MikeMikeJuliet

It has been a long, long time, but I've finally managed to rework the whole document. New link is in the OP. Have a gander and send a message here or on Discord (I'm on ED discord if you need me). The document undoubtedly still need some tweaking and I know of a few small inclusions that did not make the cut at this point (vacation calls!), but should suffice for most of your VFR and IFR -needs. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I think it is naive to think that it wouldn't. The scoreboard makes it possible to confirm kills in situations where you shouldn't be able to with absolute certainty - say, BVR in IFR. Sure, you can see if the enemy disappeared, but that's no guarantee that he is dead. Not knowing for sure ought to keep a player more on their toes. That is a definite behaviour change. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

... and of course it would be *an option*. You could always set it back ON from server settings etc.

Agreed. This is truly needed for more realistic missions! Live scoreboard allows for kill confirmation and in part promotes K/D over actual mission objectives. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Or simply have both. A slider for sea roughness/size of swells or waves, and have the wind affect the waves on top of that. Then you just mix and match to get what you want. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

+1

I support this. Many say that transport aircraft have no room in the current maps ("too small map sizes"), but I would say the opposite. An aircraft like the C-130 has and is being used in inter-theater mobility operations. There are a LOT of things to do even on shorter distances. A proper TAT aircraft (Tactical Air Transport) can be used to great effect on multiplayer servers to move larger troops around and faster that we currently do with helicopters. It would also offer interesting targets for allied fighters to protect and for enemy fighters to destroy. And the choice for the 130 is great especially due to the mentioned multi-capabilities of the airframe in different versions. This would be a great multi-purpose module that would most likely find a lot of use in MP scenarios if handled properly. Plus I bet a proper multicrew military transport aircraft would attract a lot of positive attentiont in the general flight sim market. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Indeed a long time coming, but here it is. Now we've gotten rid of the annoying zoomout upon entering a cockpit and this. Many times it's the little things that bug you.

I've got a request that has a bunch to do with "realism" (haha, since what's real about being able to respawn after being killed in a fighter jet...) but also with cheating/gaming the system. Death. You get shot into the cockpit and what do you see? You see no cockpit - but you see around you as if you were on a parachute though not decending. You can see missile launces around you, aircraft, tracers... and you can communicate these things to your teammates if you are on comms (bar SRS since it cut's your comms on death). I think a better way would be as abrupt as the instant death - a black screen with no info on it except a button to return to spectator and open the slot menu. This would prevent you being a "god's eye" in the area which is particularly troubling if you just died doing CAS and can now be an indirect camera for your wingman. Currently you can in some situation get a marked benefit post-mortem to your wingmen when they should have just lost not just another aircraft, but the eyes on that aircraft. I feel many people would appreciate this feature as a promoter of fair play and "realism". Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Now I just wish we had a pilot model with no habds rendered since it's impossible to operate a large part of the cockpit when you don't see anything... though I took care of the problem by binding the show-pilot-body to ly hotas so I can flick it off whenever I need to fiddle with something besides the front console. Otherwise this is a nice feature. I hope we see it in every other module as well. Also it perhaps need a separate resolution setting in the options menu to make it more readable? Now I need to modify my custom kneeboards/datacards to be readable in that.. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

From Wags himself posted January 1st: Case closed. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

For a time in my life I just *had to have* all them cool games I wanted to play but never did... then I started to pay attention to how much money I spent on games monthly, and how much time I spent browsing and I rationalzed that I really don't need all that... And now I actually just buy what I intend to fly or play, be it DCS or other games. My hardware space is limited, my money is limited, my time is limited. And I usually tend to go pretty indepth with each module... so I've lost the whole "but I must have it" though altogether. That money is well spent in other things as well. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I'm not sure developing the aircraft would be that simple. The navigation, targeting and other systems have a lot of missing features just going by the amount of switches in the cockpit.. But I do completely agree that the Su-25 would be a brilliant aircraft to have as a full fidelity module. I know doezens of pilots in our group who would all enjoy it full fidelity. Let us hope we will se it happen sometime in the future. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

This should be posted in Chit-Chat, not on DCS Wishlist. Please doublecheck where you are posting before doing so.

I have no certain answers, but judging by how the info has been formulated I'd say every aircraft and every aircraft. If this is not the case initially then we just have to wait for the effect to be implemented to other aircraft. I don't see why this wouldn't consider every airframe in the sim eventually. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

DCS kneeboard is woefully outdated. I understand we don't yet have taxi charts etc. on fresh maps, but there are now so many errors in even the Caucasus plates that they are at times unusable. Prime example is Senak aerodrome chart which doesn't correspond to the actual taxiway markings in-game. I haven't checked all plates, but I've spotted several errors here and there making the kneeboard unreliable to use in scenarios where players actually communicate their intentions on the ground. I am aware of external sources for charts. The problem is not that I can't find correct material. The problem is that DCS presents incomplete/obsolete/incorrect material in the kneeboard which is used by default. This must be fixed. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I meant use both systems - fly at times in VR, at times on desktop. If one already owns everything else except for the TIR/equivalent then why choose. VR is amazing for many things, but if you want to see what you are doing instrumentwse then monitor ia the way to go.

If you are using a monitor you almoat have to use headtracking - I say almost because there are a few extremely good pilots using thumbstick/snap views for looking around, but to get to look around the cockpit freely (and freeing up the thumbstick for, say, trim) is paramount for most players. Why not do both, VR and Tir? Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

it is not just money. As has been said already, ED required an engine that scales properly. Remember that DCS is very unlike any other game that would typically use Cryengine, Unreal engine or Unity... Those engines are good for what they are, but they are *not* tailored for flight simulators. They are tailored for most other genres (because they are more common). So all in all a custom engine is in the long run the best thing for DCS since it does not waste resources for things that DCS doesn't have. Same with many other things... why build a custom racecar if you can just buy a regular sportscar from the store? Because the custom car is specifically made for its purpose; the specific type of racing it will do. A bit off the side, a buddy of mine who does active software developement on Unity said that the base code only supports something like 10x10 km play area. Anything beyond that must be custom fitted and coded to work at all... I bet the other engines have similar restrictions as well. There is always a workaround, but it is never as good as a built-in feature. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

ED has confirmed a few times that they want to do full fidelity russian modern jets, but are unable due to russian laws concering them on military/operational security issues. They simply cannot do said modules full fidelity legally at this time. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

You're in luck! Not in DCS, but you have such a feature in LotATC. There are a few DCS servers that have LotATC enabled. 104th Phoenix and DCS Finland servers (K-0-1 and -2) at least run LotATC. I do occational ATC/Controller work on said servers, though this is still an aspect too few people know about and even less people can work with properly. We'll get there eventually. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Yea there's this thread... the official info is in the thread title. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3443636#post3443636 Though no-one has posted in a while because Wags posted that there will be no further information until 2019 and until the F/A-18 is closer to been completed. It is created by the same team building the F/A-18, so that's why... Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

While I wouldn't throw the hacker-accusation-card on the table from the start, I've seen this too. The enemy flies normal as long as they are in no threat position, and then when you have him suddenly they start lagging like crazy - and this has been irrespective of the server load. Yes, many times it is unintentional, but there have been real cases. Another thing I've seen is that some (rare nowadays luckily) players who start losing in ACM start spamming screenshots, which also causes lag... so they better survive your shot and then run away like crazy. Let's be real - cheating happens in all games, even in DCS. This is not a safe haven of virtuous pilots. Though it is not even closely as rampant as in other games it still does exist occasionally. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

There are a buch of other factors but yes, that is one additional reason to flying Battle formation / Tactical formation / Combat spread (whichever term is used in any given country)

There is also the addition of a datalink signal from the shooter to the missile, which can be detected by the aircraft's RWR system giving further confirmation on the launch. So if STT lock, max operating power + shooter-missile-datalink signal, then missile launch. In TWS the launch cannot be detected because even though there is a datalink signal, you can't be sure if it is directed at you or not.