Horns

Are USN pilots assigned to a squad, or do they have input on it? I assume it's the former but I haven't been able to find any information on it...

Interesting... so this is tilted in favor of learning systems earlier, and it's good to see a practical benefit (outside of multiplayer action) to joining a squadron. Also good to know that both you and Rudel_chw use Chuck's guide before the manual. That is something I'm definitely going to try next time. Thanks for sharing your technique :)

Thanks so much for giving such an in-depth response. That seems like a great way to construct knowledge of the aircraft: start learning how she flies, round out flight knowledge with training, create flight aids, supplementing as appropriate, and read the manual I think that’s how I’ll attack my next module, thanks a bundle :)

Is reading the manual (or Early Access Guide) the first thing you do in a module or do you wait until a particular time? Do you read it cover-to-cover or just the chapter that relates to your current training activity? When you learn an a/c in Early Access how do you use the EA guide and how do you use the full manual when it is released? I assumed the first thing we should do is read the manual, but I haven't found that terribly helpful for the two units I've learned so far, and I have no idea what I'll do with the F/A-18 and its EA guide. Suggestions welcome.

Thanks very much, I was one level too deep.

Thanks for going into depth like that, much appreciated

Sorry, mods as in moderators :)

Title pretty much says it all - is there a list of mods around? I've looked everywhere I could think of...

Is the newsletter the place to look for the first official confirmation that a module has hit EA?

If you just want something else to fly FC3 (or if you have the patience to wait, Modern Air Combat) might work for you, because the first part of the Su-27 interactive training is quite similar to the Su-25T. If you do want a fully modelled systems, for ground pounding I highly recommend the Viggen, I moved to that directly from the Su-25T and fell in love immediately. Nothing like breaking the sound barrier 20m above the ocean surface! If it's air-to-air you want I'd agree with others here and suggest the Mirage, it's the most modern complete air-to-air module, it's very fast and it's easy to fly. The missiles work fairly well but they aren't very long range and require support all the way to their target so a level of tactical skill is required, but learning that is very rewarding, and the community is very helpful with such things.

That has been my experience too, which is why I asked, but I'm only occasionally in a mission made by myself or someone else. Thanks, that's the information I needed. Now to figure out whether to get a whole new memory kit, or buy another 16GB like my current and cross my fingers they play nice with each other... That's a really good point, doing that will tell me whether I need to upgrade immediately or if I can wait until I do multiplayer things. Thanks :) That gives me a specific setup I can use successfully, that's awesome, ta. Thanks for all the answers. I accept I need at least 32GB before entering multiplayer or complex single player, and a test I can run to see if it's necessary before that. Thanks for all the knowledge, cheers :smartass:

Thanks to everyone for their comments and apologies for not getting back, I had thought I'd replied to this thread but I must not have. Maybe this is a down side to posting from my phone when I'm half asleep.

I noticed the recommended system requirements for "high" graphics settings specifies 32GB for heavy missions. I have three questions: 1. Is that sensitive to any particular levels of resolution (eg 1440p or above) or anti-aliasing (eg MSAA 2x+)? 2. What qualifies a mission as 'heavy'? 3. Is this spec for single player as well as multiplayer? Thanks

I don't usually write love-in posts, but I just want to thank you guys for being true to your word about coming back to the M2K and adding promised features like the English cockpit as well as touching up some existing features as needed. You have given us a bird that is easy to love, and now that workarounds provided by the community can give way to actual fixes it's much easier to enjoy this module for it's positives. Thanks Razbam.

Probably hanging out with my M2000-5

Cool, thanks. There was a guy in another subforum asking about over g damage modelling in DCS. I was going to direct him to the M2K, but I’ve never reached that point (ie 11G+) so I thought I’d better check first.

As people have said, this module is not complete yet, so there are things that are missing now but will be added in the future. As far as complete DCS modules go: I think ED make their modules as detailed and close to real life as they can without violating any laws or straining corporate friendships. ED's brand is built on the idea that they are bringing the most realistic product they can to the entertainment market. Some systems or effects might not be simulated due to legal reasons. Sometimes there are minor effects and features that the developer believes will have little to no impact on user experience and would require a disproportionate amount of work, so those may not be simulated. ED appear to be very conscious of an aircraft's edge of envelope or out of envelope behavior, and I'm sure that is something that will be simulated as faithfully as it can be once the module is finished.

Has excess G-force damage been modeled in the M2K module? If so, would it start beyond 9G or beyond 11? Ta

I think the economic reality is that all of our devs need to start revenue flowing as soon as they can, so unless there was a major paradigm shift I think EA will remain part of the business plan.

This. The greater the range of modules the better imo

Ok, weird idea: maybe the store page for an EA module could give a "not before" type of date... eg "during or after 2020". That assumes good faith dealing on the devs behalf of course, but it might be worth distinguishing whether it's at least 1 year or at least 3 years in the best case scenario. I'm still pretty new to EAs so I came in without expectations, but letting buyers know that at least x amount of development time is expected can allow devs to set realistic expectations and customers to make a more informed choice.

ED are effectively the final decision maker here, this environment being their sim. As such ED retain the power here, so as anywhere the decision maker decides how things progress, regardless of whether they are more knowledgeable than another party.

I'd hope that would be the case, especially if that report was either about something they haven't reviewed previously, or if the documentation, data and info illuminates an issue in a way that hasn't been considered before. On the other hand, if that specific issue had already been evaluated and agreed by ED, M3 could communicate that and we would know it's effectively been judged as accurate, so at least we could move on rather than wasting more time on something ED considers solid ground. If ED were inclined to indicate that data was acceptable regardless of accuracy then yeah, we're already done. I'm making the assumption that ED are interested in seeing DCS simulations are demonstrably accurate. As -Rudel- acknowledges in the hyperlink in the OP (or here) this submission of data and explanations has already been mentioned in multiple places, and is being used as evidence that the flight model is sufficiently accurate and therefore will be staying as is. The characterisation of this exchange has been that ED requested data re the accuracy of the flight model, this data was collected and submitted, any variations from known data were explained, and ED did not raise any objections regarding the information submitted, implying ED's satisfaction with said data. If this implicit approval will be used as part of the justification for locking down a flight model many think needs work, it would be helpful to both sides if this approval was confirmed explicitly. If that were done M3 would never need to have the conversation again (instead they could just link to ED's statement), and we users would no there was no remaining mileage in it, no matter how compelling the case. However, if ED were not indicating agreement it would make it difficult for them to refuse to revisit the flight model if a strong enough case was made.

We've seen -Rudel- (others too, I think) refer to a request from ED in various places, such as here for data to verify the accuracy of the MiG-21's flight model, and ED being satisfied by what they submitted. While statements such as this help, ED could make this conclusive by simply confirming that, in the light of M3's submissions and answers, they are satisfied with the accuracy of the flight model. I definitely see why ED would not want to get into an ongoing conversation about the accuracy of 3rd Party Developers works, this situation is different because -Rudel- himself has informed the community at large about this process. ED wouldn't be telling us anything, simply confirming what the developer themselves have already said. In fact, if this was to occur in future, it may make sense to have a precedent that allows ED to confirm that they have certified a dev's work in future. Beyond satisfying the doubts of people who genuinely have questions about the flight model's accuracy, there is a good reason that this would end much of the conversation: if ED are satisfied with the accuracy of the flight model, there is no reason to think it will get changed, so the only worthwhile approach would be to accept the module will stay as is permanently, regardless of how convinced they might be that there are actually glaring inaccuracies. Request: I'm suggesting that ED could help end dispute by confirming and supporting what M3 have told us. Pull the idea apart, support it or do both, but please respond to this idea itself rather than making this into a complaint/anti complaint thread.

I agree that the list looks pretty complete, but the use of the words “featuring” and “including” suggest the list isn’t exhaustive, especially to someone who wants to believe a particular item might be included and isn’t clear on the variant and time period restrictions. I guess we can refer people to the store list and say “if it’s not on the list don’t expect it”, so if HB are prepared to answer the occasional question (and in my experience they always are) I agree nothing further is needed :)