wilbur81

This would be the ultimate, for sure. For my regular VR users: do you not find HB's giant Comm's wheel popping up in front of your face mildly immersion breaking? I've done VR, and it was for me.

Same here.

Can't really read the altitude on that HAFU, but it looks to me (as stated above) that the bandit is in double-digit altitudes while your radar is only looking up to 4k. Radar Elev, up, and your there. As to being directly behind the bandit, if there's negative closure, you likely will need Medium-only PRF to lock him up...your in Interleave in your screenshot.

Dear Devs, After a certain new trailer was recently released, it just occurred to me: I LOVE the simple, out-of-the-way, low-key comms menu we have in DCS. Please keep it that way and don't ever change! Just say "no" to the giant, flashy, "center-stage" comms menus.

My friends. It just must be said, so I'll say it: DCS has never looked more beautiful and run so well on my modest (by DCS standards) system! Well done to the whole team! With so many modules and features, both current and upcoming, it's easy to miss the incredible progress they've made over the past several years. Seriously, I was flying around the Iraq map on a mission at sunset the other day... Absolutely stunning! Thanks for all the work, team! You are the golden age of military flight sim, PERIOD.

Many days have passed in this thread, but here's some video of "our" DCS Hornet in motion with the 404 Tail flash (BUNO 165407) -

I'm seeing the same.

No, I'm with you as well. In a realistic combat sim, I'm interested in realistic (historical or future-likely) scenarios. But most importantly for me is this: The map structures need to be susceptible to damage and alteration. MSFSim looks pretty from above, but for a combat sim, the environment is unalterable. I have near-zero interest in a whole-earth-DCS-map.

I wholeheartedly agree.

This third party mod is really cool, but it still isn't as slick, simple, or well integrated into DCS as the CFM generator was. My suggestion to folks who'd like to get ED to reconsider bringing back their "not planned" Create Fast Mission Generator, would be to let your voice be heard here in this thread. Again, this is not about getting rid of the new QAG, necessarily.

It's not, unfortunately.

Nice.

Afraid to say that we have very little at present in the Hornet along the lines of realistic system failures. I'm sure they'll come eventually, but it's pretty far behind modules like Heatblur's Tomcat in this regard. In seven years of flying the DCS Hornet (with well over 1000 hours in it), I've still yet to hear Betty say "bleed air," "Engine Fire," "APU Fire," or any other of the like, beyond the standard test procedure. Nor have I ever seen a fire light. I'm sure we'll get there, though. I'd LOVE to see Heatblur-Levels of systems simulation and failures in the Hornet. We'll keep being patient.

Here's my QAG feedback: Here's what's needed from the new Quick Action Generator in order to replace DCS capability that has recently been lost: The ability to, in approximately 60 to 90 seconds, with essentially one click (because it saved your previous settings like "Blue Air Units - MAX") create a battle field that has 200+ units that are not where I knowingly placed them. The option in DCS to create a fast, high unit count mission that is RANDOM in placement and nature. With the QAG, after one or two clicks, we should be able to create a small world populated mission for a given unit (say, the A-10 or F-16) a mission of 200+ units. These changes would bridge the gap quite nicely between the ME and what the QAG currently, clearly, isn't. Please.