firmek

But this really doesn't prove anything, especially as you said it had been many years ago. We don't even know if the McDonnell Douglas was contacted to give their ok. What I was referring to is that I can't imagine that the main criteria if or not to start the project is if it's possible to google the documentation for the real plane. Maybe just in the recognition phase in order to understand potential complexity but later on you have to contact the manufacturer in order to get an ok. Once you get it the materials are no longer a problem since you get them from the first hand. In opposite case, lets assume it's a plane like F-5 for which you can easily get a complete pilot manual. Do you believe it's enough to make it? I'm quite sure that if Northrop Grumman would not agree you could forget about doing one. Even if you make one and name it "EF-Five". Just because I think it's a good analogy - I like to watch the National Geographic Air Crash Investigation Series, where a number of episodes show cases of plane crashes due to a "confirmation bias". Quite often there seems to be generally the same pattern across the "wish" or "are they making it" threads on the forum where there is no clear confirmation that the module is started or even just planned while all hard facts are more or less ignored or even strongly fought with. I guess people just want to believe and don’t like those that are trying to be realistic. The only one way to solve the question is a 3'rd party representative making an official statement that they are planning/making a module and actually had secured their way moving forward.

I don't think that the availability of the materials is the main problem. With such a modern airframe as F-15E with many classified systems the fist issue is being allowed to make one. Some another examples: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3275729&postcount=1

It must be not an easy time for M3 after the split. Frankly speaking, it would be great to just hear that they're doing fine.

Well, you're not exactly correct on this one. I would say all other planes are like that. When you're in cockpit, in reality you're not in the same 3D model as you see when watching the plane in outside view. For performance reasons, it’s just a truncated model, containing only the parts that can be seen when you're sitting strapped-in. There is no need to send undercarriage or the bottom of plane fuselage to the GPU for rendering as you're never going to see them. Aside of that, the real problem is not this part not being visible but the fact that you can actually stick your head soo much out of the cockpit during the flight.

You've almost got it wright. You need to apply the Banach fixed-point theorem to arrive to a fixed release date. Once you do it, the result is: 2 weeks from now + sqrt( (it's released when it's released)^2) - sqrt(x^2) just to avoid a miscalculation when it had been already released ;)

Well, without going into many details... don't get your hopes too high;)

To be more specific, manual says to use the -3º only with non-empty fuel tank. Otherwise neutral pitch trim. Trim is one of those things that probably can be left to the pilot discretion. However, following the manual recomendation works well for me.

??? The bottom one is current 1.5 I have a feeling it's closer than we think. Maybe a supprise togethwer with the Harrier release ;)

The question is if you're a fan of this aircraft - and since you're asking if to get it, I assume that probably not so much. Options that you have: 1. Get it now, "save" 20$. In result you get it discounted and you get it now. On the negative side be prepared that it's not completed, there are bugs including some obvious and extreamly frustrating as well the manual is not even close to be completed or even can be misleading in some places. 2. Get it later, possibly waiting for a sale. You can save more than 20$ and the module will be a bit more mature. At least the first day, most frustrating bugs should be gone. On negative side you'll have to wait and dont know exactly when the module will come on sales (though its not a question if but when) 3. Get it when it's released. In theory bugs should be gone. It's only a theory though as there always are going to be some bugs. Comparing to the early access release the module should be generally complete, including the manual and even possibly additional content like training missions, single player misssions and campaign. You'll save yourself some frustration from running into the problems or even the back and forth functionality changes in how the things work. On the negative side you'll need to wait probably 2 years (or even more - check Mirage) during which you could have enjoyed the plane. If I can suggest something, in DCS the option no. 3 is just unrealistic. Pick 1 or 2 depending on the developer history of how much feature complete and how the development progress looked like.

I wouldn't overestimate the helicopter aspect of Harrier. It's a fixed wing aircraft after all. Most of the time, I would say 95% of flight it'll be flown like a normal jet. I see it more as a faster and less armed version of A-10C as it's a CAS platform. That doesn't change the fact that the remaining 5% of time spent on hovering or doing a short TO/landing will be a blast and the experience from helicopters will come handy for it. I expect controling the Harrier when flying in/out of ground effect or in/out of "translational lift" similar to some extend to a helicopter.

I'm worried that in MP but not only this map will be like a knife fight in a phone booth. Another point is that the map is aimed for carier operations but with the size it'll be obvious where the carier is, which won't make perspectives for its life expectency to bright. Don't get me wrong, the screenshots show the map looking just amazing and it'll be a day one buy for me but the relative small size is an unused potential.

I've been checking the DCS, A-10C and Viggen manual but I couldn't find how does this command actually work. 1. Does the mission has to be setup in a way that target's are specificly designaged - for instance by "bombing" or "attack map object" task? 2. When the order is submited, will the AI just go imediatelly after the target ignoring the flight plan or will follow it? For instance, the flight is flying towards WP 2 while WP 4 contains the bombing task. If the order is issued the AI will fly WP2->WP-3->WP4 and attack the target or just direclty towads the target? 3. Assuming that the task is "bombing" will the AI follow direction, altitude and the "group bombing" setting? Is there any way to make the AI wingmen to bomb the target together with the pilot (for instance flying in close formation or trail)

The most probable date is 24th as its the last Friday of the month. Will it be exactly 24th we'll have to see but I would not expect the release sooner. This gives still some time to go through 700 pages NATOPS manual :D

Frankly speaking it would be rather fair to expect that such list is communicated by the developer or even better included in the module description in the ED shop. Just to set clearly the expectations on what's included and what is still to come. Asking to dig through 120 pages document to find out what is missing is probably not the best way ;) Anyway, I've extracted from document the list of currently missing and to be added in the future features: Ground Power Control Voice warnings (Betty?) HUD Symbology Brightness, FLIR Video Controls, MPCD display swap UFC modes: IFF, WPN (Weapons), WOF (Waypoint overfly), BCN (Radar beacon), ALT (Altimeter), EM CON (Emission Control), TMR (Timer), TOO (Target-Of-Opportunity) - available 5 out of 13 Ability to create and modify flight plan Radios - using only simple coms! Emission control (all radio devices silence) mode NAVFLIR cool down time HUD FLIR video image settings (brightness, contrast) NAVFLIR Hotspot Detector Sidewinder Expanded Acquisition Mode (SEAM) LOFT Delivery Mode Expendables (countermeassures?) dispensing programming + MANUAL maybe some day on the same level with other DCS modules ;) That's one hefty list. Before you beat me with the "it's an Alpha" stick look on my list of modules (which most of them I've got in early access if not on a day one) but I have to admit that I have a doubt that there are different Alpha's in DCS - Alphas and Alpha Alphas, if you know what I mean ;) Not that I'm not getting the Harrier, sure I do, it's rather the question I need to think about is if when and if now is a good moment.

It's not such a bad idea. It would be an interesting experience to have for instance a few MP servers where if your virtual pilot dies, you have to pay some set ammount - for instance 20 EUR. The money could go for some noble purpose instead of increasing EDs margin. On the discussion how difficult landing Harrier will be. We all have to wait (probably 3 weeks ) to find out. The gut feeling tells me that probably not as much difficult as landing Spit, Huey or Hip ;)

What warries me more is that we have "another level" of abstraction in FM related discussion on the forum - which is questioning the FM before the module got even releasesd :D

With upcomming Harrier release I was searching for a great documentary about the history of VTOL planes, which I remember watching many years agon on the "Planete" channel. I've found it finally, the series is called "vertical" (though for some reason the "veri-jet" name stuck in my mind) and contains six, ~50 min. episodes. Here is the link: Unfortunatelly it's only in French. If anyone finds a version with English translation or at least subtitles please share it.

End of November means that the only possible date is Friday 24'rth. Following week is December already and the previous one is 17'th which is middle of the month.

If what you can see is close to screenshoot attached by Art-J then your settings are fine. I'll never be perfect, its just how the 3D graphics work.

Go to nvidia control panel, "menage 3D settings" and "Program settings" tab. Select "Digital combat simulator: Black shark (dcs.exe)". Try this settings: Ambient Occlusion: Not supported for this application (default) Anisotropic filtering: Application-controlled (set 16x in-game graphics setting) Antialiasing - FXAA: Off Antialiasing - Gamma correction: Off Antialiasing - Mode: Application-controlled (set 2x in game if using PBR in DCS 2.1, otherwise 4x or 8x for HDR in 2.1 or 1.5) Antialiasing - Setting: Use global setting (Application-controlled) Antialiasing - Transparency: Off CUDA - GPUs: Use global setting (All) Maximum pre-rendered frames: 2 - this setting has a substantial impact on how smooth and responsive the game feels. Higher value - less stutter but can cause a higher input lag. 1 will give a feeling of immediate, no delay from TIR (or mouse) but can introduce a micro-stutter. Try 1 first, it you don't like it and the game stutters too much increase to 2. 3 was too much input lag for me. Monitor Technology: set Fixed-Refresh. Unfortunately with Free-Sync monitor you should have got an AMD card. Frankly speaking now you should reconsider changing the card or monitor to have compatible adaptive sync technologies. Multi-Frame Sampled AA (MFAA): (default) Use global setting Open GL rendering GPU: (default) Use global setting (not applicable for DCS) Power management mode: With older GPUs i did set it to Prefer Maximum Performance. Now for 1070 I use the Optimal power setting which seems to be just fine. Preferred refresh rate: Highest available Shader Cache: (default) Use global setting (on) Texture filtering - Anisotropic sample optimization: Off Texture filtering - Negative LOD bias: Allow (not applicable for DCS since it's not OpenGL based) Texture filtering - Quality: Quality or High Quality Texture filtering - Trilinear optimization: Off. Above settings will heavily improve the quality of the texture filtering which in DCS will be mostly noticeable buy a sharper, much less blurry runway and runway paintings (especially in further distance) Threaded optimization: Off. You can experiment with it but my observation is that it decreases stuttering and input lag. In theory On should be a better setting for newer titles that support multi-threading but in reality that's not always the case and better results are with the option set to Off. Triple buffering: Off - unless you're running V-sync (which is a really bad idea IMO). Vertical sync: Off. And off in game. Do yourself a favor and don't turn it on. It's a really old approach to solve the screen tearing which has much more drawbacks than benefits. Virtual reality pre-rendered frames: no clue, couldn't care less about VR. Other ideas: do a clean setup of drivers from N-Vidia, make sure to "left Alt + Enter" after being in cockpit. Use a display port cable instead of HDMI. I wouldn't cap the frames though. In DCS graphics options, disable the AI traffic, use "flat shadows".

Fully agree. Would be good to understand what kind of rationale was behind this specific selection. Anyway F-105 all the way ;) and maybe pair it up with F-100. Together with other planes like MiG-21 and F-5 which we already have this would be a great starting point to fill in the Vietnam(ish) era. Aside of that Su-15, Su-17/22 though wouldn't mid Su-5. As for 104 - I know it's not related to the plane itself but every time I think about it the first think that comes to my mind is the wide scale lockheed bribery, without which the plane wouldn't be most probably serviced in so many countries. This may be a strange rationale but for some reason this part of the history of 104 and overall reputation of problematic plane pulls me away from wanting to buy it as a module.

It seems the MiG-23 story starts to have a life of it's own :) What had happened is "only" that RAZBAM said that they had to cancel the project and moved on working on MiG-19. The reasons had not been stated (using NDA argument as a smoke cover) but we can suspect that it's still on the roadmap for DCS just being done by someone else - be it other 3'rd party or ED themself.

As mentioned above. For best results, 1. Use 16x Anisotropic filtering setting in game. 2. Set in NVidia control panel. Texture Filtering - Anisotropic Sample Optimization: Off Texture Filtering - Quality: High Quality Texture Filtering - Trilinear Optimization: Off For modern GPU's this should have close to none performance impact while significanlty improving overall texture filtering quality. The "Texture Filtering - Negative LOD Bias" setting works only with OpenGL - which is not DCS case.

I've been trying to setup a flight frequency from a 225.00-399.95 range - which mission editor automatically assigns to "special 1" channel. It doesn't work however as the frequency number is turning red, preventing the mission from saving. Frequencies within VHF 103.00 - 155-975 range can be assigned without any problem, as well frequency from 225.00-399.95 range can be set for special 2 and 4. Am I doing something wrong or is it a bug?

That was supposed to be 2017 (awsome year for DCS) ;) IIR the last release we had was Viggen in January - shortly after Spit in December and a long brake so far. Harrier, Tomcat and Hornet will keep everyone busy for a long time but on the other hand I don't think we'll see any module shortly after them. Most probably we'll have to wait another year at least - my bet would for a module from Belsimtek.