firmek

Well if you want a good audio, when it comes to headphones or speakers dont go for computer hardware manufacturers like Logitech for instance. Second, get a good sound card like Sound BlasterX AE-5 or ZXR.

Where there any news regarding further Harrier variants? I might have missed them.

I'm with Boris. It's great that we're getting another map but at the same time we'll again end up with a fantasy world play ground rather than a compleate, comprehensive scenario simulation. How we can hope for a good show if all of the main actors: Sea Harrier, Super Etendards, Mirage III are missing. That's the issue with DCS. We get a great modules but are not able to achieve a theater simualtion. Think how much a better fit for current and future DCS a Norwegian-Barents sea map would be instead of the Falklands. As for community modules. C'mon, they are not the core od DCS nor should be a driving criteria for deciding which map should be implemented.

Congratulations to RAZBAM! It's one of the most anticipated planes in DCS. Instant buy for me and I'm sure many others as soon as it goes on pre-order. It also means that ED and Belsimtek must have their hands full otherwise I don't think they would let away such an icon. Heatblur must also have something big on the horizon after F-14. As for the schedule... I wouldn't however expect it ealier than 2'nd half of 2019. Which is fine with me, more time to get better with Harrier. Well, we had heard about "dedicated development teams" and how different parts of the modules can be completed independently on many various different occasions. Reality proved otherwise so let me and probably others remain so to say "sceptical". At least we'll get a pleasant surprise ;)

This is just amazing. I'm actually just now going through NAVAIR 00-80T-111 and was thinking how great it would to have FCLP area in DCS. Any chance we could get an LHA auxiliary landing field for Harrier pilots :D. Pretty please :thumbup: Google maps. Article

Untill now the only supprise is that after 10 days there is still no news.

Simple, whenever a mouse cursor is over a kneeboard allow to switch pages back/forth with a mouse wheel scroll.

If I would be buying the MiG-21 then maybe but as an owner of the module I certainly don't have to agree and accept negative changes. 1. The cockpit glass used to be in much better shape. At least when I bought it. 2. Fore-mostly as a DCS customer I expect some standard level of quality from implementation of modules. As far the canopy and visibility is concerned all of the modules except the MiG-21 provide the same experience. If MiG-21 developers insist on impacting core game-play features such as visibility I would vote for a post or petition to bring this problem to ED attention. Anyway, its not even the dirt which is the biggest problem. The crazy level of sun reflections are. Depending on the viewing and sun angle the glass looks like wet sanded with a 4000 grit paper. Just look how bit is the corona effect on first screenshot. The first two pictures - MiG-21 and F-5 taken at the same time of a day, same spot and same heading.

This is taking so much time I'm starting to believe:

I had been playing with the tankers recently and did get a really different and unconsistent results. The mission included two KC-130 and one S-3B. The issues were: 1. Unable to communicate with one of the KC-130. It just does not respond to radio comms. Others two are fine. I'm sure it's not a user problem - I can communicate with other tankers. 2. TACAN does not work with S-3B. 3. I've seen issues that although TACAN was setup with "Y" band I had to use "X" band in Harrier to get the signal. In other words TACAN Y75 - plane X75 was required to make it work. 4. In the same mission, in Harrier is able to receive a range and bearing to the KC-130 with an activated TACAN while Mirage shows only the bearing. I really got confused with all those issues. Sorry if those seem a noob questions but just to understand how to use the TACAN. Should the TACAN receiver be setup to T/R or A/A mode. I assume the A/A mode would require 63 channel separation in order to work correctly and would provide distance only.

Fully agree and also keeping fingers crossed for C-130. Developing one seems to have only onportunities without any drawbacks. It'll open DCS for wider public, a lot of current DCS community would welcome it with open hands plus it'll create new world of oportunities for mission designers. Actually not only. You may not be interested in even getting or flying one but still you'll benefit from it as the overall environment gets more interesting. Just to use the example of trainers in BF - not everyone has them, some actually dont want them but all benefit from having more complex environment to fly in.

You do realize its a video game not a full time job? Assuming 2000 working hours as an avarage per year you'll reach Lt Col in 9,6 months and Col in 19 months - assuming playing conctantly 8 hours per day, 5 days a week, no cigarate or lunch breaks included :P. Reaching 1000 hours in a single video game title is a lot. I mean really a lot.

+1 A few "usability" questions. In respect of how it's done with the real systems and delta to current implementation: 1. Is it possible to slave the TGP to other sensors - INS/DMT/IRMAV (in the same way as DMT slews to designaged wpt)? 2. Is there a HOTAS "shortcut" to switch to TGP page? I could sweare I had read about it in the NATOPS manual but can't find it right now 3. What does the SLAVE mode exactly do? Does it slave the DMT to the TGP? 4. How to reset the TGP position - the NWS button does not seem to do it properly. Not TPG related but I think I also read that the SSS Left cycles between the map center/decenter and the EW page. This was somewere in the EW chapter. Can't find it though.... I'll edit the post if I do.

Thank you for the poll. It's going to be really interesting to see the results. For me at least there is really no brainer - Open Beta since years now. Simply due to: - getting the modules on a release date - getting updates as soon as possible - no major - show stoppers issues through many years of running OB

It's my childhoot movie. I wanted to go to military flight academy after watching it :D As for the 2n'd part. Now I'm more grow up and see one big issue with this movie - Tom Cruise. The only way it could get worse is Ben Affleck.

So, it's a third day already. Can we get the news. Please?

I think its just a matter of RU icons enabled instead of NATO ones. They are much better for mission editing.

They are designed but I think is not questionable that no-one can guarantee they will. All devices especially a bombs which are designed to be mass produced with a lowest cost will miss-function. The rest is a simple probability theory math - 1 CBU = hundreds of bomblets = hundreds times higher chance of an uploaded device than a single iron bomb. Anyway, we're just theorizing on something that is well documented real problem (unfortunately).

;) I know there is a ruler. The point is about making it stay and still being able to place/re-arange objects using it as a line reference.

I'm with you. We owe ED a big beer for making this change :thumbsup:. I don't know if people realize how big of a thing this update is. Setting up sites that took hours will take minutes now. No more of endless trial and error approach, placing objects and running the mission just to see they overlap. No excuses for lousy placed objects in MP missions. I wasn't so much happy the first time I flew the Hornet :D. Again amazing! The only one thing that I could ask is a kind of a ruler - some drawing tools for instance a line or a grid that would make spacing the objects easier.

Multiengine transport would be a game changer for DCS. Thinking C-130 for instance and a potential to develop also specialized version - tanker, gunship.... As for GR4... I love the plane so much that I hope ED or Headblur is going to make one. There had been a message on the forum that ED wouldn't give it to other devs. Nothing else by the way - specificly no confirmation that anyone is actually working on it. Let's see. That would open a can of worms inside of a pandora box. That would be actually the best thing happening. RAZBAM has such many things on their roadmap that whatever new they'll annonce we'll not be ableto to fly probably at least in next 2 years.

A bomb is potentially one unexploaded bomb. A single cluster bomb is potentially houndrets of unexploaded bomblets. Some of cluster bombs were actually designed to leave the unexploaded charges if the submunition would not find an target. This was common for the anti airfield weapons which goal was not only to destroy the infrastructure but additionally mine it, making repairs much more difficult and lengty. On top of that the sub-munision had a much hihger miss-fire rate than the standard bombs. Generally cluster bombs create a big humanitarian problem as they leave many active, unexploaded charges killing or disabling civilians many years after the conflict.

??? During gulf war Mk-20 was a favorite weapon of US Marines. They dropped around 16000 of Mk-20's which accounted for almost 60% of all Mk-20 dropped by all of US air forces. The plane used to deploy the weapon was obviously Harrier which we have in DCS. For some reason the yt time stamp does not work. At 28:30 mark:

Valid point. Unless there are components that would be bottlenecking others -> GPU then SSD then CPU then RAM I didn't see much of an improvement after updating from 16 to 32 GB. At least not in respect of FPS gain - which obviously could be expected. If only then maybe improvement in stability and reduced macro stutter. The former most probably due to an increased pre-load radius. I'm not running a really big missions though. As for SSD it does marveles to DCS startup time, mission loading and even scenery loading times while in flight.