MikeMikeJuliet

Razbam has stated multiple times in the last months, that they are on schedule for a Q3 release. The last one being just a couple of days ago. And it already being so close to the end of Q3 I have no doubt that an early access release will come by the end of the month. They wouldn't stress being on schedule so much otherwise. If someone compares this to ED:s work on 2.5 and the Hornet... they have always being quite quiet, until the bitter end announcement that they are not quite ready yet, but "oh look at these screenshots". Compare this to Razbam who have said it for months, and continue to do so now almost weekly, that they are still in the game and not backing up on the set date. All this is of course with the caveat that ED might not release the Harrier to DCS at the very same date the build is ready. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Good news indeed. Thanks Prowler, that made my day!

My point exactly

Which is exactly why I'm not jumping the gun. I mean, just because a module is out doesn't mean you need to have it right now. I have not understood that mentality in a long time... buying "straight out of the oven" with games (and flight sims) in today's market just burns you... Because nothing ever works before the first 2-3 hotfixes. Patience. We will have information.

I know, which is quite confusing. Still, I would argue that the description is made to complement and clarify the name... I could be wrong, I could be right... Until the officials say something, we can merely speculate. Here is hoping...

By this statement in the module description: ". . .an optional add-on module for DCS World aircraft. Starting with DCS: Mi-8MTV2. . ." I would assume, with a high propability, that the module will eventually be integrated to other modules as well... Paying 15 bucks for 5 of these for different modules would be utterly absurd and an evil cashgrab. 15 bucks for a GPS for multiple aircraft down the line sounds like something I might even eventually buy into. I know it feels dumb at the outset, but we need to remember, this is not a required module to play any of the aircraft that will receive it - unlike the WWII asset pack, which you need to have in order to play any mission with said assets used. Plus, assuming this GPS will be a part of most of the older generation DCS aircraft... those were NOT getting a GPS or any other additional feature. Now, there might be a chance to get GPS navigation to the older aircraft, giving them a large boost for navigation, which in turn makes them more useful in different scenarios. I'm divided over these micro-modules, but I'm glad it doesn't seem that this is something that would at any point be required, unlike the WWII assets, or the possible future Carrier DLC. Options are not bad so long as they are not mandatory, and this is not. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I guess I stand corrected. The Gazelle apparently was released with no pre-purchase period (?)... Which means that as long as september is still hot we have a chance to get the Harrier on Q3. The more you know...

Indeed. If there is going to be a delay I expect information on the subject this week... as said several times already, ED has held pre-orders for at least a month before all releases. So by extension, if we do not get a pre-order announcement in the short term future, we are not getting a module within the next month. ... unless Razbam and ED are planning on a shorter pre-order... or even no pre-order at all. Though given the previous behaviour I do not hold this likely. I assume Razbam knows all this very well... that said, the only reason for the silence at the moment to me indicates they are completely occupied trying to make the estimated deadline, and because of that, they still cannot say if Q3 will still be met or not.... To me personally it seems odd not to announce a delay if completion is uncertain, as the point of pre-orders with DCS is that you know when the product will be available.... if you do not know when it is available -> delay until you know. I am very interested to see todays patchnotes and this weekend's newsletter. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

As stated above, if you are looking for an aircraft to familiarize yourself in western modern cockpits and functionality, go for the A-10C. It is not a trainer, no, but it flies very gently and can carry a plethora of different arms. And you will have a heck of a good time. If you specifically want a trainer aircraft or a two-seater, then go for the L-39. The Hawk, while a nice aircraft, is unfortunately ridden with bugs and oddities that are hopefully resolved at some point.

Just a hunch, but they might add to the aircraft's lateral stability. Or removing them might not give as much of a performance boost to warrant the work it takes to remove or add the for every flight.

While I agree that you can find the info on there, players that don't have as much time or mental capacity to remember each and every abbreviation and bomb type are really in a bad spot here, and having a short tooltip would be very handy even to veterans, especially on weapons that are used rarely. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Strange thing about this whole issue is, that it is infact already fixed... for VR users. There is no FOV-zoomout in any of the VR-headsets, so why should there be on desktop? Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

The preorder may start on any other day besides friday... so there is still a chance by that logic, if the pre-orders start within a few days... Hey Prowler, you still in for the Q3 release? :D

So there is hope yet.

I'm not quite following.... you have some secret in-house info or am I not understanding something here?

Not per se. Dataexport means that external programs can get data from DCS. This is the way that Jetseat and Buttkicker and all the radio programs, like SRS, work. If it is not allowed, no external program can get information from the game. The downside of this of course is, that someon can use the info in a program to allow them to see other players without radar or otherwise... I'm no expert, so I don't know what all is available to export, but I do know it could technically be used to cheat along with all the cool programs that really add to the experience. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I guess he was pointing between the lines to EDs previous behaviour of having any given module in pre-sale for at least a month before early-access release... Meaning, if such a pattern continues, the pre-order/pre-sale must begin within a few days or otherwise the Harrier is not going to be released this month. I hope I'm wrong ofcourse.

Unfortunately some are, even in flight sims.

Hey Ciribob. I found something that you might want to add an option to. I have not used every aircraft radio available, but the ones I have touched work on the basis of constant high and low digits. What I mean by this, is that changing smaller digits over a "10" either way (so from 9 to 0 or 0 to 9) does not add or substract from the next digit. Confused still? If I have a frequency of 129.975MHz with a 25kHz interval, rolling the .975 over to .000 does not change the frequency to 130.000MHz. Instead the lower digits roll over, but the higher three digits stay the same, i.e. this rfrequency turns to 129.000. As I said, I can't speak for all radios, but this might be one of those "which ever method you prefer" options when using the overlay. Not a huge problem or anything, but a convenient option nontheless. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I know there isn't, but should there be? I assume this align period stems from the real aircraft (even though FC3 avionics are simplified), so does the real thing not have any align indications either? Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

By all given accounts so far there should be no reason to suspect that it couldn't be released in a month with a high propability. Oh, and happy september! Countdown time is nigh. And it is friday too! There may yet be an announcement today (maximum hopefullnes engaged) Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Out of curiosity, should the Su-25 indicate that the align is still in progress? I find it strange that the aircraft indicates a stable (and correct) heading and all is well until you start taxiing around and go flying. Should there be an indicator of any sort for this, or is this just a problem with the real aircraft taking long enough to start up all systems that such an indicator is not needed? Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

We also need to remember that it is not the same people updating all of DCS World. Most likely (reading between the lines) the guy responsible for the AI mainly works on that, where as other people work on the modules (same thing with maps, they have different people working on those). In this light I don't see the module developement directly affecting AI developement. That said an AI is probably one of the most difficult things one can code, especially so when the AI should not affect performance of the software too much. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Depends if the control feel is different. One might be easier to move and the other might have more friction. or a detent before moving... But I suppose that should be an easy "fix". Just that the feel may not be the same.

Military airfields' ATC might have access to networked radars. Plus, if we were to actually simulate an ATC, they usually use SSR-receivers nowadays instead of Primary radar data... and before that can work out we would need an SSR/IFF system working in each module. And currently those systems do nothing. Apart from that I feel the only real downside of LotATC is that you can't see aircraft on the ground (nor airfield layouts, only the runway), which makes playing as an actual ATC (not GCI) difficult as you cant really perform the function of a Tower very well (assuming said airfield doesn't have a ground controlle) Regards, MikeMikeJuliet