Kang

They don't care for such and fire when they get the shot.

I see. I thought it was a mission you made yourself. Can't really change it then. Well, to an extend. I doubt many Soviet pilots carried microfiche writing equipment with them. That is definitely a point. If ED was to take care of this at all (I doubt they will) a very walkable way would be to just suppress the markings for legs that are too short.

Perhaps the easy solution is to just not have as many waypoints that closely together. In your example picture you seem to be following the coastline. Surely there is no need for 5 (?) major course corrections within a couple miles.

I'd say it's less of a bug and more of a design flaw. After all, you can only write stuff with a grease pen so small.

I wouldn't trust GPT to run as the "brain" of my toaster. Really, all the techbro marketing bull. But to be a bit more constructive: there is no need for a huge datacenter to create decisions for the dynamic campaign in real-time, as interesting as it may sound. What DCS is needs is old-school AI, reasonably elaborate decision tree based on easily accessible data. And yes, that can account for what the various factions supposedly know or don't know quite easily.

Perhaps you have found some sweet spot in the settings there, but let me elaborate: The lighting outside is doing quite alright overall, I'd say. My gripe is entirely with the cockpit lighting, which, upon reaching a certain point of the twilight will suddenly jump in their brightness quite considerably to give a 'blinding at night' impression if not adjusted. It might be possible to circumnavigate that problem by adjusting brightnesses proactively, but I particularly dislike this odd mechanic.

In my opinion the most important change to night lighting concern twilight hours. Right now DCS has a distinct point at which it 'officially becomes night' and the cockpit lighting goes from one set of affairs to the other in the blink of an eye.

Have just encountered this as well. So, can confirm, did not record a track yet, but glad somebody already reported it.

It's a bit of a speculative point, seeing how the Ka-50 entered service only in 1995.

Just to clarify: as the thread so far has shown, a lot of the global C-130 population is 'varying shades of monochrome gray plus a roundel'. Any word on what else there is to expect or planned?

The C-101CC certainly is a light attack aircraft and if I'm not mistaken it has been used in that role sporadically. What I think Silver_Dragon wanted to point out was, that the C-101 per se was never really meant to be such, why it it can feel a little lackluster in its performance.

Believing the planned release date in the announcement FAQ... ah, to be young again and frolic in such nonsense.

Same OP, exact same text, less than a week ago:

That would make that whole launcher about 725% more useful.

I would suggest merging the several identical threads of this, in case somebody wants to add any content to it.

Just wondered, do you already have plans in regards to what liveries and skins shall be available for the C-130J, either at launch or eventually? Classic USAF Grey I'd consider pretty much a given, but curious about any other decisions.

You got your forums here at last. Well done! And quite the bombshell to announce the module isn't far away. Congratulations! I can perfectly understand being a bit wary about buying DCS modules right now, really. But it'd be a lie to say I wasn't interested in the C-130. Exciting news indeed.

You indeed don't, as Raven said. Think less pinpoint attack (which is what we pretty much always need in DCS) and more area suppression. Another thing to keep in mind here is that these kinds of attacks are not one-off missions, usually. Many of the unknowns and necessary corrections are done between the runs. Basically, you do this according to the table and then wait for the radio call on how your rockets landed and the next formation gets told: «Fire about 200m after passing that tree!»

You are probably right with that, but I find it amusing how it seems to create discussion volume like nothing else, for something that is mostly a sideshow.

Perhaps you are right and I am really misjudging the timelines there. No idea how far away a DCS 3.0 really is.

I doubt that's going to happen, as it might cause more trouble. It would force the previous modules into deprecation, thus only speeding up their decay status of 'continue to work as-is'. That would make me at least not so happy about paying full price to get them back again. Any sort of discount for previous owners would eat a lot into the profit margin, seeing how, say, the Harrier enthusiasts most likely are previous owners in a vast majority of the DCS community. But one can dream, I reckon.

It isn't your file that is unsafe, mate. It is the fact that your solution is to just include a modified file with your mission, which most users will neither want to nor be able to question. Your autoexec file might be good, but will one I include be?

Somewhat relatedly it would be good to have means of triggering a reloading sequence.

Guess not.

A decidedly more practical and useful idea than the monthly 'all automatic AAR wish' thread.