firmek

It used to be like that with Nevada. It got fixed with time. I suspect it's a matter of a fine-tunning process and the roofs collision boxes will get adjusted with time.

I also don't care :beer: Actually your point does not make too much sense either. I spent 39.99$ for the map without receiving any bonus points. Fine. Now the map is 49.99$ with 10.00$ bonus points. I still have 10 real $ in my pocket - rather than exchaning real 10$ for a virtual 10$ bonus that I'll never use. I have already accumulated so many bonus points I could buy two modules - which (buying a module for bonus points) is not possible. Not sure what you're trying to achieve by starting this thread....

Guys but Belsimtek did clearly communicate that they are busy with the Hornet project and only after the release of it (and I assume hyper-care) we should expect some further information on F-4 and Hind. That's open, fair and absolutelly clear communication. Not sure what you expect more in the mean time as per today the Hornet hasn't been released yet. Seems communicating the things as they are isn't sufficient and community expects some kind of patting while devs are busy with other projects?

General functionality of filtering specific tasks in the mission editor makes sense but the follow task should really be allowed between enemy coalitions. Just think about any air-policing missions.

I don't mind and actully like the MiG-21 cockpit but having a clean version as an build-in option would be welcomed. There is however a valid point about the canopy glass which at least used to be much more "dirty" than in other planes. There is really no need to start the discussion if it's realistic or not but just consider that since every other plane had much brighter and cleaner canopy the MiG-21 was putting it's pilots in disadvantage making spotting much more difficult. I'm sure however that devs have a lot of other priorities to work on.

Yeap, its not a kind of campaign that you would like to fly when being tired after a really hard day in work. It really requires staying focused and paying attention to what's going on. Nevertheless its a great thing for anyone interested in learning more about real procedures and tactics. Esentially different than the training missions which for the most part teach the order in which to flip the switches. Good for you :thumbup:. I'm stuck on the first nav point which I guess it's a SP (Start Point). I'm confused if I should fly a given course as the briefing says or do a "U" turn as drawn on the kneeboard page. The bottom line is that this campaign would really benefit from additional documentation. Yeap, keeping the flight altitude is a hard work. I'm thinking about adding some curves at least to the pitch channel. Otherwise almost full attention goes into watching altimeter and VVI with not much of "processing power" left for actually navigating. Well, be prepared for a "supprise" if you wan't an mechanical, automatic one ;)

I wouldn't assume that in case of AAA titles like Bf1. To get back on topic. Just watched the latest hornet video on ED channel... 5 times in a row. I'm speechless.... Amazing work :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Hold your horses. Knowing this forum, in 6 moths from now we'll read that: "ED has officially confirmed to be working on dynamic campaign, multi CPU cores and SLI support".

C'mon.... release the F/A-18 already :smilewink: There are soo many youtubers having access to it that it starts to be painfull watching all those videos and not being able to fly it :cry:

Noone had ever said anything about Linux support as also support for vulcan does not make DCS able to run on Linux. [Edit] On negative side of vulcan. Think for a while about an effort which had been done by ED to re-unify the code streams. It took years untill 2.5 arrived. With Vulcan they'll open the same patch again - 2 code streams, splitting the dev effort on supporting current DX11 and creating a new Vulcan engine. The fact is also that there is no guarantee that we will actually benefit from Vulcan. As an example look on some other titles that are both DX11 and DX12 and provide zero (if not negative) performance boost when switching to DX12.

You're not supposed to level. Just keep taking off with 10° pitch up. Level when at 200 meters AGL and 350 KIAS. During the take off: - at 15 m and IAS > 200 km/h rise the landing gear. - at 50-70 m and IAS > 250 retract the flaps. The briefing doesn't say it's a crosswind turn. It only refers to it as a "first turn". It's really a singe continues 180 deg turn at 45 bank through the crosswind to the downwind. If performed this way - single 180 deg, 45 deg bank turn until leveling at heading ~219 deg, the instructor will not complain. If you try to turn on the RSBN system the instructor will order you to shut it off commenting that it's a visual flight :). Nice touch from the mission designers. There are two references to the RMI setting. First is setting it to 39 deg which is the runway heading. Obviously this is the takeoff and landing heading attitude as also the opposite direction can be used to determine the moment to exit from the 180 deg turn to downwind. Another reference is when turning to the base - which is not a single 180 deg turn but a sequence of two turns where first one is ~120 deg one. The instructor says to finish the first turn when the ADI/RMI shows 60 deg more than the runway heading (39+60 = 99). Then when the runway visually is at ~15 deg, execute second turn which is the turn to the final. Extend the flaps to landing position at exit. Yeap, I guess the triggers are misbehaving a bit. I got that message basically every time the pattern had to be repeated due to pilot mistakes but its strange to get that message after the landing. Anyway there is a clear message if the pattern was done accurately and the mission is passed.

Start with learning some basic aerobatics and learn minimum speeds to perform them. Then move to BFM. Once you feel comfortable with controlling the aircraft set up some 1 vs 1 engagements. You can practice different scenarios - head-on start, starting at 6 with higher speed and practice avoiding overshoots, etc.. Pick comparable planes - like MiG-15 vs Sabre.

+1 :thumbup:. Just to clarify for all potentially interested in the campaign. If English is selected, all of the instructor dialogs, both audio and subtitles are in English. What is in Russian is the ATC communication - which is a standard DCS core ATC communication. This is due to the fact that the player is flying in Russian AF - which I assume is authors decision. It actually perfectly makes sense and adds a lot to the immersion. L-39 is an east block trainer. Plus Majkop is actually a base hosting training regiments (as far as I was able to find): - 709th Training Aviation Regiment (united with 761 08.1991) Yak-11/18, 1951-1956, MiG-15, 1955-1960's, MiG-17, 1960-1978 MiG-21, 1974-1991 - 761st Training Regiment MiG-15, 12.51-1953, MiG-17, 1.53-1969, L-29, 1969-1991, L-39, 1988-1998, MiG-23, 1998-today So far I flew only the first mission and enjoyed it a lot. Though I had flew the patter in L-39 already before, doing it by the numbers - especially keeping ate the same level of altitude within limit wasn't so easy as it seems. One thing got me interested though. The pattern in the campaign mission is quite tight - 200 m AGL with 45° turns. The one from DCS L-39 manual is much wider - flown at 600 m AGL with 20° bank. Aero L-39 pilot hand book typical landing circle pattern parameters is 500 m AGL. I wonder if the authors could shed some more background on he campaign pattern. Is it the way how it's applied during the Russian pilots training?

I had the same issue but it's just that the payment selection options are not placed in a visible, to some extend logical order. The payment option, including PayPal has to be selected before the "COMPLETE ORDER" button is hit (on the first payment page where "USE BONUS POINTS" button is). Otherwise the by default selected credit cart option will be applied which can't be changed later on - including the screen linked by razor. The only one way is to cancel the order and start it from scratch.

WOW. I can't say how much eager I am to get my hands on this campaign and how much L-39 needed it! Am I correct to assume it's DLC and its going to be released with todays update?

+1. The history with few recent releases clearly shows that if a date is communicated - and I assume the may 31'st is the announced deadline, the release will be on the last possible day according to release schedule (wednesday or friday). In other words, don't count for the release sooner than in next 3 weeks.

+1. I have to admit that the TF51 is so much out of place.

This may be a bit off topic but I followed the advice to use static objects instead of real, AI disabled units. The problem though is that the static objects spawn on top of the structures. I assume it's a known issue or should I report it in bugs section? I guess the only workaround is to create a real AI-uncontrolled units in case of any covered parking spots.

Yeap, this is also what I found: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3383488&postcount=33

I agree that C-101 has a great potential. A lot of people are looking forward for a western trainer. The issue is that when I got the C-101 in December the EFM and CC variant were almost there, just after the next corner. After almost a half year I feel we're in the same spot.

[sarcastic mode on] On release as the changes go first to production version of the system and after some time are rolled back for to staging for testing. [sarcastic mode off] ;) https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=200724

Basically, if I get it correctly, from a performance perspective it's better to use the static aircrafts instead of the AI uncontrolled.

Common 12GB... please have a mercy...

I'm not following all of the news but the first posts clearly says the next in the plan after Harrier, MiG-19 and Tucano is the Mirage III. Which also makes sense from the perspective of recent news that RAZBAM is making a map, speculated to be the Falklands.