firmek

You're missing a great part of DCS. There are a lot of really enaging and immersive SP campaigns. Some even allow to shape up the skills much better than flying MP - in example the Oilfield campaign for Mi-8. For the most part, the public MP is not even close to a SP DLC campaigns in terms of creating realistic scenarios. The issue with repating the message is that the original information can get easielly distorted. You don't have too look for an example too far. Some time ago someone from ED wrote on forum "we'll not give MiG-23 away" (in meaning to other dev company). If you'll look on the forum you'll find probably hundrets of posts of people clayming that ED has confirmed to be activelly working on MiG-23. I see your point. Especially after the release of 2.5 and new Caucasus map it's hard to find Normandy and even NTTR servers. I think however that the Persian Gulf map will get more attention, including a stable MP player base. The reasons are simple. First, people need some refresher from the Caucasus. While 2.5 brought improved look of the Caucasus giving it a second life it's still esentially the same map with the same topography. I mean how long can you play the airquaque betwen blue and red in the mountains? Second is that the Persian Gulf doesn't have a burden of being specialized as Normandy (WWII) or NTTR (training). It'll allow to setup way more scenarios without braking the immersion. The latest Wags stream showed some unique aspects of the map which at least made me much more interested in it then I initially was. 1. The map doesn't seem to be soo small as we thought. 2. The islands with airbases will be an interesting diversity. 3. There are some big unique ground targets like rafineries - which will create a lot of oportunities for interesting missions. Hope to see some more of relistic ground attack missions in MP than just "capture the airbase". 4. Hils at the straits coast will make for some cover but nowever close as good as the Caucasus mountains. Other than that the map seems to be generally flat which will make the technological advantage of modern airframes more aparent. 5. Based on above I hope there will be a chance to see more servers with period aligned airframes. Without possibility to use the terrain to hide, older units like MiG-21 and F-5 will have small chances to survie on the same map with F-15 and Su-27's. 6. With less terain masking possibilities helicopters life will also most probably get harder. 7. The map is more natural for carrier operations than Caucasus. I would see it a "to go" map for planes like F/A-18, F-14, AV-8.

Could you share the a link where ED said so? Not being provocative just trying to be factual.

Most of titles supporting DirectX 12 also support DirectX 12 and give a user possibility to choose which version to use. I don't see any reason why it would have to be different with DCS. They already support and will keep supporting DirectX 11, at least for quite some time. Anyway, while on the paper the DirectX 12 should give better performance the final results depend on the programmers using it. It's easy to find examples of games, even AAA budget ones running much better with DirectX 11 than DirectX 12.

Quite interesting info :thumbup:. Yeap, English is obviously not my native language :). The idea is just to have a menu command that would make the plane moving back in some magical way. By the “ground crew” I just meant the menu section to add such command to (as I guess there is no “flight deck crew” section as for today). If the plane is actually being pushed back by a crew or a tug wouldn’t necessarily have to be animated. Just leave it to the simmers imagination ;). Kind of like the "connect ground power" request where (aside of one module) DCS does not show any GPU being actually connected to the plane.

In order of priority: 1. Dedicated servers 2. Dynamic campaign engine 3. Any of Russian aircraft modules - MiG-29, MiG-23, Su-25, Su-24, Su-17/22, Su-15

Simply, from F-10 map ruler heading substract 6 to calculate value entered into the doppler system. Campaign brifings already have headings corrected by declination.

Maybe it sounded this way but I actually support the ED decision to the extent that there are always going to be some known issues to be worked on, even in the release version. It's a tradeoff between keeping everyone waiting longer or making the release even with issues being known. Obviously there could be always less bugs but I don't experience any major problems that would prevent me from enjoing the Open Beta version as it is. Actually even considering the issues like lack of cockpit lighting during night, 2.5. is still an absolute blast comparing to 1.5.8. People should learn to appreciate more what they have, especially that ED did an amazing job on 2.5 :thumbup:

Don't count on it. The only one that could be considered is the F-18 but it's still almost two months left before the deadline (May 31'st). If ED decided to publish the release version we can only assume that the problems left are not considered a show stoppers or/and that they'll take substantial time to fix.

A simple solution would be the best. No need for a towing simulator. Just a simple F8 ground crew option with push back commands like: push back 1m, 2m, 5m, 10m, ..., "untill stop" and "stop" would work.

After Sunday stream the chances for F-16 are much higher. While similar to F-18 the F-16 is serving in many air forces around the world which is a good reason to believe that it is the module which has the chance to beat the F-18 in terms of sales. As for Russian aircraft the only indication at the moment is the "hint" related to MiG-23 where someone from ED wrote that they are not going to give it to any other developer. While we're speculating anyway let's at least try to keep the discussion to the leaked hints rather than creating yet another wish thread ;)

Ehmmm.... that would be the Tornado :D Being fully serious, I would hope for... no module. Instead, more AI units, potentially a dynamic campaign engine. Give more breathing air for already existing aircrafts. Evolve DCS from modules to air combat environment simulator.

+1. From pure technical design perspective i7 is obviously better than i5. But unless the budget is unlimited - which it's safe to assume in most of the cases it's isn't, the $/FPS gain between i5 and i7 is borderline inefective. In other words we spend a lot just to get a few more frames pers second. From the overall system perspective it's better to invest in a better GPU and SSD drive as those bring better improvement per money spent.

If I understand your question correctly - no hard feelings, it’s a bit cryptic :) - it’s the zoomed out and un-zoomed one. Snap views define the default FOV, the one that you get when hitting restore default view shortcut (can't recall but I think it's Num Enter?). Max FOV (how for it zooms out) is stored in the view.lua or in the server.lua in user folder. The trick with max FOV is that it can be set to the same value as default FOV for two benefits - no zoom out at start, if slider is assigned to the zoom it's all travel space is dedicated to zoom in, making it more precise.

Skate, your answer is related to the snap views which allow to set the head position in cockpit and a default FOV. Is the view configuration, including max and min FOV defined in server.lua, stored in user folder still working? I didn't observe a problem but I didn't had time to check with all of the modules.

I'm quite puzzled. I tried Harrier, Mirage, Viggen, F-5, Mi-8 and the settings from Server.lua stored in user folder did work. I'm running the latest 2.5 open beta. Maybe I could get the point when checking the original view files?

I would assume companies have flexibility to define their own WBS and do a things in different order.

What do you mean? That since the latest version the view config stored in user folder works only with Harrier?

Get i5 model with a highest clock rate. Add the monday saved from i7 to SSD or better GPU.

I know it's not why you're refering to this point but there is a possibility to progress to another (next or any) mission from the campaign by editing the user log lua file. So, if you're stuck with a campaign mission for whatever the reason, there is a workaround.

It's not that long since the Harrier initial release. By now the community should have figgured out that substantical module progress since EA should be counted in years rather than weeks or months. Nothing particlarry wrong, at least untill now. There are a two problems however: 1. The lack of communication doesn't help at all. It actually creates a concern as the devs turned from very open to silent. Having to brag for an whats included/planned updates list is a bs. 2. The module was IMO rushed into release way too early, with a hude list of big functionalities missing. In other words what many people expected to get: What we got for the moment: It can be always said that it's better to enjoy what we have rather than waiting for the updates but consider that the situation in DCS has changed. There are many other modules that can be enjoyed in the mean time. I got mist of modules on EA but as I said, Harrier seems to be one of just a few rushed into release way too early. Which can be also a leasson learned - make sure to check how much feature complete the module will be on the release. To be fair however, this hasn't been clearly communicated in case of Harrier prior the release.

To those that are asking for this feature, how you even know that the guy that you just lost a dogfight with did had the trees off and this setting did actually helped him? That's the only option that would make any sense. Min setting would at least not affect those that want to fly with a high graphics settings. Maybe even the option is not needed - just to make the things simpler for everyone and include a default, minimum limit in DCS.

Thanks for posting this. We have a date. Though we're still in winter.... . 2.5 months in front of us. The experience also shows that if ED communicates a date, they'll release at last possible moment. Assuming Wed/Fri release cycle - 25.05 or 30.05.

Dont assume this. Assume the default view will be.... the default view :) Ok, i.e.: - default FOV: 90 - max FOV: 160 (aka zoom out) - min FOV: 40 (aka zoom in) The mid point is about 100, which is not a default FOV. But, anyone can fix it already by setting max/min so that mid = default. Also to get rid the zoom out - set the max = default. It works already.

That's fully correct. A short exposure time during a sunny day will reduce depth of reflective objects. Contrary, a long exposure will increase it. Similar variable is the angle from which the photo is taken from, the smaller the angle the more reflective the surface will seem. It’s quite ironic as in a sunny days a shiny surfaces may not show on a photo so much depth due to a short exposure time. In other words, just take a camera, set a long exposure time and make the photo as much parallel to the surface and the result can be a mirror like surface, much more reflective than it may seem in reality: The wings seem more reflective as they are pictured from a low angle while the main airframe is shoot almost perpendiculary.

This is not really correct. Yes, Quadro are targetted towards different market but they work perfectly fine with the games. Just the dolar per FPS is not that impressive. The OP problem is that his card is K4000 - kepler based, like GeForce 600 series. Seems to be comparable with GeForce 650-660. Its just an old card. The only one issue with Quadro cards, especially mobile version installed in the laptops is that quite often they come with a non NVidia drivers. Just make sure to use a latest NVidia drivers and Quadro should work fine with games.