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

Not exactly a crash, but my game will now load a mission entirely to the point of "Mission Load Done" and then hangs there forever (while still being "responsive," according to Windows). Seen a couple other people mention something similar but no solution. I'm sure this is a result of me trying to optimize some VR performance issues. I did the Kegetys shader replacement - which rebuilt all shaders but then would eventually hangup (and become actually non-responsive). I also replaced the openvr_api.dll as recommended a couple places. Trying to get back to just a running game, I have rolled back both of those changes. Cannot get past Mission Load Done. I deleted the entire Bazar folder, ran a repair, and re-downloaded all of it. Same result. Interestingly, the metashaders folder has not re-generated any content at any point. Not sure where to go from here. I've recently had other issues which were resolved, so I can confirm that DCS is excluded from anti-virus, which was an issue previously. I also had to reinstall the C++ runtimes. My machine did recently do a Windows Update, which could be a factor (maybe even totally unrelated to all the VR stuff).

Give me rockets that have something resembling real-world effectiveness and I might use them more and the gun less. Until then... Also, limiting yourself to how helicopters are employed in 2020 is painting with a pretty small brush. What if I feel like simming something other than a low-intensity modern conflict? What if I feel like using the Hind for the kinds of conventional war missions it was actually intended for? The fact that DCS has lots of issues representing these sorts of scenarios is a big issue, sure, but all I see here is "no one would fly the helicopter like that" which is not only untrue, it completely disregards tons of other situations. Suddenly I find myself curious about, say, Iraqi Hinds in Iran.

Caucasus is unreliable to me... about 1/4 the time I don't have high-detail maps. I haven't scientifically tested to see if it's always the same maps. All the others I've tried are far spottier. Some of Nevada works. I think some of Syria, too, but can't recall now.

Yeah, I generally fly with the yaw channel on and use pedal to command turns. I still fairly often will realize I'm in a heavy crab, look down, and see the pedals are locked pretty heavily deflected. No idea if this is correct behavior or not but it sure seems like a bug.

Given that I can do it with dice and a notecard and get believable 100' results, I find that hard to believe. Of course I know DCS is already not incredibly performant as it is.

Noticed this as well. I decided they were part of a cultural exchange program and waved to them. I hope they did not go on to conquer our fine nation.

Sure. Those are essentially different vehicles, with different designations. Somewhere, there are still listed protections for any of them - even if they are radically different from the original design.

Yes, and the Stryker, most late-model MBTs. For the 1980s and 90s, by far the exception rather than the norm. But DCS doesn't represent crew at all. It's certainly not true of M113s, or the M1s in the game, or M60s... if these guys want to shoot at you, they're putting their faces right in the line of incoming fire. Most people are probably not that brave/stupid to do so when they can see autocannon or rockets coming right at them. That's what I was referring to.

Counter-point: I use VR, which makes the frame rate drop to critically bad levels fairly often, when close to the ground on maps such as Syria. On a lot of servers, anyway.

Sorry for the off-topic then, but it is all related. If you can knock the track off an Abrams (not insignificant, if your job is to delay an attack, btw) then you can do it to a Bradley or anything else. The radio masts, optics, weapon systems, road wheels, and potentially crew are all also vulnerable. Ever wonder who is firing the AA MGs non-stop while rockets explode all around them? Every DCS vehicle commander is the bravest and luckiest man alive. Bradleys were up-armored starting with the M2A2 and especially the M2A3, I forget which one is represented in-game. Early ones would have been quite vulnerable. M2A3 and on have reactive armor which would certainly defeat 30mm... temporarily. (Side request: it would be super nice to have some more vehicle variant options for period-correct missions! Quite a huge leap between a T-55 and a T-72B3, or an M60 and an M1A2. Can we get the M1IP? M1A1? T-72A? Etc.) Now, I can't say I know offhand what type of ammunition was typically loaded in the Hind's gun. Entirely possible for AP to punch holes that don't do any immediate major damage. Entirely possible that HE-I just bounces. As far as I have seen there is no ammo selection or different ammo types currently in-game, so it's probably all AP by default -- a single round usually (always?) pierces and destroys a BTR, for instance. Anyway, I'm unfortunately not happy to settle for mediocrity. Those that can clearly have easier lives. I, on the other hand, can picture how it would (and hopefully will) look and feel with ground units acting like they were actually interested in survival. It would be a whole different experience. May not matter much to the guys dropping LGBs from 20,000 feet, but when you're flying low-level CAS and can actually see all of this up-close, it's very obvious.