Sandman1330

I can surmise it has nothing to do with military aviation. If it does prove me wrong.

Well I am a real military pilot who works just down the road from and often on the base that's getting these, and who works with the pilots who are going to be flying these. I'm aware of the security precautions that surround it, so I'm certainly more qualified than you. You've also heard from an actual crew chief who worked on them and wasn't even given full access, and another military pilot who worked in an adjacent squadron who wasn't even allowed even the most basic information. What more do you need to be convinced?

This is the point. It's not anymore (never really was, but it was close, and just took a big step down). Those of us who know how classified this aircraft truly is know it cannot be modelled to any level of detail that would constitute a full fidelity game, let alone a sim. I'm not sure the general population truly understands this. I think it's cool, I just think it's out of place (and out of character) for DCS. Maybe we're looking at another tier of fidelity - call it FC4 (low-fi), full fidelity (certain standards for documentation, etc), but in the middle drop a new one - high fidelity. Clickable cockpits, as accurate as possible but with the understanding that multiple assumptions and educated guesses have been made. Don't advertise it as full fidelity, give it it's own in between tier. FC4 -> high fidelity -> full fidelity. Might alleviate much of our concerns about DCS lowering the standards for full fidelity, and open the door for others in the same high fidelity tier that can't quite be made to full fidelity standards.

Sadly you are probably correct. I suspect the hardcore crowd isn't enough to remain economically viable, and this probably wasn't they way the wanted to go, but had little choice to remain competitive against other games.

But those modules are marketed as such. FC4 modules are both branded as not being full fidelity, and are much cheaper.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm saying it is a monumental, tectonic shift in ED's business model. DCS will never be the same - we are now going to be looking at a significant mix of ultra high fidelity models mixed with pseudo, knida sorta high fidelity. This is groundbreaking....

I feel Pandora's box has been opened...

Oh make no mistake, it will sell like hotcakes. Just look at the popularity of mods for 4+ and 5th gen jets. It will probably also bring in new crowds, both of which are good for ED's budget. My prediction is this will result in a bit of a split. Hardcore / traditional fans, the longer standing playerbase, will play on servers that likely won't even include this module. The same servers that already don't allow mods. Life will go on as if it doesn't even exist. A separate, newer playerbase will coalesce around this module to play in less realistic, less "traditional DCS" servers, probably with heavy inclusion of mods to give it a contemporary environment in which to fly. There's no way the "traditional" DCS playerbase is going to accept this module, much as they already don't accept mods. But it will definitely grow the playerbase in a different demographic.

I'm afraid I have to somewhat agree, though I'll do so with less cynicism. I do fear this may "cheapen the brand." There's no way this can be anything close to full fidelity. Released as an FC4, I'd understand. But I agree this could impact the credibility of ED's other, true FF modules that are based on actual tangible documentation.

Just flew Mission 3 a couple of times, so maybe I can help: Issue 1 - I think you need to refuel on the right hand hose. As soon as Smoke hooked up on the left side, I went through the comms and tanked off the right hand hose no issues. Issue 2 - You're the flight lead, hog all the action for yourself But seriously, there is an issue where Smoke will bugger off to the tanker. I strafed the truck, but *only* damaged it 57% before going winchester so it kept driving. Tried to order Smoke to attack but he was gone to the tanker. This is why I flew it twice Issue 3 - Can't help, didn't use the skip.

You should press the IFF button on the UFC and enter the code. But for me today, it didn't work - pressing IFF didn't give me any options on the UFC. But it didn't matter, mission seemed to play out as it should.... Except, on landing, I didn't get mission complete. Entire mission played through, fought the SU33, tanked on the way home (I cut off tanking early as I was very healthy on gas), Case 1 recovery and nothing. 50% score.... I suspect possible DCS bug, as it wouldn't call the ball in the groove. Spammed my "hornet ball" keybind, and nothing called. All other comms were done correctly, so maybe something gummed up and it didn't register the landing?

Yeah, concur. I spent several months flying over both Erbil and Baghdad, and while Erbil is fairly nicely modelled, Baghdad seems very basic. They’ve placed a couple of POIs here and there but down real low they all seem kind of out of place, and there are several other key ones missing (for example the Al Rahman mosque was very evident from the air, but is missing in the map, and the old embassy had a major heli airfield that would be nice to see modelled.) The power station was another major landmark that’s not present, incidentally it would play nicely into the new fog / smog implementation as it belched so much pollution it would often leave downtown under a blanket of smog! Camp Taji also seems very basic, it’s all autogen that looks nothing like the real deal. Anyway I understand they aren’t finished yet, I hope the Baghdad area gets some more love!

Thanks, but I don't think that's it. It only happens on heavily loaded servers where I'm running up against max memory.

Got this twice in one evening today. 2 logs attached. The first time it was CH47 textures, the second time it was M2000C textures. I am having memory issues (is 32GB not enough anymore???), so there might be some validity to the corrupting of textures theory.... dcs.log dcs.20240818-011936.log

Here's a track, not from the campaign (too long). I put my entire magazine into him before his engine finally quit, and I had to sit on his tail for far longer than would be possible in this campaign to do it. The first burst that damaged his landing gear and caused him to leak coolant should have been enough to force him to jump out / emergency land, but he just kept on flying. And taking hits. And flying. I started the track trying to shoot him at convergence, but against a turning target that's near impossible as they disappear under the nose. So I closed to point blank. The screenshot shows how many times he was hit (look at the scroll bar on the right - we were the only 2 units in this mission, and you can scroll all the way up and down and see nothing but him taking hits). Yes, many were on the wings (inside convergence), but there are still alot of important bits in the wings. Look at WW2 gun camera footage and you'll see wings coming off. Surely a 20mm to the main spar is going to shear the wing off, or start a fire in the fuel tank. But they just tank the rounds. I know it's not a campaign issue, but it surely does reduce the fun of the campaign. Edit: Disregard the track, apparently even a short track like this one doesn't survive. It's severely broken. 109 damage model.trk

Strange, my experience has been the opposite. I usually manage to kill 190s, it’s the 109s that sponge up bullets. And neither reacts to .303, once I’m out of 20mm it’s like I’m shooting blanks!

Overall enjoying the campaign, except one thing: It seems impossible to actually get a kill. Each sortie I manage to damage one or two, but they always limp home. I've put my entire magazine into 109s and had them happily fly home and land. How is anyone actually getting kills? I know about convergence, and it does work better at convergence (though it's near impossible to actually fire at convergence if they're in any kind of turn), but I still find it hard to believe they can absorb as many 20mm cannon hits as they do. On the flip side, one burst from them and I'm toast, even in a hard turn. All DCS problems I know, but it's unfortunate that something so silly can take so much enjoyment away from what is otherwise a great campaign.

I can actually understand why they don’t include the FOBs, this would allow for multiple scenarios from multiple time periods (80s or 2001\2002 for example). But I agree the satellite imagery of the FOBs can be jarring. Would be ideal if these areas could be manually edited out. The community will create (and already is) templates with all the FOBs for different time periods that will probably come out as good or better than would be from stock anyway. A lot of veterans with intimate knowledge of those FOBs are crafting them already.

Since the latest update, I cannot launch DCS in 2D. It forces VR mode every time. I usually play on a Quest 3 via Virtual Desktop, but occasionally for mission editing I'll launch in 2D. I used to do this via the Skatezilla tool, but now I try and use the launcher. However, ever since the update, neither the skatezilla tool nor the launcher will put me in 2D when I try. It goes VR every time. Also strangely, it goes into a loop, where once I exit after it incorrectly launches VR mode, it goes right back into launching in VR mode again, I have to force kill the DCS process in task manager to stop it from attempting to start again and again and again - every time in VR. I have even tried disabling VR in the DCS settings - it still turns it back on and forces me back into VR. Log attached. While it says the command used was force_enable_vr, I definitely selected flat screen in the DCS launcher.dcs.log.old

I'm having the opposite issue. I can't start in flat screen. I usually play in VR via virtual desktop, but now even when I specifically try and launch in flat screen, it forces me INTO VR....

Location per google maps: https://maps.app.goo.gl/w93Es3U1VHZHKJaP9 This is a very imposing man-made hill in Panjwayi. First the Soviets, then coalition forces, utilized it as a stronghold to control the area. It has considerable historical significance. In DCS, the satellite image of it can be seen on the ground, but the hill is not there. I understand it seems the choice was made not to build the FOBs (that's OK, I understand this allows for more mission flexibility), but if the hill could be included it would be greatly appreciated. It's a key terrain feature in the area. A similar one called Ghundey Ghar (https://maps.app.goo.gl/5XEvkwer2gbsN6Z3A) exists to the northwest, and that hill / mountain appears to have been modelled in the map. Similar effort for Sperwan Ghar would be awesome. A photo of Sperwan Ghar:

I have so many campaigns I'm itching to play, but I'm waiting for this feature to come first. Hopefully soon!

I hope so, that would be a nice pairing. And with the Kiowa just out too, and receiving updates this patch, that would be great. I know the Kiowa will be my bird of choice to explore the new map. Just a small seed of doubt though, as Afghan was quoted for a June release but isn’t mentioned amidst all the news of new releases this patch. Edit: though in re-reading the news, I’m less concerned. When I first skimmed it on my phone I was left with an impression of a huge list of things releasing this patch, with Afghan notably absent. Rereading it that’s not really the case. Perhaps more news next week ahead of the patch.

Great update, but there was no mention of Afghanistan for the next patch. Is it still expected in June?