Pizzicato

From the Changelog:

I guess I'm misunderstanding something, but I've no idea what. I genuinely don't understand what you mean by static environment, but I'm totally open to an explanation. What I don't get is the statement about the cockpit being "a static, never changing environment". From a lighting and reflection standpoint (which I think is what we're talking about), it's the absolute opposition as far as I can see. There's an almost infinite number of permutations of lighting conditions with the cockpit, and they're changing on a moment to moment basis as the aircraft moves through space. The time of day is changing, clouds are obscuring the light, the orientation of the aircraft relative to the light sources is changing, the status and brightness of the internal lights and displays is constantly changing. Surely that's the definition of a "dynamic, ever-changing" environment, not a "static, never changing" one? From a rendering engineer's perspective, that sounds like a totally unpredictable, ever-shifting combinatorial nightmare. Again, I'm not looking to be difficult or argumentative. I'm just trying to figure out how our perspectives are so diametrically opposite.

I think I pointed out a whole bunch of changing light sources - literally dozens of them - plus a whole bunch of unforeseeable variables. So your counter is "If you ignore every single dynamic and unforeseeable variable, it's clearly a static environment." Sure. Have it your way.

How is a cockpit a "static, never changing environment"? Console, instrument, and flood lights can be turned on and off Warning lights can turn on and off MFDs and DDIs can be switched to different pages with different displays MFDs and DDIs can be adjusted in terms of brightness, contrast, and gain The throttles, sticks, pedals, and various switches and levers can all change physical position, casting shadows and requiring different reflections Rolling, pitching, and yawing the aircraft changes the shadowing of the cockpit and the associated reflections Different environmental condition such as flying under/through clouds changes the lighting All of those things (and more) directly affect the lighting, shadows, and reflections within the cockpit.

No. They're shooting for the 14th, but no promises.

Personally, I'm fine with projected Release Dates. I like knowing the window that they're aiming for, even if there's volatility in that. I'd interested in seeing some fact-checking around the statements to the effect of "They never hit their dates, so why give them in the first place?" Purely anecdotally, my sense is that the dates that BigNewy's given in the Patch Status thread over the past few months have been hit far more than they've been missed. I could be wrong, but that's been my perception.

You may want to try DCS Kneeboard Builder as a more intuitive and user-friendly means of managing your custom kneeboards: http://www.dcskneeboardbuilder.com/

Just bumping this because it's still a massive frustration (at least for me)

https://virtualblueangels.com/

The important thing to realise is that RAT isn't an app or a mod. It's an extension to a scripting API called MOOSE (Mission Object-Oriented Scripting Environment). RAT makes it easy to write LUA scripts to populate the map with randomised air traffic, but it doesn't do the job for you. That's why it's in the Mission Editor section rather than the Mods and Apps section. RAT is only going to be of use to you if you understand at least the basics of LUA scripting and are interested in writing your own scripts.

Versuchen Sie, Ihre Frage hier zu stellen: https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/26-deutsch/

Yep. I know. We're talking about Steam, though. It's all immaterial, though, as this thread won't live long.

People were (understandably) exploiting the Steam Lunar Sale to buy the original A-10C for $20 and then the upgrade for $10 versus the full asking price for the standalone A-10C II ($80 or $56 in the sale).

I've been reading through the campaign documentation, and it sounds awesome. I'm not up to speed on the Viper, though, as I spend all my time in the Hornet. An F/A-18 version of the campaign would be a no-brainer Day One purchase for me (and many others, I suspect).

The biggest wishlist item for me would be a PERSISTENCE LAYER that can persist (obviously) between campaign missions. It would be great to be able to build out a template of groups and statics and have their destruction carry over into the next mission.

You probably want to be here: https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/792-av-8b-sky-warrior-campaign/

Jan 27th is the planned date for the next Open Beta update. The next stable update isn't scheduled yet. You can always check here for the latest info:

Yeah, the AI is still very... "basic", and one of the biggest issues with SP. It's a known issue (and has been for many years). It's called out specifically in ED's summary of work for 2021 and beyond, but things have a tendency to slip around here (albeit with the best of intentions), so take it with a grain of salt.

I get that you love MP and want to sell people on the idea that it's the only/right way to play DCS, but you need to realise that different people want different things out of games. I've spent over a hundred hours in MP over the years, and it's not for me. I'm a deeply introverted person who works in a role that requires me to be very social and communicative. The absolute last thing I want in my spare time is more engagement with people. Gaming and DCS is an escape from all that for me - it's precious 'alone time' that allows me to decompess, de-stress, and recharge. The fact that introverts make up ~50% of the population and that 60% of DCS players are SP players (according to ED) suggests that I'm not alone in preferring the solo experience. Ultimately, it's not a question of right/wrong or better/worse - it's just about personal preference.

I'm on 20h2 with no problems, too.

It's the usual story: Some people want constant, tangible visual improvements and eye-candy. Some people want newer, better, higher fidelity core features. Some people want a constant stream of new modules. Some people want better performance. Ultimately ED have to keep moving forward and balancing all four of the demands (and more that I've failed to identify and call out).

Same. I've been playing flight sims since the early 80's and joined the ED journey the day Flanker came out, but I've got zero interest in MP. Been waiting for a Dynamic Campaign ever since the Falcon 4.0 days.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/ There are also a number of freeware mods such as the A-4 Skyhawk and MB-339A, but the real good stuff is obviously the paid modules.

Your obsession with establishing your flight simming credentials and trying to dismiss other people's perspectives on the grounds that they're "new" is weird and elitist. I've been playing flight "sims" since 1982 and I've got no gaps in my history with sims. I also gravitate strongly towards realism, never ever use labels, and I've been on the ED sim journey since the day the first Flanker released. Does that make my opinion even more valid than yours? I don't think so at all, but based on your posts to date, I assume that it actually does, right? If so, the unfortunate news is that I like the current implementation of visibility in the Open Beta in VR. Regardless of all the Lamparding about the exact real world ranges at which you might actually see a specific aircraft from a specific aspect angle, the visibility of aircraft in VR for me (as a longstanding, realism-oriented flight sim fan) is that dogfighting feels (yes - "feels") just about right at the moment. I can just about spot opposing aircraft just before the merge and keep visual track of them during the ensuing fight. I appreciate that your perspective is different, and that's fine - just steer clear of the sweeping "I've-been-simming-for-longer-than-you-so-my-opinion-is-worth-more-and-that-empowers-me-to-speak-for-the-'Real'-DCS-community" generalisations. You have your opinion and you hold it strongly, and that's fine, but it's no more important than anyone else's.