MikeMikeJuliet

You can opt in to any of the versions now on steam, 1.5, 1.5 OB, 1.2 and 2.1 OA. Naturally you can only play the NTTR map while opted into the alpha... I wonder if this means you can only have one install with steam, so you play either or. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

That has not stopped modders before

Alright, alright, point taken. But from Thrustmasters point of view, I would still imagine the vocal minority of the rivet counters does not warrant such... "cosmetic" features on their product. Then again, I bet it will be a matter just taking the stick apart and switching the hats around. Someone will do it... people mod their controllers or make custom ones. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

While I do understand the idea, I don't feel Thrustmaster would be creating such a feature on their stick, namely because you can still very much use the grip for the Harrier with the proper feeling controls, just these two in the opposite positions. I wager as one flies and uses it one won't even realise the hats are mixed... unless you keep intensly staring the virtual stick while using the real one. This is not the same as comparing the A-10 stick to the F-16 stick, where the CMS hat has a button in the A-10 stick whike the F-16 stick does not... the Hornet and Harrier sticks don't have such functional differences. Only ergonomic. I will be perfectly happy flying both with the F-18 stick. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

The fact that the user has to go and fiddle with .lua files or "just tap the zoom button" only goes to say how impractical and useless the zoom-out is. If this is brought up once or twice every year, perhaps we may get rid of it eventually... questionmark? "In the dark future of DCS. . . there is only zoom-out" :D Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

This is probably the seventeenth time this issue is brought up. I would very much like to se it gone as it has no use and annoys a lot of users. "deal with it" doesn't make it any less annoying. In fact on several instant action WVR scenarios I lose precious 2 seconds because of this by having to wait for the zoom to start so I can set it to whatever I feel comfortable with. I've said it earlier and I say it again: remove this "feature" and allow users to set their initial FOV via options so everyone starts with the exact FOV they prefer from the getgo. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

ED and/Wags have stated quite recently that AI is being worked on as we speak, so is damage model, and a new ATC system has been promised a long time ago. So all of these issues are already in the pipeline. No disrespect, but I wonder if anyone here have read a single post that has been given from the officials recently. Here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=191622 Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Why would they use a ceiling (a maximum altitude) to counter MANPADS... did you mean they had a hard deck (a minimum altitude) of 10 000ft to make sure they never flew below the MANPADS envelope? Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

He is not talking about the module quality, but the aircrafg itself. Some pages ago on this thread Prowler went into details about how the targeting worked. It was something along the lines of: Find a target with the TPOD to get target location and then use the onboard systems to slew to said location to actually designate the target for weapons release. In contrast you can simply find and designate your target in the A-10C through you Targetting pod, hence the word "integrated". Go find Prowlers posts on the subject for more clarification. I'm on mobile so it is rather cumbersome for me to search... sorry Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

EDIT: unable to join tournament

I must say you wield convincing arguments. I had not thought of the idea in this light, to be honest. I must rethink my approach. Well put, sir. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Just to remind people that this thread - the way I read it - is not about bashing the Jester AI, nor about should it be enforced on MP servers. The thread is about the last row on Ghostrider's post: how do you feel about the mindset change from a single-seat fighter to the first ever DCS multicrew fighter. I also wondered a bit about the hints of salt and hostility that begins immediately after someone so much as mentions an AI, but that is besides the point. So essentially we are talking about multicrew, crew resource management, internal and external communications as well as human factors in a fast paced combat scene (or otherwise). All this to me sounds like a unique gameplay challenge thus far in DCS even though we already have some multi crew aircraft. Multicrew, and the fact that you lend some control and/or authority away to the other crew member is an enourmous challenge, especially to those of us that are lone-wolf type pilots. And communication within the cockpit is key to efficiency and survival, because you require a quality group-SA to function at all properly. The F-14 (and the F-4 in the future) will be much more than just another aircraft, or just another multiseat. Prior multiseat aircraft offer you the ability to have two players in the same aircraft - these ones require you to not only have two people there, but for them to act as a crew. So the F-14 brings with it more than just two different cockpits. It requires new skills and a new, social "control scheme" to get the other guy working with you. Naturally these points don't work that well with the Jester AI, but if the AI even slightly mimics what a human does back there (so the AI is an operator in the backseat, instead of an all-seeing automatic sensor, which some of you seem to be suggesting), you need to communicate with it somehow, and despite it not being human, you still are. The aircraft isn't magically superior if you still fly it badly and catch the enemy missile, or if you don't keep the target within the radars gimbal limits. Having an AI that you have to work with may not be as interesting as having a human with you, but it sure is a change of pace from having an AI wingman, or no AI at all. All I can summarise in the end is, multicrew (not just multiseat) is going to provide for a totally new gameplay challenge for anyone that has not already tried it Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Mmm. Very nice screenshots. I just hope the Harrier is relatively stable on launch so we can actually fly it instead of waiting for hotfixes. Time will tell, though I think I recall Razbam stating they want to release it more feature complete than they did with the Mirage, quationmark?

If your claims are based on factual evidence against aircraft performance data then I would suggest you replace your current bather with said arguments. It is useless to post angry opinion pieces based on "I feel like" as basis for flight model improvement. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I agree. Sims prior to DCS had multiple male and female voices, I don't see why DCS should not. I'm sorry but I don't get these comments in the wishlist items. No-one ever stated that a feature should be put in the game "right now", and even if they did, it is up to Eagle Dynamics and them only to decide when to implement something, if they will. Why is it we find these comments on almost every wishlist thread? It noes not add to the discussion commenting that adding a feature now will postpone 2.5 or anything else for that matter. And resisting an idea only on the permise of "I don't want it because adding x now will postpone features that ED are implementing right now" In my opinion displays a lack of understanding what wishlist items are. No matter what we wish for on the forums is not going to change the course of Eagle Dynamics developement process. It is a moot point arguing it would. I find it strange that people resist good ideas because they fear Eagle Dynamics will jump on every wish dropping their current developement to chase short term customer satisfaction over long term building of their product. And this was not aimed specifically at you NeilWills. I could make a thread of all the literally hundreds of times this happens. I'm sorry about the off-topic. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Not sure if you had a mixup there, but 1 circle fight is the one where smaller turn radius wins, and 2 circle fight requires greater turn rate. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

This was an altogether interesting thread on the subject, and I would like to congribute with a few notes: Firstly - savescumming through a singleplayer game is any one players own choice. If someone feels threatened by someone possibly having a shiny virtual medal for a virtual qualification by not actually playing it straight, I would say an evaluation of priorities is in order. No-one goes to war or do anything else with DCS World qualifications, and if someone wants to experience a campaign or a qualification their own way for their own enjoyment, it does not affect any other players gaming experience in the slightest. Or at least it shouldn't. Secondly - I feel a save feature is for single player. What has been described for multiplayer would actually require a proper multiplayer campaign framework, not a save feature. We would need scripts and triggers to be able to work accross a campaign instead of within a single mission only. All in all it would require a lot of other features as well, but that is, in my opinion, for another thread entirely. In conclusion, I don't see a save feature being for multiplayer. I do aknowledge the argument that it could be used to split a multiplayer campaign into different gameplay sessions, but I feel that should just be made with a real MP-campaign system. Thirdly - on the subject of a track fastforward working as a save: Allow me to ask, why should it be made so clunky for users? Firstly there is the issue of "will it play properly", as discussed. And it woukd be very inconvenient. Instead, press the "load" button and you are there - unless, of course you want to be able to continue the mission when ever. Fouthly - A pause could be utilized as a training and scenario building aid. You can fly into a situation you want to practice in, save, and repeat the situation to your hearts content. An advantage compared to simply creating a mission in the editor is that you can have aircraft already engaged (i.e. maneuvering) when starting and all your switches already set correctly. That is all for now. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

My educated guess on why this has never been implemented is, that even though it adds immersion, it doesn't really add to the flying experience directly. I would prefer such a feature, but it would require the aircraft to be visible prior to entering and after leaving the aircraft. For this ED would possibly need to recreate their spawning mechanics. Beside this, though, I would like to see the ejected pilots synchronized over multiplayer and have the pilots be rescuable via helicopter, or by walking to close perimeter of an allied airfield. Such a mechanic would have actual gameplay value aside from the added immersion. On the workload, I would argue that any such feature would require substantial efforts on the creation of working first-person mechanics. Also, if one wanted to actually use this for an external preflight that would actually have gameplay impact, ED would need to implement some form of interaction mechanics between a pilot and the external model of an aircraft. Then again, if the function of an external preflight would in this case be purely to add immersion (no actual gameplay function), then I would argue that ED would be adding a feature to DCS World for free, with no gameplay reason or function, which makes only so much sense. These were just some points off the top of my head to and fro of the creation on such a feature. Not intended for definitive "ED must do this", nor "ED can't/won't do this". Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I would wager more on the early access being the "release", just as with any other module. Pre purchase might start in two weeks though...

My grand optimism tells me that the early access wil start in the last week of september. So the prepurchase window starts at the end of this month. They want every second they get to polish the module before going live. Then again I could be all wrong.

Hypeing leads to unreasonable expectations, Unreasonable expectations lead to anger, anger leads to hate, hate... leads to suffering. I'm sorry, I had to do it.

A little offtopic, but remember that there is no singular generation definition. There are several, and most of them set around the same things, but each have their own spin on what defines each generation. Though I do agree with your definition.

Like feefifofum said, I would check if your axis have multiple binds over several controllers. That has always been the case when I've had similar issues with any aircraft. One thing that can cause this repeatedly is if you remove or change any controller from the USB-ports and start DCS, or at times even if you plug new controllers while DCS is open. All your axis should be bound only on a single controller to make sure this doesn't happen. I hope you get the issue sorted, since the 25T is a very fun aircraft to play around with. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

... just to pitch in here... There is no such HUD that you can point it directly into the sun and expect to be able to read it well. Dark visors and or sunglasses help, but don't make the sun magically go away. All systems have some downsides and this is the HUD's.

Wednesday... let's hope for a patch