JokerMan

Thanks ED.

I am encouraged by NineLine's response in this thread and I look forward to the implementation of the solution by the engineering team at ED. It cannot be stated enough, that this is a critical path item for many who wish to fly without text labels on and try to recreate engagement scenarios with high fidelity and realism aspects. This is true for both the single player and multiplayer scenarios of course. The community built label mod (solely aimed at addressing the 'contact spotting' aspect) has been until now, a must have. It is especially critical flying in any dog-fighting type engagement be it WW2 and Korean to name two obvious scenarios. Post #6 seems to capture the essense of the need and communicates that the issue is understood. It now remains to be implemented into the game and again, I add my voice and ask for this feature to be ranked as a top priority for this beta release. I appreciate there is a full schedule for this beta already, howeever, it cannot be unestimated just how much this particular issue undermines the experience for so many. S!

Thanks for sharing. As a ready reference, this will prove valuable in a pinch then getting your kite back to base is a priority. S!

This is sensible and has merit as an achievable objective if chosen by ED to pursue. Yes vote logged. I honestly don't know where ED intend to take their DCS WW2 platform. Forum discussions often get complicated with MP Vs SP posts which serve mostly to distract from the important topic. Full disclosure - SP should have everything MP has and visa versa leaving the player to have his/her choice of expericence in DCS intact and available. However, the future of DCS WW2 (I should say for me though I know I am not alone) absolutely is the MP environment but much is needed to be built to enable this to come to fruition. The OP idea is absolutely a low hanging fruit category type update which would further DCS WW2 in a good direction. It could buy ED time also for their longer term DCS WW2 plans to be progressed. S!

Phil's latest video on this topic is encouraging to see ... as it shows that the SMAA feature interferes with contact spoting at different FoV levels. I look forward to trialling this on my own setup. DD-Fenrir nicely explains the FoV (Zoom) feature. It is an important comment here as in fairness, it's not necessarily intuitive and I can understand folks misunderstanding of the zoom feature in the flight sim. (same in racing sims incidentally) This is the complexity of this topic .... everyone's mileage varies which is the frustration. by the way, in case you mean viewing the YouTube video, then I can't see the dots either. This is down to what YouTube does when it renders the video though. S!

The purchase of Normandy has had many asking similar questions to be honest. The thread has answered the OPs main question of course concerning campaigns. However, the OP also speaks to the fact that Normandy as a map still requires a lot of development. ED are already answering this with updates and we're all looking forward to this continuing. Also as noted, improvements to the WW2 airframe modules have a role to play in extracting enjoyment on the map itself. SP campaigns are generally good though it must be said that as the modules and map improvements get implemented, the experience of these campaigns may change also. All in all, from a MP perspective, Normandy has not been a common server choice map but like said already, hopefully this trend will change with ED's current WW2 focus which is producing results already. S!

Bumping this topic .... asking if there is any likelihood of a fix. Beacon illuminates the inside of the cockpit also in ways that are annoying (minor eventhough this issue is of course) Thanks S!

The cost of bringing along the tank, when empty is pretty negligible anyway. Either tank that is. We're talking a couple of mph max ..it's almost not relevant. see Of course, this issue needs resolution but thankfully it's one that does not really impact the experience.

Thank you. Looking forward to this. I wish to highlight how much I appreciate the dev popping into the thread and supporting their modules ... this is the way to go. S!

This is a question I have often thought on too and recently I had an opportunity to query this with a retired F5 driver. He had no prior knowledge of ED and DCS so I showed him a youtube video on my phone as part of the explanation and it seemed to grab his attention positively. I wanted to communicate to him that my query had a background other than curiosity. Anyway, his general reply about trim in the F5 was that you could trim it well though it is always a hands on plane to fly. This is no formal testimonial obviously and merely anecdotal of course but it marries well with my own sim experience of the DCS product. (I use a Warthog which is in good condition). I can trim the DCS F5 well but not to the extent that I can forget about it. I am hands on always too. :smilewink: S!

Storm of War is not regularly up and running atm Boris so I expect it's another server being referred to. However, Storm of War (SoW) doing a test server mission is news we've been waiting to hear .. right? ED have announced focus on WW2 in their recent news updates also (and a little more than just a side comment also) which is hugely encouraging for WW2 drivers across the board! Expecting a replication of the old SoW is not on the cards in the short/medium term of course ....(those of us who flew the old SoW know what I mean) but during the course of the coming months and quarters, ED's focus and development of their WW2 offering will hopefully result in good steps in that direction. It's a what-if type of comment I know, but if these two were able to complement each others ... can you imagine what awesomeness would follow! S!

You'll never go back badhorse .. what took you so long ....:) Don't mind that query ... it's not serious. Pretty sure @the_soupdragon called it. Hope you are set. S!

Someone also watched a particular kids TV show .... the Swedish chef ...LOl. Whilst I've gotten very comfortable with the native language cockpit, (though I have Swedish virtual sqn member to help ) I am intrigued by the notes about texture improvements and performance betterment.

Another call for looking at the font size please Dev ....

Nice to be able to use the landing light again :pilotfly: Receiving these updates and knowing that the module continues to be developed to it's fullest really does mean so much to us AJS37 drivers. The platform is the pinnacle of flight simulation ....and quality modules such as the Viggen are the flagships that folks see in the youtube videos and elsewhere. We are in your corner having bought the module clearly, but I get a strong sense that you are in our, the community's, corner also with the regular updates and improvements over the while that you continue to provide. Thanks S!

Good news .... Thanks S!

Fix is expected today 23rd patch update. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=201915&page=5 S!

Thank to Nineline and Mr. Grey for bringing this to the community. There is so much hope and good will in the DCS community overall and these interactions help furnish this for the future. Hopefully there will be future opportunities to repeat this. S!

I agree with the above postings though I have one point I would like to add. Traditionally, ED's DCS provides high fidelity aircraft and a maps to fly from. This, as noted above spans multiple aircraft and does so in cooperation with multiple partners. This thread is an unofficial catalogue of products that make up DCS-world. It's quite something. That said, it should be noted that ED has been around now for while and amassed an impressive portfolio and things change. Case in point is the Normandy '44 WW2 product bundle, as it's name suggests, is very much time frame specific. It can be seen as a bit of a break from the traditional DCS way to some extent. It's name sets an expectation of aircraft, map, assets and environment that are representative of that point in WW2. Many in the DCS customer base, looking to migrate from older more dated flight sims, are anticipating a good future of DCS WW2 as a platform and the ball is very much in ED's court. Recently news concerning WW2 pending updates suggests ED may indeed recognise this and are working hard to that end. Others enjoy leveraging the available maps to fly perhaps Korean War era jets. The cold war aircraft provide another era to fly in and of course the NTTR map is the nod to modern fighter jet operations as well as just general flying. So there are certainly 'era's' represented in the available offering from ED & Partners which make up the DCS portfolio. Hope this helps. S!

I voted "Other" .... Avro Vulcan B.2. (Human flown) Mentioned in an earlier post also, bringing the Vulcan into the Virtual life of DCS ticks many boxes including ... - Provides something significantly different from existing rotar and fixed wing modules - For DCS multiplayer, it expands pilot roles and opportunity for more dynamic campaigns - It immortalises this warplane into the virtual world (I'm aware of FSX versions) S!

Hey SeaQuark, Just a note of thanks for running the server. Jumped on with some Sqn mates tonight in Sabre and had a great tussle with a Mig Driver (Teddy I think) which went his way :cry: I guess you've been asked before, I didn't read the thread, it's too long ... Is there any way to enable Tacview data export .... I'd have loved to debrief this fight a little. 39:55 onwards is the critical bit watch?v=2VX7zIYFpus

And two more cases from my group over the last couple of days, myself included. Flying DCS World 1 online. I will look to pulling log files during next occurrence and post back here. Absolutely love the module in general Belsimtek. Hope you can prioritise some time to give this module a review. S!

True for those who want to fly as a group and play out historical or semi historical scenarios. No negative comment to SP here .... there will be a constant stream of new players coming along to keep it alive .. just not much for many of the longer term players looking for dynamic campaign which are influenced by other players even if I don't want to actually fly PvP. SP game play is possible on a MP server ... not the other way around obviously... so of ED have set their stall out for SP in the main ...feels to me to be an opportunity missed to not even be willing to offer a longer term vision of MP. This is a really big point and I hope the apparent resistance expressed to changes to map are not so strict as to not revisit this specific issue with the hardcoded airfield placement. A huge effort put in clearly and a shame given how restrictive it now makes that area of the map from an historical campaign building point of view. I guess that hope that DCS WW2 MP would offer the next platform for the likes of a Storm of War server is shot .... which is quite a disappointment really. With so much going on .... Map unification, Damage model work, etc ... it may be flawed to expect any short term input from ED specifically concerning the points made here in this thread ... but then again, maybe they will offer some medium and longer term reaction. We can always hope I suppose .... just keep breathing

Going back to the OP .... I can but only agree with the points made in it. ED, this is a critically important topic for many in the community. It clearly effects all air frames and the experience lacks significantly in a WW2 Warbird environment as a result. In fairness, perhaps on a DF environment, it may be less critical ... but take a "Storm of War' esque scenario or a similar campaign settings and it's a bigger deal. That the specific air frame happens to be 109 that billows smoke yet continues to fly perfectly is irrelevant. That the human pilot continues to fly and stay in the fight even after being badly hit is even not the critical point. (albeit, surely, if badly hit and on fire, his time would be limited) It's the variability in the effect of damage from air frame to air frame that is the focus here and it's good to learn that this is a WIP project. I am looking forward to learning more.

Ping wise ... agree with the need to have a limit .... how about 300ms limit on trial and review again in a few weeks if still a problem .... we have lots of folks not as lucky to be living close to exchanges ...