firmek

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.

Yeap. Nott everything seems to be working/overwriting the modules view.lua settings. Some like the CameraViewAngleLimits (FOV) is still working fine.

Yeap, I guess the 12GB of the update is mainly due to the Normandy and WWII assets pack.

Assuming it means that it's possible to build a template only from a static objects only: Big thanks ED!!! :beer::beer::beer: This will save a lot of time for mission creators. What happened to It's not mentioned in any further updates as a known issue but at least so far it hasn't been fixed. Not a game breaker but at the same time really annoying.

Simply not true. Havent had any issues with the map. Quite contrary I generally get better FPS on PG than on the other maps. Even comparing center of Vegass on NTTR and Dubai which obviously has much more objects the performance is better.

Just to make sure. With the old StarForce system where the licence key is needed wouldn't it just "eat" an activation? With the new on-line system I would assume it should be even less of an problem since the licence is bound to the account used to log-in. If I'm correct the Persian Gulf is already using it. Or my assumptions are wrong? Anyway as for the laptop I guess a DX11/12 compatible GPU would be required.

Well, on the other hand this would mean that we have to wait for the training missions till the Harrier is prety much out of OB, which we can safelly assume will be at least a year from now. The easier, step by step learning curve was always an argument for eraly access modules. In reality everyone is doing a trainings already and learning new features as they are being added. Because however the module is incompleate and it's not possible to experience it fully it's easy to learn things in a wrong way. For that reason having the training missions is even more important. Another aspect is that at the moment peple new to the plane are left for the most part with the youtube videos. Obviously there are a good ones but also some for which the flow is mostly "lets flip those switches up". Yes there are the NATOPS manuals but they are not always so easy to understand. In reality you're not left with a manual to "go figure it out yourself" but there are instructors that are teaching the pilots. That's why having training missions would help a lot even If some steps have to be added later due to the missing functionality. Anyway, just a few cents from myside. I'm actually now in process of learning the Harrier as I waited since the release till the module matures more and have to admit that a training missions would save a lot of time and confusion. So far for instance I'm not able to figure out how exactly the VTOL, running VTOL, STOL and convensional take off should be executed. The checklist are not that clear at all and for the most part look the same.

Option would be a perfect solution. Just like the Mi-8 where its possible to select the same cockpit but with clean or dirty windows :thumbup:

Thanks. Appreciated! Any background on that location? https://www.google.com/maps/@23.9356206,54.5579099,7209m/data=!3m1!1e3

No it isn't. 50$ is a steal. It's worth much more than that. Why? 1. The level of detail is amazing. Number of custom buildings, size of the cities All of the small bits of pieces that make the map feel authentic. Just can't imagine the effort put into the map. 2. With the hudge cities like Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Bandar Abbas the performance is the best from all of current maps. And that’s already on the first release. 3. The region - Persian Gulf, the strait itself and its history is extremely interesting. The map can serve as a base for many immersive scenarios. 4. It has a good balance of ground and sea. Carrier groups will be right at home in PG map while they don't seem to fit the Black Sea map so well. If you're a Navy aviation fan this map is a must. 5. The map is absolutely not that small as most (including myself) used to think. Quite contrary, it’s quite big. As an example, I took off from Al Dhafra in M-2000C with an external fuel tank. Did a sightseeing tour along the shore line with a brake for a short fight with F-5. That was enough to arrive with almost a dry tanks in Khasab. So not even crossing the strait! On Iranian side the Lar base makes for quite a long flight to the coast. 6. Its only going to get better as the map is confirmed to be extended. Not that great things: 1. The release of PG map was too close to the F/A-18 which obviously overshadowed the release of the map. 2. Units needs an update. For instance there are almost no UAE units at the moment available in the mission editor. Most of the static objects are tailored towards Caucasus. So creating a ground bunker results in a patch of grass in the middle of the desert. This is being worked on however as I understand. 3. Some repetitive patterns in the secondary – sub-urban structures. In other words there are sections that look like copy/paste. I assume it’s going to be addressed with future updates. 4. Not so much content - which is obvious as the map just got released. There are however already quite many MP servers. When it comes for SP, at the moment the mission editor and your imaginaiton is your best friend ;)

There must be some. UAE and Iran AF must practice somewhere. I wasn't able to find any information though. Hints, comments appreciated.

F/A-18 added. Server.lua SnapViews.lua

Give it a while. Seems ED's infrastructure has a hard time. Even the forum is bearly alive. It's the first time I'm getting time outs while trying to open forum pages.

https://publicintelligence.net/u-s-navy-f-18-natops-flight-manuals/

And it's perfectly reasonable to have it modeled accordingly. The question though is not about keeping a weapons that it can't use. The question is if from technical stand point the weapon and aircraft systems are compatible and tested. If yes we should not rule it out just because the specific configuration hasn't been used in combat.

No issues. PG about being absolutelly great is really well optimized. Probably the most smoohtly running map at the moment. Some few ideas: 1. As a rule with every major release start with a fresh DCS.openbeta folder. Just rename the old one and start DCS - it will create a new fresh settings folder. Setup graphics and other options in game. Finally move those of the files you need from the old folder - like the input configurations. 2. Check that you're not running SSAA antyaliasing as it's extreamly reasource heavy.

I had also used the SA-10 as an replacement for SA-5. I'll be glad to check your mission. The Sa-2 is in development. Not sure about Sa-5 though. Edit: By the way, there are some issues in my template. Particullary SA-10 is missing the command center which renders it inoperable. I'll post an updated mission today evening.

Guys but sorry, what you're trying to achieve with this post? The servers in DCS are purelly community managed. There are no ED official servers. Unless some hudge disaster happens (which is really seldom) server admins choose the Open Beta. Its obvious why - most people are running the Open Beta. Or in other words, admins go after the demand as it's clear they want to have their servers populated. So, maybe instead of trying to change something that is regulating itself in a natural way (kind like in democracy) maybe you should adjust and change to OB instead of fighting the current. It really seams that almost everyone is running OB. For sure if OB would be soo bad it wouldn't be this way. I'm sure 99% of people running the OB are not programers but regular folks having a job, families and way much less time to play DCS they would wish to have (which includes 0 time for tinkering with the thing). Or, I'm sure 99% of pople running stable would not notice running OB if the "OB" label would be taken out of it.

Yeap. Current countries DB needs a lot of adjustments. Obviously first to make the PG countries units correct but not only - also in general. One great example is the S-300 which for Iran lacks the command center. In result it's not possible to setup a working SAM site. UAE having basically no units is the most burning issue.