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.

Now that DCS is legit having cows I don't see this mod as a mere joke anymore...

Correct. I forgot about those!

There has been an issue on HUD blurring for a long time. I'm not certain where to post this exactly, but here it is now. All aircraft HUD's incorrectly blur when you fly or taxi behind another aircrafts heatblur. I assume this is because of render orders. The HUD picture in reality vomes from the projector within the cockpit, and as the heat blurs of engines are outside the aircraft, the HUD picture should not be affected in any capacity by ait movements or temperature changes outside the aircraft. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

In fact the only effect currently on all aircraft are wingtip vortices. Only the Hornet has LEX vapours but ive it doesn't have overwing vapours yet. ED has stated that they are coming to all aircraft in time. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

"Phantom" is synonymous to "ghost". What this means in the context of a videogame is the following: Your client in a multiplayer game doesn't simulate other players' aircraft. Instead what you see is the aircraft, its location, rotation, movement momentum, configuration etc. as it is sent to you from the other player via the server (e.g. clients are synced). This non-calculated multiplayer representation of the other player is their net phantom. Long teleportation in this case is what happens when the netcode does things that, when combined with large pings and/or packet loss makes the other players (e.g. their net phantoms) sometimes warp several miles around the map. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I have around 1-2 hours per night to play, so it depends what I choose. Some nights may have even 3-4 hours if I'm lucky and others it's zero. In addition to that I have some free time to spare around the day to do a few minutes of looking at documents or learning things... I'd say all in all it's pretty good for a guy with work and a family. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet