being replaced should be recompensated by a discount of a decent margin.