twistking

+1

Thanks for checking. @BIGNEWY Do you know what could be behind this mystery patch note?

+1

Good idea!

The only complication would be that positional lights (red/green) would need some occlusion checks for aircraft that are only rendered as a single pixel. Still not rocket science, but makes it a little bit more involved than just a flare, which can just ignore occlusion in practice... I absolutely agree though. Limited light visibility not only kills immersion, but makes night flying extremely difficult for older aircraft. Finding your wingman without GPS and HUD indicators can be near impossible. It's a real shame and needs to be fixed. Also there need to be options in the ME to define light usage for AI units. Also check out this thread!

Good solution would perhaps be for ED to develop the framework and provide a very basic scripted or semi-scripted "agent" that hooks into it, with the option for users to hook up their own LLM agents of choice. These would still follow the ground rules of the scripted system but would allow more flavour, better LLM based voice etc. This would solve the problem of ED not needing to provide the processing power for a LLM. A scripted underlying framework that defines some ground rules would also prevent the optional LLM agents to hallucinate things that cannot translate to DCS runtime. But generally i agree. LLM for all interaction with AI would be a great addition. Would also make multi-crew aircraft a joy to fly in singleplayer...

Fair enough. It's very much WIP though... Will cross it out when it's actually useful

Can't play right now. Has anyone checked what type of skins were added?

Is this bug fixed now? The patch notes don't have anything on the F-5, but i'm hoping for a stealth fix. Did anybody check already?

Can someone else confirm that disabling ASW in OTT does not in fact disable ASW in DCS?

Are the current external textures confirmed to be WIP? I mean i surely hope so, as they clearly look worse than other modules while also not offering a lot of variety.

Wouldn't the YAK-52 fulfill that role? Shouldn't we demand the Yak to be finished before wishing for more GA or non-tactical AC. I absolutely understand the appeal of offering these types of AC in DCS, but i think the YAK could deliver that well enough, if it would get finished...

a very crude solution to a real problem. i think ED should find a more elegant solution than forcing players to place "invisible" RWR over non-functional map objects: there should be no combat-relevant non-functional map-objects to begin with...

*bump*

+1

I would also like to see other (civilian) POIs marked, not just tactical/strategical sites. Ideally those markings could be toggled in ME to prevent clutter.

that's cool! wonder how i could have missed that.

Wait...i can create a flightplan on the F10 map and it will show up in the jets (F-16 f.e.) avionics as waypoints???

judging only from videos, i also feel that the greens come out a bit too strong. related to that i found the normal maps a bit too strong where grass meets dirt. the strong normals make it look as if the mud areas were stenciled out from the grass areas. again... this is only from watching on youtube, which is not ideal for judging subtle texture details... but i think the map would look better with a slightly (!) desaturated and slightly (!) flatter (normals) look. ps: in general this seems to be a very nice looking map though!

It appears that you can always load your own custom DTC from a local file, which is nice. However there needs to be the option to only have certain aspects from it override the current DTC settings. For example you would want to keep the mission builders settings for Coms, but load your own CM settings...