unipus

I'm absolutely NOT willing to pay more for modules. Not necessarily because of the actual cost (most of them are priced reasonably), but because it sends entirely the wrong message back to the bean-counters, and leads to this exact continued situation where there seems to be no perceived incentive to do anything but find new aircraft modules to develop.

Even the level of detail you describe is much more than would be strictly necessary to start seeing much more interesting and dynamic results. However, I will note with the amount of work ED has been putting into creating more detailed thermal signatures for the models -- in an idea world this would suggest that they've got a system in place that knows where an engine is versus where a gun is and so on. If this is true, then all of that could be leveraged to a more directly cause and effect implementation. Failing that, a few charts and tables would still do a much improved job.

Maybe they gain enough new users to support that interpretation of the business model, I don't know. What I do know is that they lose money from people like myself, who have significantly reduced purchase of new modules while the core game experience remains unchanged. I would gladly accept a model that involved paying for the base game (and therefore a little less per module) if it meant that the base game saw steady and meaningful updates.

Yes. 100%. The lack of a plausible systems-damage simulation is absolutely top on my list, and has been for a long time. Note that I say "plausible" as opposed to "realistic" -- there's really no need for simulating exact weapon penetration to get this done. What is needed, however, is something that allows me to hit a tank with an ATGM and see some result beyond "it's dead and on fire" or "nothing happened?" Or, what's even worse in the current implementation, "I know that I did 94% damage to it and that it will explode in exactly 10 seconds." It should be possible to hit a vehicle and do damage to one or several of its systems, ranging from mild to mission kill to catastrophic, and to be able to (potentially) see this. The same system could apply to fragmentation and splash damage, addressing long-held complaints. This can be simulated to very acceptable fidelity in a tabletop game, so I don't buy that it would be remotely taxing for the DCS engine. It does not require an advanced physics engine to create meaningful results that are satisfying to observe and actually drive gameplay. I've spent 80% of my time since the very beginning doing air-to-ground in DCS, and continue to do so, and it's heartbreaking to see zero progress here in years especially with the amount of a2g modules coming out. I simply can't get interested in the Apache or anything else coming until there's some indication of real change on the way, sooner than later. I'm not just complaining - I would be happy to volunteer my time designing such a system, if I believed it might ever be seen or even tested.

Yes, but I don't think that's all of it. I should have been more clear. I've done runs where they had plenty of time to acquire me (especially given their mad AI skillzzz), but didn't fire before I passed over, during (I do think some traverse limits are also modeled, which is good!), or after, and I have to assume it's because they were even in the most basic way (suppressed = 1) affected by the previous pass.

I'll give it a try when able. Unfortunately right now I'm in the middle of a work project which relies on my GPU quite a bit -- so it'll have to wait a bit until that's wrapped up.

Don't think so

Ha. Well, I have found that fast cannon runs can be very effective, although yes, I am not yet a sniper with it and I am often getting closer than I'd like. If you're taking too much return fire, suppressing the targets with rockets does work to some degree. I'm not sure why or how exactly, but there is a point where enemy units tend to not fire for a while, even if you pass pretty much directly overhead. This isn't going to help you a whole lot if Rolands are picking you off from just out of range, but it certainly works against APCs and IFVs of all types, sometimes AAA, etc. If you are very quick and accurate, I have successfully outdueled Vulcans more than a few times.

Are you sure you're carrying a "legal" loadout? IE, they probably won't work if you're also carrying other rocket pod types, maybe the gun pods. Should work just fine with Shturm or if the only weapon mounted!

You are having a very different experience from mine. I can absorb usually dozens of 12.7 rounds with little or no effect (as it more or less should), and the cannon is absolutely terrific. Maybe you are applying Ka-50 tactics to the Hind, which isn't going to work. (on the other hand, I found you can definitely apply Hind tactics to the Ka-50, which may be always be wise but it is a lot more fun!)

Doesn't exist for me; see screenshot. Pagefile is on C. There should be more space available on now, a few swap files were in use but since closed. However, I do need to free up some space there regardless. AllocatedBaseSize=28910 CurrentUsage=1058 Description=C:\pagefile.sys InstallDate=20210616131507.287142-420 Name=C:\pagefile.sys PeakUsage=3321 Status= TempPageFile=FALSE

NV_Cache folder didn't exist. I re-confirmed drivers are up to date and went through the other steps again. No change, unfortunately. DxDiag.txt

Confirmed, same thing happens with Su-25T dcs.log

Uh, how? Rules in the discord also seem to clearly prohibit this.

Not the F-14. Mi-24 is the one I've tried so far, but I can try another. I'll do the Su-25T as a safety. dcs.log