MikeMikeJuliet

Do you realize that the F-18 already has a coherent environment to play in, where as the F-86 does not... and the Viggen is not widely known, nor is it working properly in a couple of cases... People won't abandon the Hornet, because it is the first modern full fidelity true multirole fighter ever in the game, and it has a lot of contempopary aircraft in DCS already: F-15, A-10A and C, MiG-29 variants, Su-27 and 33, Su-25T, BlackShark, Mirage... The only thing Sabre has to play with is MiG-15... Back on topic, If ED has come about saying most of their consumers are SP players primarily, I don't see a reason to question their statement... They do know their sales numbers and the amount of online players, we do not.

Should they? I don't think it is pointed anywhere that the "normal" FOV should be the center of the axis.

If I've understood correctly, DCS scales the zoom depending on your screen resolution, meaning it won't zoom out the same amount on every screen. With that in mind, I don't think what you are finding is a bug, but an intended feature. I personally would find it better if we had a FOV-slider to set our starting FOV in stead of the current zoom-out-on-game-start -system.

I believe there was a short mention about the dedicated servers in SideStrafe's video Q&A with Wags. Nothing fancy, but it is in the works.

I voted for co-op v AI, although I might have voted PvP just as well... perhaps some intermediary options would be handy (like: 50/50 sp/pvp or 50/50 co-op/pvp)... There are players who play in more than one way. And By the 50/50 choices I don't mean exactly 50%, but "around half and half". Say, you had every player play SP for around 55% of the time and co-op v AI the remaining 45%... the 45% is still a lot of time and effort that currently doesn't show in the poll. The result would just be "100% play mostly sp", which might technically be true, but the difference between the options is so small, that the conclusion should be "people play sp and co-op equally". Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

There is a separate thread about it with the answer on the first page of the Harrier subforum: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=190292 Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Well, Q3 is running as we speak... so 2 and a half months remaining at most for our little jumpjet :D

I think you are jumping to conclusions. I never assumed the under the radar additions are not tested, but rather, the base on which they are tested is small (= ED and volunteer testers) and could be larger since open beta arrangement is in effect and a lot of people use it. Point still is that the Stable version is not stable and in it was added features unannounced to the general public, undermining the reason for ED to have an open beta. In short, this weeks patch appears as an open beta patch disguised as a Stable release. That is how it appears to the common consumer at this time.

But that is indeed the point! Why not put it to the openbeta version before putting it to stable release!? Because there are changes between the OB-version last week, and the Stable release this week. ED doesn't have as many PC:s to test their changes on... that is why they should put changes to beta first... and not sneak the in to the release unannounced.

That is because the open beta patched to the stable version. The Open beta released last week was different from the version it and stable are now.

I'm curious about something... Say, the open beta branch for 1.5.x is meant to publicly test out bugs in the next build before releasing it as stable... Why then does ED clearly add items (and not disclosing them in the patch notes) into the subsequent Stable versions effectively rendering the beta bug testing useless, since the newly added items were never tested? It's nice to have extra things, of course. But take the 1.5.7 open beta and the release version. The 1.5.7 beta was a working patch despite it's beta status. Now that stable version comes along, there are some additional changes that seem to break some parts of the game (server timeouts, random lag spikes, poor performance on some rigs). Such changes should be added to the next open beta, and when they seem to work, then publish them as stable... What is the point of open beta if it is not used to give as a stable Stable version? Food for thought.

The today's stable version has some uninformed changes to some lighting properties or shadows... take a look at how shadows look now... I do believe they did not look like that yesterday on stable or open beta. A couple of guys from my sim-group thought so too...

No effects indeed, but I've managed to ditch the F15C succesfully... although it did sink quite quickly after stopping instead of staying afloat.

Which is why it should be optional to have such a system on your server/map. I bet this might be something event builders would like to have (i.e. red flag, blue flag and others) Fair points.

This might be something that could be a part of a server/level setup. The mission maker could decide how long repairs, rearms and refuelings would take to suite the style of gameplay that the mission maker is after. Also, it would be an interesting possibility to keep aircraft slots unavailable as the aircraft is maintained. This would remove an easy cheat around the long rearm/refuel/repair times by forcing a player to either wait or to take another slot to play. And in longer missions/campaigns this would allow for an additional layer of depth into the missions, as the use of aircraft has to be considered wholly to keep the intensity of sorties high. just a thought. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

In short: 1.5.x versions will never support any other map other than the current Caucasus. Period. The long version: "Early access" as a term means a product that users are able to use, but is not intended to be complete, ready, finished or bug-free. It is a buzzword trying to describe a product used in a "pay to play this before it is released". Essentially a monetized beta, but with the benefit of actually owning the products copy, rather than being revoked access after release. Release version = the "1.0" version of a product. Doesn't mean it is in it's final state feature-wise, nor bug-free (I don't know many games that have ever been bug free on launch... back in the day they were more so because of no update ability due to the lack of internet [meaning stronger incentive to release a working product], and due to the smaller complexity of programs). Public = the consumers at large. Not just a set of people in a close beta test. Public doesn't mean something is free, but it means it is available to everyone with the abikity to puchase. Same with open/closed beta. You can participate to an open beta at will (as in "open to the public" -beta), where as you need to apply to be let into a closed beta, or at least closed beta applications are not passed unless the developer specifically wants you to have access. Alpha/beta in this case are developement versions. Sort of synonymous with early access, but not quite the same. So 1.5.7 released to open beta means it is just a 1.5.x version given out to those who want it to help test it so that it may be released as for the stable version. The Stable version is the current "official" game version. All betas and alphas are developement builds. Stable can and will include early-access modules, since the modules themselves are not integral to the core game version per se. All this damn confusing ball of confusion is because of the transitionary state that DCS is in at the moment. This probably just made matters more confusing. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

To me that that would just indicate that there are a bunch of people that play those because there are no alternatives. A lot of potential customers if their favorite aircraft was created in DCS. And besides ED doesn't seem to be concerned about the other simulators out there.

That is one of the advantages Steam provides if you use it for DCS... But really, I would rather not know how many hours I've wasted looking at the mission loading screen. What is the point in it? One does not play DCS with time spent in mind, eh? We play it for enjoyment and experiences. A count telling you your game has been on for 672 hours tells you nothing... except that the game has been on for that time. 200 hours of that could be spent in menus.

For those who don't yet know, Vive has also had their equivalent of the asynchronous timewarp ano other methods of stabilizing the projection at lower framerates. Plus it supports supersampling straight from the interface as well. So in that regard the Vive is quite uo to the task. Now I just need a rediculous PC to run high enough supersampling to play DCS properly.

Another solution would be to have all available aircraft already on the ramp as cold objects, so that other players wouldn't taxi there in the first place. This would also partly solve the issue of empty airfields. The only major consideration in this is of course what happens after a player parks their aircraft and leaves the slot (or despawns in midair or is destroyed): is the aircraft playable from the location it was parked in (or in case it is destroyed, would it be unplayable, or spawn back into the ramp?). I guess this could be solved with an AI tow vehicle that would either move the existing aircraft back to an uninhabited parking spot, or bring a new aircraft out from a hangar... All this for immersion of course. Might not be completely practical... I just don't like spawning/despawning vehicles. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Hello everyone. I, and a bunch of others in our DCS Finland simming group have come across a new player in the VR/AR market that might be of interest to a lot of people here eventually. Varjo Technologies is a finnish startup with developers from Nokia, Microsoft, Intel and Nvidia to name a few. By all accounts they are developing a new VR/AR headset to mimic the human vision, meaning a huge leap in picture resolution... and there is a twist in all this. From what I've read from our local news, the trick is to only provide high resolution in the portion of the display that the users eye is looking. According to Varjo, the resolution of the human eye away from the center drops to about 1 pixel per degree. This apparently is how they intend to alleviate a lot of the performance impact such a high resolution would otherwise have. As the name of the device suggests (20/20), the point is to mimic the perfect human vision in the center of the users field of view. This is done apparently by tracking the eyes, so in theory you should never see the low resolution bits. Varjo is looking to provide the first products later this year considering their professional version. Apparently a consumer version is in plans, but likely won't be available until after a couple of years. The price of the professional industry version has been hinted to be significantly higher than the current generation headsets. If this project succeeds, I feel it will be the go-to headset for simulations. At least I will be looking into this closely. Take a look for yourself: http://www.varjo.com/inthenews/ http://www.varjo.com/ EDIT: Here's Wired's news on the subject: https://www.wired.com/story/varjo-vr-microdisplay/ Let the discussion commence. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I think they want to make sure people buy the combined arms with the asset pack, because the asset pack will be compatible with CA... And because people have been bringing up the issue splitting the user base to people with the asset pack and people without it (since you can't join a game using the asset pack if you don't own it, even if you will never use it yourself)... so ED might be trying to combine the asset pack with different products to make sure the barrier to entry is as low as possible... Or something along the lines. ED want's you to experience the Assets with CA.

And now the new building models are confirmed as well... I would imagine the new area may be a partof Turkeys north shore... That would add a lot of gameplay value to the map similarly as adding the southern Britain to the Normandy map did.

It would also be somewhat realistic to add a g-loc effect during the ejection. I believe it is possible to stay conscious during the ejection depending on personal traits and the g-load (dependent of aircraft/ejection seat). From what I've understood, the mig-21-seat in particular had quite the g-load on the pilot due to the explosive ejection method...

The WW2 asset pack does not yet work on 1.5. The next patch is due next week to openbeta 1.5.7 that adds the support.