MikeMikeJuliet

Wasn't there a post that hinted of the Mi-24 Hind a while back? Or was that taken back...

I have a vague memory in my head that higher detail buildings were to be added, but here are the rest: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=170914 Though you can kind of read between the lines that at least some buildings will be remade. At the very least building textures are remade. EDIT: by looking at the pictures in the post above, it does seem to me, like the buildings have a new mesh. Although this might very well be an illusion caused by the updated textures. Wags has also said that the trees in the New Caucasus will be collidable just as the ones in Normandy are, though I didn't yet find the post where he said it. EDIT: Not stated explicitly of Caucasus, but Wags states that trees will be collidable for all future maps: if the timestamp doesn't work, fastforward to 6:36.

I do believe it was said that the new map format (which Nevada and Normandy uses) uses round maps. And given that they redo the whole map, I wouldn't think it took any longer to make. Besides, to my understanding ED want's to get rid of the old map format (nothing said on this publicly, just my educated guess). I would also assume that the multiple-map system is built to only support the new map type, which is why you can't play or add Caucasus to 2.1... The change of map type also would affect certain calculations in the sim I would imagine. So the only way to have a unified version of DCS is to have the Caucasus in the new, round format. Besides it is more realistic. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

The new Caucasus version is completely redone to the same standards as Nevada and Normandy. Meaning high poly ground mesh, high detail buildings, roads and scenery textures, collidable trees, round "earth" projection (the current Caucasus is flat) etc.

Considering the Hawk, the rear cockpit controls don't work in multiplayer. Last I played you could join in, but only the front cockpit has controls.

I might be able to help on that front as well.

The events should probably alternate between certain times, since it's always the case that a particular time doesn't fit someone or some squadron. For SF, last night the debrief went on until 02:30 AM local time... and you can see that being a *bit* late for us...

As discussed in last nights debrief: A big thank you @IronMike. I haven't played that many MP events in DCS yet, but this has been by far the best event I've participated in. As stated, the two most important things the event need next is 1: Simple Radio as soon as it can be taken into use in this, and with it 2: A dedicated ATC. How I would imagine this to work, is that before startup the units are in contact with the Airboss to determine their task (if not pre-defined) and most importantly Time On Target. With this info, the units contact the ATC in due time for startup, taxi (and clearance after take-off) and departure. The ATC would then pass the aircraft to the Airboss frequency when clear of the ATC area of responsibility. I've been starting to familiarize some SF pilots to operating with ATC, since I have some experience on the subject. If you need a hand in the ATC-work, I might be able to provide some help. All this would free much resources for the Airboss. Ideally there should also be fighter controllers, so that the Airboss wouldn't control (most) units directly. This would of course require good coordination between the Airboss and the fighter controllers. This would require determining push times for example, or by using codewords to initiate certain actions, without the need to have a 10-minute discussion on what should be done next. All in all. This is an event I really much enjoyed, and it shows very high potential. There's also a lot still to do to make this work as intended. Regard's, MikeMikeJuliet

The helmets have two visors: a clear one and a black one and you can change those at will... And the MiG-21 visor is really only a darker tint rendered over DCS... it really doesn't help anything at all.

Someone with too much spare time should do a no-comments thread with all confirmed info and hyperlinks to the posts...

Also, when the sun is at your windshield, depending on the aircraft, it may be VERY difficult to read a real HUD. And if the sun is close or on the HUD, good luck reading that thing at all.

If the X is not implemented in any other aircraft even for a brief time, that is going to be a missile that must be carefully considered in multiplayer, since why would a Hornet pilot NOT have it? This should be done by mission makers to either reducing the amount of Aim-9X:s allowed per, say, flight. Or to limit the number of said missiles available to the coalition in general... This of course only if we are talking about a "balanced blue vs red type mission"... The range may not still be as impressive as the russian close-range missiles... but I do feel it will shake the WVR-matches quite a bit being able to shoot at such high angles. I'm interested to see how difficult it will be to get the missile fooled with countermeasures in DCS. All I've heard is that due to the imaging seeker it is supposed to be really difficult for traditional flare-setups. Take it all with a pinch of salt, naturally.

Interesting. I personally like every effect, since those glare are part of any real cockpits problems. To me personally turning glares and all off feels like I'm cheating. Especially in multiplayer if I can see something others can't because of the glare. But then again I'm one for all out realism and authenticity when it comes to these kinds of things. I'm not here to criticize your preference on this... after all, it is a sim and a hobby. I just found it interesting.

This would require us to be able to position our HOTAS as accurately as possible for the virtual hands to be positioned correctly. This would also require our stick and throttle movement ranges to be accurate to the virtual counterpart. And thirdly we would need to be able to physically attach the controllers to the HOTAS or risk disconnecting the virtual hand and the virtual controller... I can see this maybe happening in time with VR gloves, not with the current bulky controllers we have Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Yep, there have been many exceptions as well.

I agree with the OP, but just to be clear: Haze and fog are not exactly the same and thus we should have a separate Haze-option for the effect you are looking for. Haze happens in the lower/mid atmosphere usually up to the level of 100% relative humidity. Depending on temperature and the amount if water in the air this can vary wildly. Fog (and the less dense version, mist) is defined as visible moisture that is close to or in contact with the ground or water... So a fog layer that is any higher is just called a cloud layer. Some cloud layers may only be very thin veils, quite fog-like, that span vertically for only a couple of meters. So yes, more weather options please. I just wanted to clear some terms. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Raindrops on the canopy are on the list... Other than that, I thought most aircraft feel rather lively in the air. Many times the soundscape of the game matters in such issues. Same in shooters: a gun can handle really well, but you only really feel it's a powerful weapon if the sound is right... Wanna hear those rumbling sounds that happen when pulling g's or high alpha. MiG-21 is great for that reason.

Case closed, I guess...

Todays changelog for 2.1. : Ability to change liveries in the rearm & refuel menu... This should work in MP, no?

I must say I don't really get the idea of the poll. No matter what status 2.5 has when it comes out most players will likely jump in as soon as they can. And our opinion on which status it might have has nothing to do with what will or will not happen. I don't mean to be a spoilsport, but the poll, in my opinion, is useless. A much more useful question would be "When 2.5 initially releases as alpha/beta/early access, when will you update to it?". + some reasonable options as answers.

Traditionally pilots have been known to try to prevent the opposing pilots death. There are many occasions in WW2 where even Luftwaffe pilots would deliberately aim at other parts of an enemy fighter instead of the cockpit. Many even wanted to make sure they saw the pilots bailing out. There are even a few cases where a downed Llied pilot was taken in as a guest and then made sure his unit knew the pilot was safe and sound. Air combat is not about killing your opponent literally. It is about the challenge and the fight itself. And making sure the opponents aircraft is unable to do it's job. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Indeed. The new Caucasus is bound to breathe some new life into the sim and quite possibly pull back some players who have burned themselves out in the old mesh.

MikeMikeJuliet SF squadron Finland F-15C I'm reserve for the rest of the SF-guys.

I am interested to know if a hole in the canopy affects pressurisation in DCS. It sure should, but I have never tested it. Also, depending largely on the circumstances, during rapid decompressien i.e. a hole in the canopy at altitude, as air quickly leaves and temperature drops all moisture usually condenses. This may impair visibility inside the canopy for a while. I'm not sure how obvious this would be, as the volume of air in a fighter cockpit is very small compared to airliners, and it could be that the air is less humid in fighters... Anyway. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I am aware... tried to be sneaky abd keep a low profile to avoid heresy :D And if the mouse cursor were NOT bound to the view it would be even easier, since you could keep your mouse at a certain part of the cockpit ready for action while you look around freely. An example. Say you fly the A-10C. On takeoff you can raise the flaps from your controls, but to retract the gear you need to either hit a key, or look at the switch, hold your head still and click with the mouse. Now imagine you could just set the mouse over the gear lever before takeoff roll and when airborne all you would have to do is briefly check the mouse hasn't moved and just click. Less time "head down" in the pit, more precise control. I'd say this woukd be especially handy in VR. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet