MikeMikeJuliet

For those who wonder "what do I do wity this", or "why is this coming out?": Remember that this project is contracted. We are getting it purely as a bonus aircraft. If you don't need it for anything, don't buy it. I myself will fly basic school flights with my squad mates, just enjoy the flightmodel with our current sceneries and annoy the heck out of people by reserving the runway :D Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I'm sorry, I don't really understand what and why you are asking this... Why would you need/want a disc version when the sim updates so frequently that installing from a disk would still require a ton of updates online. Secondly DCS is a single package in regards to singleplayer and multiplayer... why would one need separate discs? DCS can be set to offline mode after installation in the game. And why would the disc have an operating system requirement but not other system requirements? DCS is a high-end program requiring significant horsepower to play well. This would be crucial information. Could you elaborate on what and why you are asking this? It seems pointless to me with the littke info you have provided... Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Please consider your post topics. There are a ton of wishlist threads and forum threads in general. The title should state the core or the name of your message. "I GOT 1" is practically a sort of clickbait title, forcing users to click and read if they want to know if you had anything to say that is relevant to them. By writing good titles you increase the chanse that people find your posts later as well when searching. Also the better you can articulate a message, be it the title or a longer post or idea, the more likely it is that others understand your message correctly. Also properly argumented posts have way more value in developing DCS as a platform than spouting opinions and using capslock. I do not mean this post in a hostile manner. You are very welcome to post on the forums. But you will be best recieved by improving your output. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

SF_MikeMikeJuliet - Blue GCI

Hello. Just wanted to let you guys know (this must have been reported already, no?) that the MiG-21's taxi / landing light illuminates the whole cockpit through the fuselage. Latest open beta at this time. During low ambient light the cockpit shines as bright as the light of Elendil... you can barely even read the cockpit anymore. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I'm very thrilled that we will be getting more redfor aircraft, but to me, most important items at this time are that RAZBAM finishes the Mirage and Harrier - otherwise they'll soon have 5 WIP modules. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

We might all be wrong and you migh indeed be correct. BUT. Given the significant evidence in favor of the currently accepted model of the universe you would need to provide significant proof to every and all of your claims. Just telling "this is how it is" and not providing any evidence aside from truckloads of imagination unfortunately leaves your theory in between "LOL what a joke!" and "Whaaaaaaaaaaat?!?" in terms of believeability. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I cannot stress this enough: The proposed feature would not overwrite the old behaviour of the mouse cursor. Instead it would add an option. An option is a feature that you - the user - have control over. A feature that can be enabled or disabled at will. So why do people resist an obviously important addition to the sim, even if they personally do not need it? Just because you don't need something doesn't mean others shouldn't have it. When browsing the wishlist, please understand what "an option" means. Even if it is not stated outright. Regards MikeMikeJuliet

No. Though I would like to see such units. Background noise jamming aircraft as well. But first the whole electronic sphere in DCS would have to be expanded for this to work well - and I doubt it happening in the near future. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

R.I.P. TB has influenced my thinking and given me information and insight on gaming in general for at least 8 years now. WTF is..., gaming news, Terraria with Jesse, TGS Podcast, the Co-optional podcast and the Co-optional animations have made my day countless of times. He has had a great influence on my daily approach to gaming and critical thinking for the better.

I don't have an answer to the comms within a flight nor to AWACS comms, but Wags has stated in the latest Q&As including the one in Crash Laobi's video yesterday that ATC rework is underway. ED currently creates Carrier comms systems. After that is completed they will start working on normal ATC. If other comms are reworked I bet they coincide with future reworks of Air-to-Air AI. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

You mean an early access version of the early access version?! Madness!:lol:

This could be coupled with the request to be able to modify aircraft waypoints during a mission when parked on the ground. Both would add a lot to multiplayer and Co-Op v AI missions. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Sorry to hijack your thread @hannibal, but I already started the discussion by way of a few feature requests here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=207568 Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

More control options is always welcomed. That way no-one has to change from the current system if they don't want to and those who do can have their preferred control method. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Yes. Pretty much the only thing anyone can tell you. It all depends. Might be a week, might be a month. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

As mentioned before the FiAF Hornets use standard ILS + VORDME. PAR approaches have been retired here a couple of years ago. If used outside the main bases the TILS system is used (Tactical ILS). You can do PAR approaches in DCS Multiplayer if the ATC has LotATC in use. I wish there would be an option for the hornet in DCS to change between the carrier landing system and regular ILS. Would be handy for no-carrier missions in foul weather. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Standard DCS day is the same every time you load up the mission editor. +20°C, Standard pressure at sea level, 0 wind. Unless that was changed very recently. Secondly a standard cruise setting would be used throughout the altitude envelope. Otherwise it would not be called a standrad cruise power setting. Climbing high enough will show close to if not exactly the same temperature as ISA in general, so at, say 8-10 kilometers the conditions are close enough for a comparison. Not hard data, no, but sufficient in my mind to spot a power setting difference of 5-10%. We would need to have the IRL cruise speed at said setting to compare though. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Those labels only add a label-dot on top of distant units in a similar manner to the late model enlargement. So you won't be getting any revealing text or anything.

It seems you are not aware of RAZBAMs upcoming Supertucano...

Alright. How fast/effective are you at this if a) after a lengthy fight you are in IFR and unaware of your position, b) there are no waypoints available in the mission for you and c) the F-10 map does not show your position? I am not saying it can't be done, I am saying it is made more difficult by oversimplified systems. In a real aircraft you should always be able to know by looking at your instruments at which point/beacon your navigation suite is pointing towards. This is not the case in the F-15C we have. As you point out one needs to use the F-10 map which is external to the aircraft. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Lol :lol:

It will take you ages to determine which airfield is which on MP-servers with no waypoints if you lose your way (and F-10 map is unavailable). True, it is possible (and works well in the russian aircraft), but cumbersome, and the landing-mode points to the initial approach fix on the F-15, until you are on it, at which point it will show "ILS". Point is, it is cumbersome and time consuming - when in reality it would be quite simple an straightforward if said features were in place. At the very least I would like to see some actual indicator which landing is which in the F-15 (you already see them in A-10A, and as you pointed out as an index in the russian aircraft) + the ability to set altimeter pressure setting. I always wondered why the altimeter pressure setting is omitted in some FC3 aircraft, but not all... like they just forgot to add it...

And to add to the end: ED (see the original post) stated they will be building an FC4 - regardless of what you seem to want. ED will not remove FC3, so why try to separate them from the rest of the gameplay? If we are getting FC4 anyway I might as well suggest things that make the pack even more usable amongst all the fine DCS modules.

Slow down. Stop. First off, go read my original post. Nowhere did I say anything about tunable radios. Period. You seem to be throwing a fit over simple feature requests that does not require a lot to be implemented. The "beacon mode" I have suggested is merely an extension that would work exactly like the current waypoint system, just that you choose between beacons, not waypoints. Secondly, have you realized that FC3 aircraft are used by a multitude of players. They are the most used aircraft in for example RedFlag Reality, which is the most realistic PVP online event in DCS. In addition to this most FC3 aircraft already have adjustable pressure setting. Even the keys are already in the F-15C and A-10A - no-one just bothered to make them do anything. You seem to suggest that I suggested a paradigm shift to FC-aircraft. This is simply not true. I suggested a small and in my (and at least my group/squadron members) opinion some important additions to expand current systems to accommodate more realistic scenarios. The only new keys required for me suggestions are the two keys to rotate the course knob. All others can be done perfectly with the current keys. I really do not understand your attitude toward this - on the other hand you call for "DCS realism only", but when I call for small additions to make the FC3 aircraft operate more realistically you revert to "FC-aircraft should be kept dumb, don't mix FC and DCS". Fact is, you can't separate them. If we are ever getting a DCS F-15C it would be made on top of the current FC-module. Making FC aircraft able to operate alongside all other aircraft is the key to keeping MP as realistic as possible without excluding those who want to fly FC-aircraft. I am fully aware my suggestions are not 100% realistic systems wise, but they allow for the pilot to operate in the air environment in a realistic fashion. And regarding the F-10 map... using it is not realism. Realism is using the onboard systems, and onboard map and the kneeboard. The need to use the F-10 map just tells me that the FC aircraft are too simple - but by my suggestions, and possible improvements to the kneeboard you would not need the F-10 map other than to plan your flight. And before you say "use filters so the F-10 map doesn't show anything regarded as 'cheating'" - that defeats the point. The F-10 map is useless for FC aircraft if you can't see your position or see your waypoints in there. If you don't have a real GPS/INS map onboard you shouldn't be able to use it via a F-10 map view either. And the aircraft do not need a lot to be usable without the F-10 map. Besides, ED has said that they have different groups of coders for different aircraft. At this point I would imagine tweaking FC3 would be used to introduce new programmers the same way ED has said they do when creating WW2 modules. Have you realised there are quite a lot of aircraft in DCS already? And a lot of 3rd parties making them? Adding 3 freatures to FC3 diverts about as much work away from other modules as having a worker fall ill for a week or two. You won't even know it ever happened. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet