MikeMikeJuliet

My grand speculation is, that we will get an official announcement next weeks friday (october 11.), and Viggen will be released as beta on the 11th of november. Given the info about the estimated quick launch after first public info, I'd say that is plausible. the 11th is in 3 weeks and 2 days... so 3/4 of a month. Just my speculation. We will see next week if this holds any water :D EDIT: Lol, I realised a stupid typo. 28th of october for the first date. 11th of november for the second. Sorry.

Hahahaa! I love it! That's the way to make a teaser. Perfect!

Seems this thread has been cold for some time now. But, to keep people informed, ED is recreating the current Caucasus map with a new mesh, new structure models and new textures. And no, the map is not going to be extended. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

No wonder the damn CAS instant action mission is impossible...

Go to the mission editor, add your aircraft and remember to set kneeboard t to player controlled. Add a tanker and give it a waypoint to fly straight for as long as you need it to. Thats all you need mision-wise. When you are airborne, there is a category in the radio menu for tankers. Ask the tanker for a permission for pre-contact, move to close formation and report ready. After this the tanker gives you fuel when the boom connects. One thing to remember is, that you need to open the refuelling nozzle before contact. Otherwise the fuel has nowhere to go. In the F-15 this is indicated by a green "Ready"-light on the canopy arch. I don't remember what the indication is for the A-10A unfortunately. Then just practice. One advice though, don't chase the boom. Fly the refuelling formation with the tanker. There are indicator lights on the belly of the KC-135 to help with the position. The boom operator will drive the boom to the correct place when you maintain correct position. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

When you land or take off for example, you need to know the maximum angle you can pitch the nose up while still on the ground. Otherwise you might hit your tail on the runway. It is also a very handy fixed mark to controlling your attitude when maneuvering extensively, since you might not see your flight path marker all the time. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Been playing Blueflag now for 2 nights and the Blue team has been greatly pushed back. Problem is, last night I think I counted 6 or 7 disconnects between 1700 and 2030 Z. Also seems whenever you are just about to get something done it disconnects... makes it really hard for blue team to capture anything. Has anyone got any real explanation on this? Surely an event of this caliber should be held on a server that can actually support the planned operation? I mean, tonight on TS people were half-jokingly convinced it's a red side spy conveniently DDOS:ing the server whenever a red FARP was under attack... I don't like to believe such claims without real evidence, so I assume it happened on both sides... I'd say, either get the server stable with what ever means necessary, or call BlueFlag Round 9 cancelled. There is unfortunately no point in flying if all you get to do is set up your loadout and do interior preflight. And don't get me wrong, I've never had this much fun flying sims when it works... but now it seems most of the time it doesn't. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

"Nerfing" ships, ground units or aircraft doesn't really have a place in DCS. If the ship is overly durable in contrast to data known of the ship, it should be toned down, yes. Such gameplay elements are not changed by way of "I feel like...". If you have data to claim that the ship is indeed too durable, then it should be looked at. And comparing to other simulators is not valid here, since they might not be doing their damage model correctly either. To me, sounds like a critical flaw in the desighn of a warship if a single CAS-aircraft can sink it just like that. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I'm sorry, did I misunderstand this? You say there is no "balancing" (widest sense of the word) issues with multiplayer scenariis if you leave out the F14... Yet, by leaving out the F-14 you ARE balancing the multiplayer scenario. Did I miss something or did you just say "we don't have issues with force-balance if we take out the plane that imbalances the opposing forces"? Confused regards, MikeMikeJuliet

So why not change the link so we can read the story for ourselves? For what it's worth... given a within-visual-range fight, 1 on 1 I don't thing anyone ever questions the maneuverability of the Flanker. Though we also know such a case would be highly isolated from a lot of other factors.

You might want to format the altitude for each leg so, that if it is less than 1km, it would show meters (so 0 to 999m) and a kilometer format from 1km upwards.

It might also have something to do with aircraft stability, especially considering yaw. Now I don't know how stable the DCS WW2 aircraft are in a dive, but that might have something to do with it.

Also, yes. Bombing without modern systems and aids is very difficult at first.

The two things dont really compare other than they are both VR devices of some sort. Gear VR is powered by your phone. And as said you'd need to stream your video feed from your PC, which, for gaming purpose won't work in a satisfactory manner. Oculus Rift and the HTC Vive on the other hand are powered straight by your PC, just like any display you have. Gear VR would best be described as "a nice experience, but ultimately more of an expensive toy", where as the full blown headsets are the real thing. The current state of VR is good, but there is lot to be improved on. With that in mind, if you want to go with VR, DO NOT make compromises on the headset. You'll only waste money if you do. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Mouse clickable atc-menu is in the works, although that isn't exactly the answer to the problem. Your suggestion would indeed be a good addition. And a voice activation as another option. Otions, options. Can't have too many of them.

Please stop this throwing of arguments. No matter who is right or wrong. That is off topic and does not help a thing at this point.

I have the same issue. I can hear the tone, but just barely. The tone control knob seems to adjust the volume, but even at maximum setting the sound is really hard to hear properly. No problem getting a lock or launching the missile. Just difficulty to hear the sound.

Just to clarify, are you talking about mods as "modules" or as "modifications"? Currently there is an A-4 mod in the works by the community for example. Talking about future Modules (i.e. DLC) at least the following are in the works: F/A-18 F-14 and Viggen. There are probably others but I tend to not remember every bit on the forums. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

It depends on the pedals. Not all pedals allow you to do that. Mine are the Saitek Combat rudder pedals... the pedal-portion is a sort of cylinder at the "lower end" of each pedal, and the rest is the toe-brake... so I can just about break with my toes. There is no heel-stopper in the way so I can do that. Now that I think about it, most pedals probably don't allow that to happen.

Yep. What dbourne said. I wondered about this for a while and thought something was wrong, until I finally realized that the default screen for the device analyzer doesn't show the HOTAS. Don't worry, judging by the screenshots your program is running as intended.

That method could also be used to provide broadcast-control, where a fighter controller broadcasts air picture, and airborne fighters use said picture to build their own gameplan. Or spoofing. Though not feasible until all participants are skilled enough, otherwise it just ruins the whole session.

Yea, the factory settings for sensitivity in trackIR are way over the top. I wish this nostalgia could be, in thought, translated more to people. Nowadays I feel the forum (and discussion in general of any game) turn to the "its not good enough" and "current tech should be getting us more than we are getting"... I mean... did we really forget it this quickly, how utterly bad games looked in the past? Or even, go back two years! We didn't even have a proper 6DoF cockpit for the Su25T, and the grapchics engine was still old... Ideas for improvement are always good, but I feel people in general are not at all greatful for what we have in our hands. Or at the very least they rarely say it.

Exactly what I was getting at: no updrafts, or even a downdraft accentuated further by the cliffs around the lake. That could mean trouble if you have not enough engine power available.

I meant the suggestion that the 135 would change it's capabilities midflight due to a different aircraft asking for fuel. If it can carry both the boom and the baskets at the same time, then that should be implemented.

Which one do you think is an easier fix? A mapmaker adds one existing aircraft to a map, or ED implementing a completely new one, or even change the current one to be even more unrealistic than it currently is? Besides, you don't know how long it takes to get the maps fixed... could be a matter of minutes if you're lucky. Try it at the very least. If you have time to post 3 nev threads here, I don't think you would't have time for a fourth. No hard feelings intended.