Aarnoman

At the moment, the smoke does not seem to be affected by atmospheric haze (e.g. if far away from the smoke, it remains at full opacity, contrasting strongly with other objects). I assume this is a bug?

I agree, but also I think the plane selection screen as a whole needs a rework. There is no good reason why users should be required to scroll for 15 seconds just to find a slot at a specific airport in missions with many available aircraft (e.g. TTI or Georgia at War, in example).

+1, glad there is a fix for it, but this should be a native implementation.

+1

From some further testing this appears to be the cause. Sums up why the current implementation is somewhat nonsensical, especially given the fact the launcher has stabilising booster legs to become level prior to launch. Additionally, as the impact point does not change between launches (deviation remains identical if the launchpoint is not moved) this negates any arguments that this is an implementation of intentional inaccuracy/simulating CEP/etc. This is either a bug or a very thoughtless implementation of the ballistic mechanics.

Version: 2.5.6.55847 (current OB) Bug: When a SCUD launcher is assigned a target location with the fire at point command, it will miss with the same ~2nm offset every time. Expected behaviour: SCUD missile should impact the location selected with the fire at point command. Steps to reproduce: 1) Place SCUD launcher in mission editor. 2) Assign target using fire at point command, keeping it in between minimum and maximum range circles. 2.5) Make sure wind is set to 0 in mission. 3) Start mission. 4) (speed up as neccesary) 5) Observe discrepancy in actual impact point compared to assigned impact point. 6) Reapeat 1-5. The missile will hit the exact same location as observed previously (miss by same distance and direction). Example mission attached, including image of impact location distance and direction from assigned target. The intersection of runways is assigned target in mission editor, the compound to the 229 2nm is the actual impact location, every time mission is run. EDIT: Refer to post 10 (https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4513240&postcount=10) for further information. Thank you Shadow KT for providing this additional information. scudTest.miz

Bump, still ongoing issue, makes nightflying...interesting. Especially in VR where we can get tally on the pixel at more than 60 miles.

I'm in full support for this, so long as AI JTAC gets the ability to change laser code. This has bugged me for a long time, and a consistent (and realistic) implementation of this system should be undertaken, where laser codes are not changable in flight.

+1, though I think this should probably be in DCS 2.5 bugs, as I'm pretty sure it affects all planes except F-14.

+1, given the large focus on naval aviation, this is a no-brainer as it servers both visual and gameplay functions.

Absolutely horrible in VR. Please let us disable this without having to edit lua files.

+1

I would like to know when this is planned as well, least of all because it was the highest ranked item in the hornet poll.

Can confirm Datalink issue as well in multiplayer.

Bump, still an ongoing issue. Considering the fix is so simpe, can we please get this pushed to an update?

The white NVG's are a bug, for some reason all NVG's ended up becoming the Russian KA-50 NVG's. Also it's been reported multiple times already: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=286790

+1, as has been requested many times by the VR community. The fact the texture is applied unevenly between left/right eye makes this nausea inducing, effectively preventing nightflying without Mustang's fix.

Definitely would like to see that. While on the topic of tankers, "Tanker entering a turn" as a radio transmission would also be fantastic.

I think this would be very sensible and aid new players introduction to DCS. This is particularly relevant given the impending release of the A10C-II, likely boosting interest in it. I agree with OP on all points, and would strongly support such a decision as both a FC3 and A10C owner. I have personally had significant difficulty introducing friends to DCS as the Su-25t just didn't have the appeal the A10A would have had to get 'their feet wet' before considering purchasing their first module. *Addedum based on my discord post: I did manage to introduce those friends, but it took multiple years. I think having a low fidelity US plane (A10 a good example) would be very useful for introducing new players. I have no qualms about seeing such a plane being made free as a FC3 owner either, I think it would help significantly in allowing the growth of the community. I think many of us can draw a parallel with the recommendation of 'get the plane you are most interested in' that is often given to newcomers to DCS looking for their first purchase. By having a (low fidelity) plane that they are already likely more familiar and interested with (for the English speaking population, any of the current FC3 US lineup) this would make introduction and player retention a lot easier, based on my experience discussing this with friends that I have introduced to the sim. It is anecdotal experience in the end, but from conversations on this discord and the forum I think it holds true for a significant proportion of the DCS (would-be) playerbase.

Bump, it is really difficult playing night missions in VR as it is impossible to look under the goggles in the current implementation. Much needed QoL improvement for VR.

Bump, still an ongoing issue in VR.

I would like to see NVG gain as a bindable axis for modules. This is often difficult to fine tune with the current setup of push-button only increase/decrease of gain by allowing more granularity. It would be a major quality of life improvement for those with a spare joystick axis or those who fly frequently at nighttime.

+1, this airbase plays a crucial part both historically and contemporarily in the region. Also, would expand options for campaigns/missions/multiplayer immensely.

Agreed, need more insurgent vehicles and ground units. Some statics would be nice too, like berms so we can build semi-realistic entrenched positions. Seeing some modernised infantry would be great as well, they look very dated currently.

+1