MikeMikeJuliet

I never said the subject isn't worth discussing. All I noted is that it might not be as relevant at the moment. And SoH is not relevant to the OP topic. It has also been stated by Wags that the work on Caucasus continues After the Normandy is Completed. And Normandy is not yet completed. As said, the hornet is most likey coming later this year (tentative, not definite). But we do not have any statements considering 2.5 or Caucasus, which by logic would indicate to me, that they are farther out in the timeline than the Hornet. Also remember that ED currently has only one Map-dev-team. They need to finish Normandy first before any significant effort can be put toward Caucasus. Naturally this is mere speculation as ED may have a plan for a surprise they intend to keep until the very end... but that is also speculation. I'm not devaluing the 2.5/Caucasus discussion. All I am saying is, we have not had any new info on the subject for a while and there are more prevalent subjects on the table currently. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I belive the topic has been under wraps for two reasons: 1 As of late the Spitfire, the Normandy map, the Hornet (and Harrier and Tomcat although not ED:s projects) have been the center of attention. This and the fact that 2.5 has been delayed from the initial approximate timeframe that it has not been as relevant a topic for a while. 2 The new version of Caucasus and the 2.5 version have been discussed to death the last time we had any substantial info on the subject (back in 2016 when we last got to see screenshots of the Caucasus remake). So I feel the discussion has not been relevant, and probably won't become relevant before the Hornet is out. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

... and all of this should not be the player's workload. Carriers (and airfields for that matter) shluld include certain key assets by default. Why would one not want personnel and aircraft on the carrier deck?

My Spidy-senses are telling me you might have something to do with said videos... :matrix:

Then again, which of the options provide more effective marketing? Now we have actual players who had the opportunity to try the module and tell us how it is. If we were presented with only a video we could not get such info as "how does it feel to control"... and as we can see everyone here is thirsty for more regardless of not being able to try it ourselves. To put it a bit exaggerated: now we know it is real, since some actually got to play with it.

Damnit, I've lost a thread. I've posted about this before, but can't for the life of me find in which thread it was, so here it is again. We need more mouse control options to the game. Two cases: TrackIR control -> mouse follows the head in cockpit and VR, the same thing unless you couple the mouse to your vision, which is even more cumbersome. Operating small switches is a hassle in DCS and it doesn't have to be that way. The miniscule collision boxes for mouse control are in most cases too small for easy use, especially when the mouse is not stationary in regards to the cockpit. And this already works in the GUI layer, since you can turn your head around in VR main menu and the mouse is way more easy to control accurately, but in the pit it's a pain. So in short I suggest: Increase control hitboxes where possible Give player the ability to choose between 1 mouse tied to view, 2 free mouse following view, 3 free mouse tied to cockpit. Have these options available for VR and Non-VR. Additionally implement an option to have the mouse stick to cockpit switches. Implement an option to allow player to manually adjust locked mouse position while using a mouse that is tied to the view (sometimes the mouse in the center of your vision is annoying as heck). I do hope this get's enough attention to warrant a change. Using cockpit switches while using Head tracking or VR, especially when flying close formation, is an immersion breaker and a real frustration. Most important to me would be to separate the mouse from the viewport, so the user doesn't have to hold their head perfectly still (or pause trackIR) to flip a couple of switches. Especially when in reality you can flick switches without looking as well. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I don't think there would be any need for multicrew for such a module to work... Controlling the aircraft could be simplified to selecting headings, speeds and altitudes for an autopilot-type of control, so the aircraft would acgually fly by an AI given directions by the player. Add to that the boom operator position, and you could have a AAR module akin to CA. This would of course only benefit Miltiplayer... I don't really see the appeal in refueling AI. Could be a simple support-module to build, relatively speaking, no? It wouldn't sell an awful lot of copies though... Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Brilliant

Yea I get that. But the principle still stands in regards to the canopy. On the topic of flares, I could think of a few ways to recreate the feel of a "sharp" flare other than the method used currently. On topic, I assume the color tint on the canopy is freely adjustable by RAZBAM, no?

I also find the canopy very odd... burns my eyes almost. I guess quite a few times the problem is, ghat a camera sees things differently than our eyes. Just being at an airshow I noticed this with flares they used... in DCS flares are fairly large and produce this soft cloud of smoke... while the real ones are really sharp and very bright (as in I almost had to sqint my eyes), but they are also much smaller and the smoke is way more defined... And when you try to model something after the fact by looking at photos you might not see the same things from the picture that you could with your naked eye.

Also remember that the real thing is plastic as well...

Wags has said the will not be extending the map. Only remaking it.

Fair enough. I suspected an issue here since the taxi lights practically leave the right side completely dark. But if that is the way it was originally designed, then I'll roll with it.

Sure... though aircraft are supposed to taxi on the centerline... and the lights are more important on landing. Especially in crosswind... if the wind is from the left there is a danger that half the runway stays unlit. Must be a misalignment...

Hello. A question: are the MiG:s taxi/landing lights supposed to be so much off-center showing light to the left? I attached a screeshot to demonstrate. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Heatblur has stated they will push the module out this year... I interpret this as a Q4 release is all goes according to plan, where as RAZBAM has specifically stated Q3, which to me is an indication of a product that is farther in development and closer to release than the F-14. I can't really say anything about the F/A-18 until we get more information... could be it comes out in two months... then again could be it will be a Christmas gift. We will have to see about that when E3 has passed. Don't take me wrong, all three are on my list for purchase, so I don't really mind the order.

RAZBAM has stated that the Harrier should arrive in Q3... so unless the Hornet is out of the door in two weeks™ after the E3, the Harrier will be no.1 on this race.

Yeah, I'm fully expecting this 3D-model to be remade in the future... the question just is, "when is that going to be?"...

That is indeed a problem and something that will never be "just right" for many people. Still, having some kind of system as described would - in my books at least - be considered as a great improvement to the sim expanding the tactical and operational options available in any given scenario. As you have stated, we will never get the final word on how good each ECM-suite actually is at any given time against any given radar.

:D

Just out of curiosity.... why is this in the wishlist section? :o

I fully agree. It looks HORRIBLE!

Are you talking about mods or Modules? And the A-10A and the Su-27 are both FC3 aircraft.

I would strongly recommend this to be added to the specials tab into the editor. The less a player has to fiddle with files outside of the game the better. Even better would be to have a system to modify the file while the aircraft is parked, but that might be a bit much to ask for. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

That is a short update? More words than the Lord of the Rings... I wonder what a long update would be like We are hoping for success on the ED license front!