MikeMikeJuliet

Not a priority at this stage but sure I agree... It really kills your mood when trying to strafe for a unit in the woods and it doesn't get a scratch because a tree withstood all your rockets. I wonder how feasible this would be in regards to game performance... Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Call it necroing, but Phil Style made a good video about the visibility problem with changing screen resolutions which clearly shows that higher screen resolutions make spotting much more difficult due to the target pixel-rendering. So the higher your resolution, the smaller the target can get making it harder to spot when far away. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Hi. I'm not commenting on the carrier stuff - I'm no expert in those. About runway numbering: Consider the runway number to be the runway's name. It is not supposed to be exact. If you have multiple parallel runways they will be marked for example 24L, 24C, 24R (Left, Center, Right). Secondly, runway names are derived by rounding from the magnetic heading at the time of measurement. Magnetic heading changes all the time, and the rate depends on where you are on earth. So if a runway was named 15 years ago it the magnetic heading may in fact have changed so much that the heading may not round up to the same numbers. To obtain the proper magnetic heading for a given runway pilots in real life refer to the appropriate aerodrome charts that give the exact magnetic heading for that time period (changes, say once in 1-3 years). The problem with DCS is that the runway numbers are derived from real life airfields, but the headings are derived from DCS true north by magnetic declination. The problem arises from the fact that DCS true north does not resemble actual true north, but is in fact grid north (so at every single point on the map "true" north points exactly straight up on the map in stead of the actual geometric north pole). So when you derive the magnetic heading from this the headings differ from the real life counterparts. Since the runways are named after real life runways there will be disparity typically near the edges of each DCS map. I hope this helps. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

If you try with a buddy try the following: launch immediately after reaching Rne, have your friend do a 180, nothing else, and measure the missiles speed when (or if) it reaches the target. If the speed is not sufficient to hit (or at least it wouldn't be able to stand any additional maneuvers) the Rne indicator gives optimistic calculations. I agree that the Rne does not mean you couldn't evade the missile - but that is not the point. Within Rne you should not be able to bleed the missiles energy beyond a certain amount (this amount may be defined differently by different missile manufacturers). Within Rne you might still evade the hit, but beyond Rne you can actually deny the shot ever reaching you. That said launching within Rne doesn't yet mean a high pk shot - E.g. shooting within Rne only means your target will have to do extra work to succesfully defend, but will still quite likely survive. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Having all the aircraft visible at the start would also make the airfields more lively - no more empty aprons/ramps. But the problem then is: if you die airborne and respawn, how is this handled? the aircraft would respawn at that point just like before... I would prefer a spawn mechanic that would show a tug etc. bring the respawning aircraft from hangar to the ramp, but that would seriously slow down respawn times. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

While I do understand why so many people would like to have the HARM or the A/G radar as a priority I still feel confused about the result: anyone can see on these forums that systems that are left half finished get a lot of criticism on their way, but still people would rather leave the F/A-18's Air-to-air suite half done until some heavy Air-to-ground systems/weapons are implemented? I would much rather ED finished the whole air-to-air suite, link 16 included before fully focusing on the air-to-ground -side of the aircraft. That way we would have a complete F-18 and not a half done F/A-18. I am especially baffled about the low status of additional radar modes - TWS is an instrumental radar mode to effectively employ the Hornet! I do not know how far ED is in completing the A/G radar, but if it is still a-ways away from completion and the poll would be taken as is for a developement roadmap then I fear we will be stuck with a half baked fighter for a long time. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

So are you saying CSAR / marine rescue flying does not interest anyone? In that it is quite important to see what you are going for... Equally important would be the synchronization of ejected player's movement in MP. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Al Minhad has a wrong placard text on one of it's holding points. Holding points to the runway from left to right at the moment are: A, B, C, D, E, E and G. There should be a Foxtrot there, but instead there are two Echo's. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Ciribob, I would like to ask is there anything going on with regards to improvements to the audio crackling with multiple inbound radio traffic... I know this was a pain earlier, but it seems it still raises it's head more than enough now. So if you have two radios and simultanious traffic on both radios the transmissions degrade to unreadable regardless of whether or not the audio comes to the same ear or not. If you need samples, let me know and we will try to arrange some for you with a friend of mine. For the longest time this has been the single greatest bugbear of the software and is holding it back quite a lot in my opinion. Any idea what causes it, since I believe it has been "reduced"/"fixed" now a number of times, but our flying group very much experiences it every time we fly. Thanks for the great piece of software and support to it! I really hope this can eventually be solved. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

The physical limitations of any cockpit are a big part in operating them, so I would consider this to be a cheat if it were possible. Even if it were possible I doubt it would go through the integrity check.

Penalize it in score (just like blue-on-blue) or some other way and people will avoid shooting/crashing into parachuted pilots.

Alright, stop with the morality talk. First off. Videogames have not being shown to increase violence. Secondly, there are plenty of completely sane people playing games like Doom etc. Thirdly: You can already kill the pilots. Right into the cockpit. Ever realised that you can either lose your aircraft and eject, or either die instantly from the hit or afterwards? So killing the pilot is ok but killing the pilot is not ok (from a technical, NOT moral standpoint)? Fourthly, adding collidable ejected pilot's would give an actual reason to avoid them. And if you add a major score penalty to killing parachuting pilot's then players will avoid doing so - an inherent reason for actually caring about flying into things. And besides - if this is about not doing something that shouldn't be done in real life - then which is better: getting numbed about the fact that you can run over any number of parachutes with no effect, or actually having an effect when doing it? Just ponder on that a minute. Problem solved and a new emergent behaviour in fighter-pilots avoiding a killed Il-76's parachutists. It's raining men.

These kinds of things take a ton of time to get working properly. I recommend concentrating on other things and then be surprised when it arrives. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

DCS is never "complete". But it is true people have given interest to DCS with aerobatics and GA in mind now especially with the Yak. But while I'm okay with adding more civilians into the mix A) others aren't (which is fine) and B) to support general aviation DCS would need to focus on it for a while. Now I don't think we are in a situation where the change of focus is a good idea since DCS has been lacking in the combat department (which is one of the series' main points). I'm talking about game- and system mechanics... ATC, AI logic, damage model, missile performance, weather, systems for a human controlled air traffic, proper IFF and civilian transponders... And making big sweeping changes overnight will break a lot of things very quickly. We just got the 2.5 which is still in developement technically (and many of those developements are on the list I just laid out). ED is adressing some of the communitiess long time bugbears like the AA and SA missiles. I would let them advance at their own pace now that the pace has gotten up to speed. We see good changes monthly. I have no doubt that the Yak will in the end open doors and a way forward to a less isolated simulation environment along with the upcoming CE2 (even though there have been lot's of vocal critics). How long that way we end up I don't think anyone knows yet. Patience.

Also take into consideration that most photographs of actual HUDs have distorted colors. The human eye does not see the HUD in the same colors as a typical camera does. Most HUDs are infact very clear to the human eye.

Now that you mention it, that's right! I completely forgot about that. And so recently too... My guess is they will improve CA with that first though.

That, or the ability to assign objectives to player assets that would be shown in the briefing, perhaps even on a dedicated kneeboard page. And things do not have to be one or the other. These could be complementary systems depending on what kind of server is at hand. For example playing in massive realism-oriented tournament servers I would not necessarily want every player to be managing what he/she does, but instead to have a dedicated commander or several to build the gameplan and have the pilots follow said gameplan. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I hope they start with having CumuloNimbus clouds in the first place. The current system just adds a ridiculous amount and area of thunder on the same generic clouds. which vaguely represent small Cumulus clouds when the cloud layer is not set to overcast, and Stratus cloud when set to overcast... We need clearly distinguishable basic cloud types first. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I do very much agree with the core idea of having a strategic or operational commander (or multiple) but I am unsure how this should be implemented. Perhaps I would approach this with smaller iterations and improvements to the current Combine Arms -module. The very first changeI would make is to allow a Commander slot to edit and change the planned routes of units - namely aircraft. Also if an aircraft was parked somewhere else than its home plate, its 0-waypoint would be changed to said airfield on despawn/power down. at the same time the new route would be updated to the aircraft. This would affect the multiplayer gameplay in two ways: allow the control of a dynamic scenario from commander position and remove the need for pilots to spend excess time trying to build flightplans with limited info in the cockpit with onboard systems which as we know can be a bit clunky for punching in large amounts of waypoints. I am not saying the idea should stop here, not at all. But I feel this would - as a whole - be a system/concept that should be introduced and tested in gradual steps insted of introducing the whole thing at once. Incremental introduction is easier for players and we can really see what works and what doesn't Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I'd imagine ED would like to do so with the upcoming new cloud and weather system. I'm hoping this will happen soon - the old clouds, even with the new textures with 2.5 still look and act very unrealistically. Problem is that clouds as well as water physics require a lot of computational power to look correct. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

While I have nothing against civilian aircraft in DCS, I do not think the time is yet right to add a bunch these aircraft. The community seems very split on the issue and at this time DCS would need all available focus on other things at this time. Let the Yak-52 sink in. In multiplayer we would need a culture change from "lone wolf" and "airquake" play to a more complete approach to military aviation including regular flying with human ATC for example and the fact that not every Bogey is is a Bandit... A bush plane would be ridiculously fun to play around with, though. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

All the release dates for the Yak (beta, stable, Steam) are stated in the FAQ posted a few days prior to launch: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3585169&postcount=1 Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Indeed. And remember: talking about bugs and annoying features for decades - the annoying zoomout was removed lately. For those that believe that some issues remain forever unadressed

Firstly, the Yak is not a WW2 aircraft. Secondly the Yak is a Trainer where as the WW2 aircraft are fighters. That means two things: The Yak has NO weapons. And the Yak is made easier to fly safely so it can be used by pilots that don't yet know what they are doing compared to the WW2 fighters which are built for maximum performance in mind (which many times makes the difficult to handle and possibly dangerous in beginners' hands). Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Not all bother to vote even if the subject would interest them. One reason for this would be that the poll options are set up poorly. There are a lot of steps between "no use whatsoever" and "yes let's implement". Measuring how many people push a button on an optional poll is hardly decisive data on what people want.