MikeMikeJuliet

I believe the activation amount is a limitation on the key-system as well as a measure to prevent tomfoolery with module licences between multiple PC's. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

@Silver_Dragon I don't believe for a minute that we get the F-16 on 2019. The dev team is the same as with the Hornet, and the Hornet is still ways away from being completed... only after it is done they can fully develop the F-16... My bet is a 2020-2021 release for the Fighting Falcon. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Another point on the same vain... say you are already on the server and a player spawns a new aircraft... after you recover from the 5-15 second 0-1FPS freeze you realise you are about 3 seconds away from instant death due to the freeze having happened exactly during your divebombing run. And the guy that spawned is 50NM away in a hangar opposite of where you are looking. Please someone explain why the aircraft couldn't be loaded in smaller increments / slower to other clients especially in cases where said aircraft will have no gameplay effect on the other clients?! I do understand not loading everything when joining since the load time would increase as more modules are added, but at least overhead it so that the menu is usable, and for crying out loud don't make it kill the framerate for the whole server when someone decided to show up. At present the only way to avoid this is to get all players in before any flying happens, but that is impossible on open public servers

Agreed, though contrails in particular depend completely on environmental factors. e.g. no contrails, very short contrails (dissipate within, say, 5-10 seconds), long but eventually dissipating contrails, and finally contrails that never dissipate but eventually form clouds. Also I think contrails should be visible from practically unlimited view distance. The farthest LOD could just be a white line for lower spec PC's. Though care must be taken to render them properly depending on weather conditions and lighting - I've seen games that render effects and aircraft dots over the clouds, meaning you can see everything you need even in full IMC Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

This whole request baffles me. DCS is, though an entertainment software, a simulation. There are a ton of things missing or lacking that fit that description, including maps. Adding fantasy/entirely fictional & non-plausible material is not something that fits. DCS main demographic are people who first and foremost look for authenticity and realism. You can see that from the sheer amount of rivet counters and threads delving into the most minute detail on aircraft and systems. If you want a fantastical flight experience there are games for that. This request in my opinion is so detached from DCS developement reality, focus and priorities that I don't even know where to begin... Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Pilot callsign is not the same as in-flight callsign, unless US pilots do things differently than pretty much the rest of the world...

My apologies on the naming - I do own one myself, but those tend to be different in size to a proper kneeboard. Optimally you would have a leg-strapped tablet and the included pencil + the kneeboard as a physical 3D object in the correct position in the cockpit instead of the view-obstructing 2D window we have now. Said 3D object could also in a pinch be operated withthe mouse and, say, clicking the left or right edge of the kneeboard would change the pages. No more keyboard and you can have the kneeboard in the cockpit all the time exactly like in a real cockpit. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I hope and expect this all to change when we get the new ATC. Here's hoping...

In my thread someone pointed out that the ATC reported Runway and the Navaid direction in use are not the same. The conditions where both of them change are different so you may end up with what you've experienced.

Alright, that read did clear the underlying system and proposed agreeable changes which should be made. My gripe with the system specifically is that in cases where there is only one landing aid (e.g. a single-direction ILS) the navaid is turned off because the wind is either not blowing from the correct direction or the weather is calm. This is the case in Senaki and should be changed. At present you can't land on all airfields in calm conditions IFR because the appropriate ILS's are turned off. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

But if the ILS is activated only with 4m/s winds, that means in calm conditions you have neither. Besides: Senaki does not have ILS for RWY 27... so you can't use ILS at all if the wind's are at all from the wrong direction (and mind you, usually 10kt tailwind is allowed for).

Here is an update for you: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3688257#post3688257 In short: the ILS in de-activated if the wind from the appropriate direction is less than 4m/s (around 7,8KT)... which is ridiculous! Why? Because you know when the weather usually the worst? With static winds, clouds hanging in the trees and fog surrounding everything... and the game doesn't give you ILS at that time. This needs to be fixed. ILS should be on regardless of wind direction or intensity. There is also an approach type called "circling"... so you may use ILS to get low enough to make a visual approach to the opposing runway - the current wind-related ILS does not allow that either. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

What the 'effin logic is that? The navaids should be on at all times! There are things called "Circling approaches" where you use the wrong end navaids to get below cloud for a visual approach to the wind-approproate runway... And does this mean that the most likely weather when you have really low clouds (e.g. 0-winds) you have no ILS available?! But good to know. Shame the game never communicates this to the player. I really hope this issue is addressed. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Hello. This document was linked to me some time ago: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/osmhome/redbook/4d_5_10.pdf If you scroll to page 4-172, from there onward you will find paired frequencies for TACAN, VOR and ILS. I'm asking for such pairing to be included in DCS for expanding the usability of radio navigation beacons. Why? Well, take any DCS-airfield... many of said airfields have only a limited array of navigation aids. Then take any DCS-module... many of them have limited equipment. By utilizing frequency pairing you could use your equipment on more airfields/beacons than currently. A specific example is Sochi in Caucasus. Operate the A-10C and turn off your EGI. You've lost your accurate area navigation equipment. Now Sochi has ILS... but for some reason no VOR nor TACAN... so without radar or GPS you have got no clue where you should fly to intercept that ILS. With frequency pairing you could get the DME distance from the ILS and at least get a hint of where the beacon is. Same thing for less critical airfields like Batumi - sure you can use the DME from the TACAN stationed mid-way of the airfield, but you could also get the distance from the ILS itself - giving exact info from the threshold. This is especially handy for aircraft that don't have VOR receivers but do have TACAN:s... or vice versa. DCS maps are mostly realistic, but the problem is that not every aircraft is at all compatible for flying there. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Has this issue been registered by ED?

Also remember that the AWACS calls in english in DCS also use some unnecessary or even confusing words: in partikular "for" and "at". Example: "Bandit BRA one-five-zero for fourty at fifteen thousand, hot"... First off the "for" could be accidentally understood as "four", which is bad, but also the "at" is useless. the order and format of the words is known so filler words should be left out. They clutter the message. Compare: "Bandit, BRAA one-five-zero, fourty, fifteen thousand, hot" No filler words and you can separate all three number-terms because of how they are said: separate digits, full numbers and in thousands. And compare all that to the russian slowness... oh boi Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Though I have not run out of juice from flight sims (probably never will) I do sometimes find myself exhausted from the same-ness, so I feel you. I don't have other answers except what has been proposed: join a squadron. That said I would like to spark ideas or conversation considering this. Technically all DCS public servers lack certain features that would make for a more engaging ride and challenge players to do something else than join, start the aircraft (and miss all checks and BITs) and just run to find something to kill. Specifically: #1 ATC. If you've never tried, suddenly having to actually use radios and to be aware of where you are and aren't allowed to go brings very much to the game especially at ingress and egress - the two things that (arguably) feel the most boring in a sim like this, because people want challenge. Once you juggle your radios and clearances and finally get to the AO you already feel like you've done something! I've run ATC for my group/squadron and you wouldn't believe the amount they suddenly focus on basics like taxiing and traffic circuit flying... and they enjoy the challenge. #2 Human controlled Air defences. Now some servers do have this and this is something that, along with the ATC requires a player to willingly step away from the best bits (= flying) to control something that they themselves might not get that much out of... But a clever, dynamic SAM site is a sight to behold. In most cases in DCS Air defences are either a cake walk or there are so many that you can't even approach them - neither is actually fun for pilots. Now imagine attacking the target and soon realise you are surrounded by SAMs and you have to fight your way out... and hunting the SAMs would actually require tactics, not just an ARM and a button press... #3 Weather and IFR approaches. The lack of this is naturally due to the simplistic weather modelling in DCS + the fact that most aircraft do not share the same suite of radio navigation equipment. But think about having dynamic or structured weather where the AO would have relatively good conditions (to allow for CAS and such), but on the airfields you'd actually need to get the aircraft down safely in IFR... Or a night-carrier landing... or forced AAR... Picture a wingman that has lost his instruments needing to fly on your wing down an ILS approach. Now there are a lot of other things as well for sure, but I would really like to have even some of these on more public servers. At present even the best of them only feel like a shadow of what a really big and intensive scenario could be. I mean on Blue Flag or Dynamic DCS you literally need 4-6 players to conquer an airfield if there is no proper opposition... Air defence is a joke with AI and too many players play lone wolf. I would like to see a minimum formation of 2 enforced on some servers (with the exception of, say, ELINT Viggen). Food for thought. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

The dual-license system is just two separate keys bought simultainously. Both keys contain the full module = both keys can run either seat. Essentially it is just a faster and cheaper way to buy two separate keys, because the aircraft is designed with multiplayer in mind. The RIO seat is not a separate entity. It is the same exact module that contains both cockpits. What this means is that you need two accounts, one for each module and two PC:s capable of running DCS. So if you were planning on running the RIO seat as an iPad APP or on a potato-laptop then you've understood incorrectly. The F-14 will work in the same way as the L-39 and Yak-52. The RIO workstation will not be a separate tag-along external app. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Hi, Ever flown with a player acting as Fighter Controller or Air Traffic Controller? Ever looked at airfield charts from the kneeboard, switched to the appropriate frequency and used SRS / Universe Radio with said player? Then you know how annoying it is that you need to deal with the AI ATC since there no way to deactivate it. You can set "player comms only" in FC3-aircraft, but not in full fidelity planes since, I guess, you can just change to another frequency... But what is the point in having a frequency for the airfield + an actual player on that frequency if it is all overridden by the AI? At present we need to come up with separate frequencies for human interactions and AI interactions. It is not a big issue, but an annoyance nontheless. I regard this as a mid-low importance request. TL;DR: allow for all aircraft to change the AI comms mode the same way as with FC3-aircraft. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I agree. There is nothing unrealistic in being able to use "say again". True you might not have the capacity to ask or listen in the most intense moments, but I find those extremely rare - a fighter pilot is expected to be able to communicate with his/her wingmen and the fighter controller. Now weither you have time to look and press the appropriate fuction keys on your keyboard and then read the subtitles is another matter entirely, but that is the problem of having to communicate via a comm-menu insted of actual speach...

From what I've understood is that trees are in fact slightly upscaled in size to have proper coverage while keeping tree count slightly lower. I can't confirm this but it has been discussed at length at least within my squadron's VR users. This may contribute to the perception that something is off. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

... and it would be of great utility to be able to control lights, tacan and other systems of the carrier via Combined Arms... then you can just say "inbound" to your fellow player and you're all set. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Yea it can't be changed with normal gameplay options. But don't worry, there is an easy rule to remember: Just double it. Specifically: 2m/s * 3,6 = 7,2km/h 7,2km/h / 1,852 = 3,8876...kt So, to get the approximate kt from m/s, just double it. 2m/s = roughly 4kt. if you want to be a bit more exact just remove "a bit" form the value you just got and you are close enough to get the idea. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I posted a report on this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=201583 I flew the A-10C. On the same flight I tried Senaki ILS and Kutaisi ILS. Since I didn't get them to work I flew to Batumi where I know I've gotten the ILS to work previously and it did this time as well. All cockpit switches in the same position in all approaches (except frequency obviously) and as said, Batumi worked completely as expected so I can confirm this is no user error. Requesting a fix for this. No point in having ILS frequencies on the plates if they are unusable. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Today tested this and I can confirm. ILS does NOT work on Senaki or Kutaisi on the A-10C. I did a control by flying to Batumi on the same flight and ILS there works flawlessly - All cockpit switches exactly the same except of course I changed the frequency (naturally) and course. So this is not a user error. So the A-10C ILS in not broken, it is the ILS:s themselves. Game version latest OpenBeta at the time of posting ( 4NOV2018 ) I will report this in the Maps section of the forums as well. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet