Kang

Well, this thread sure escalated a bit. Here's the thing: sometimes I add to these things a bit tongue-in-cheek, because, yes it is a game, but there is no denying that there is a pattern to some complaints and frankly, some of them I feel are very justified. This very thread shows a lot of what is going wrong with DCS:WW2 and it isn't all about which plane we all want or what map isn't there yet, but rather that many constructive criticisms and ideas get deflected away from the product and valid gripes people have simply seem to be considered 'whining'. Just a few points I would like to add: Yes, in retrospect maybe the whole Asset Pack wasn't a great idea, but frankly, it needs more content to it to be viable again. What I find a little frustrating is that there is actually great stuff in that pack and it's even somewhat complete for some scenarios, which is rare enough for DCS. Yet as sales of it have probably dwindled there hasn't been a lot of exciting new stuff in it for a long time. Taking a few bits of it and making them available to all was a good move overall as I feel it made more people consider WW2 stuff in DCS, but the advertisement effect, I fear, has been squandered a bit by not making a push of adding more assets to the paid pack within a reasonable timeframe. As I hinted at previously, certain wider issues in DCS, as most notably some problems with AI and their flight models, are indeed not WW2 specific and thus something for the AI team to think about, but while a lot of the cut corners can be somewhat accepted in the BVR high tech of 21st century fighters, they are painfully obvious and ruining the experience for early cold war and WW2 scenarios. Don't get me wrong, I am aware that the AI need a simplified flight model in order to have any of this still running on any reasonable machine, but unfortunately the AI seem to be insisting on exploiting these simplifications to the absolute maximum in any given situation. From 109Ks to MiG-15s, it is just neither realism (the ultimate God of arguments here it seems) nor in any way fun to chase UFOs that just get any power they want at all times, plus a slight option of defying physics when things get too close. This all isn't about badmouthing the efforts ED has made and is making in the WW2 area. On the contrary, really. I'm sure I am not the only one who would actually love to get into that more, but get frustrated by the state of some of these things.

Actually rather the L model seeker but still the old motor. Also, sidenote, some of the British Harriers over the Falklands carried actual AIM-9L missiles, some of which were re-routed from USAFE on short notice.

Very useful indeed, and I can't imagine that being all that impossible either.

So, yes, Phantom. Got to say, this feature even beats the cassette tape player HB put in the Tomcat. Just trying it out on a first flight, being a bit silly.

The two states of DCS communication: «We are never told anything, we really need a bit of transparency!» and «Ain't nobody got time to read all of that spam!»

Seeing how much love the existing F-86 gets lately I don't have much hope. But it might be interesting indeed. Quick question for the more knowledgeable: is the 86K significantly different from the 86D?

DCS basically has three systems in competition there and it's generally a question of the servers you enjoy which one you end up using. DCS Voice Chat: Comes built-in with DCS, which makes it somewhat readily available, but as you found a lot of servers do not have it activated. It's completely separate from the text chat box that you see and has no connection. Some people just use the chat but generally write as if speaking, which is the domain of those of us who can type rather quickly, of course. The Voice Chat function is working okay, it comes in two modes, one being more like traditional gaming comms with rooms/channels that are globally connected, and the 'radio mode' that works more akin to DCS in that your voice communication is linked to the in-game radio sets for extra realism. SRS: A classic piece of software that the in-built voice chat kind of emulates in radio mode. It makes use of the in-game radio sets for very good realism in the comms system, is easily set up and quite popular. From what I gather one of the points is that it just has been around for long and thus a lot of people are used to it. It also has the option to set up virtual radios for people in commander or observer slots, thus enabling ATC or GCI gameplay. The only downside is that it is another program to set up, update and run. Discord: The third option is going all gamer mode and just have a discord server connected to the server, or perhaps if you are a little older as I am, you might prefer Teamspeak here. It works like Voice Chat in channel mode, you can talk to everyone in your channel, no matter where in the game world they are, and the experience might differ greatly from server to server. It basically just runs in the background. This, too, has the downside of requiring another external software, but some server administrators like shoehorning people into their Discord servers anyway. Hope this clears things up a bit for you.

I see where you come from with that suggestion, but I beg to differ. I know that the wait is sometimes, well, not exactly easy, but I for one like to know what is being worked on and what is in the pipeline. There are some 3rd party modules coming up that I am very excited for, but I understand they are probably years away still. That being said I definitely see the point with some other developments within DCS, especially things that even when they are released seriously beg the question of what mysterious and highly complicated background system exactly was the holdup, because sometimes none of it makes any appearance to the end user. And while those grind my gears there is also the bits that I can understand the complexity of and have respect for ED trying to do these things 'right' instead of twice, but still wonder what good it did to announce the vague ideas years and years in advance.

I love how this thread just escalated entirely. Pitchforks and torches are on the stand to the left, everyone, only one each, please.

About the last chance to abort launch now, Heatblur. Just say the word, two more weeks?

DCS community:

Maybe it's because I am not overly involved with the F-15E and only enjoy their older modules, but I personally think that the overall communication in this matter has been utterly awful all around. If it hadn't been for members of the community spreading news around this place would probably not even had a decent general statement at all. Sure, they have ostensibly been talking to people on their Discord and there has been some discussion on obscure Reddits, but as far as channels like these official forums or their website go, it has all been pronoun games and vague prophecies. My personal status is still: «Something, which we do not name, has happened and we are trying to find a solution. Thank you for your patience.»

To be fair, ED going all 'Well, we are working on a Battle of Britain project' resulting in a Fiat G.50 would be quite on brand. Something that has pretty much no context within DCS, is perfectly obscure in itself and played the important role of historical footnote in the BoB.

...and yet even the Asset Pack only gives us one and a half. Edit: They are especially suited to DCS AI, because a lot of the major issues that AI has are much less pronounced and noticeable here.

I'm not even so sure about that. When the intermediate plan is to make somewhat low-complexity much simplified modules, one could actually try a few things with those. I'm talking less about Hellcat vs 109G and more about: how would, say, a Ju-88 work out? There has been a lot of talk about a Stuka coming one day, and I think that DCS:WW2 as an ecosystem definitely needs more modules beyond fighters. Personally I find the Mosquito is a good step in that regard, it is just sadly plagued with a lot of serious issues, definitely incomplete and, again, progress is being rather slow. Yea, that's a good point, but lets not forget how ED has said the exact same thing about FC3 itself and look what they've suddenly done. Converted existing modules into FC3 variants rather than fix the issues these exact modules have had for years and years.

Apart from just allowing for a much quicker implementation of various units it would definitely also give ED some decent data on what exactly people are interested in getting as proper modules, beyond the always biased opinion polls.

I think DCS:WW2 suffers from the same general problems that DCS as a whole is afflicted by, but a few of them might just have more of an effect here. First and foremost the patented DCS scatterbrain. There seems to be literally no plan behind what is being done and, quite frankly, at this point is would be more confusing and surprising if steps were to be taken towards a useful and compatible set of planes. In the modern-era modules some of this is a little easier to explain away because you can adjust a lot through the missions, but even with the asset pack the WW2 missions are somewhat more limited. A second issue is that people at least have the feeling that there are very few and little updates happening and quite frankly, this gets exacerbated quite a lot by the prior problem: if there was a somewhat tightly controlled 'scenario plane set' focused on a specific era and theater, updates to any of them would at least feel like development for the whole system, whereas with the way things are, there might be an update to one module and a lot of people within the DCS:WW2 community will shrug and move on because that module hardly features in their missions. A third problem is that some of the longer-standing major issues with DCS, like some AI problems, that can to an extend be circumnavigated or hidden with the modern-day BVR concepts, are terribly obvious and disastrous to the Korean War era and WW2 modules. In the end I have no cure for it either, we have to live with what there is. But I can sure understand the growing dissatisfaction.

Point is that the International Red Cross is, in the end, a company that will sure you if you use their logo.

That makes sense, yes. I was a bit... concerned for a minute, having heard what the space requirements were.

Wait, is that what the Kola map looks like?

Ah, true enough. Anyway, I do like the Tomcat indeed, but I am seriously surprised to see it lead in a poll of good looks, especially seeing some of the other options.

Calling a Tomcat 'brute force over elegance' and then proceeding to praise an F-4, the literal poster child for the concept... Alas, the poll results are kinda weird.

I kind of prefer the handling of the ATFLIR myself, too, despite having been rather familiar with the Litening II from the A-10 and the AV-8 previously.