33-DFTC

What a lovely pitchfork ! Would you consider selling them in batches please ?

Thank you for your reply NineLine. I know there is very little chance that even a mesh would be added to the current map ; after all Wags warned us that the current version was final. If someday, by chance, a mesh could only be applied, at least we could use it to place the local A2/AD systems and enhance further our immersion. I do realize it must be an insignificant player base looking after this kind of detail.

Have your ever flown on this map to make such deceiving claim ? Your frantic interventions towards anyone willing to make this game better is alarming. You're spreading false information and you're hurting the game despite you're trying to "protect" it. Here's a screenshot I just made outside your "limit". Do you feel the terrain is low resolution ? Again, I was not asking for a full resolution representation of Bahrein, just a landmass with stragetegic and geopolitic value in the region.

Considering a lot of people are currently running VR headsets with a PD value comprised between 1.3 and 2.0 without major issues, I can't really see why we could not run the Reverb with a neutral 1.0 value and still benefit from its clarity.

Did the same test over the Caucasus map on the latest Stable release. The fuel dump emptied only the three tanks, I could not replicate the bug over five tries.

I don't get your argument about the "All of Persian Gulf map" modelization. Bahreïn is within the limits of the actual map. I was not arguing about the fact that the island had to be populated with cities, airports and ports, but that the entire island is missing. They could have put the island even without texture to give some sense of orientation, but no the entire kingdom is simply gone. This is really odd to erase an entire country (just an island mind you) from a region as important as this one. I'd love to know the reason why they chose this path. Look at this map and the localisation of the Bahreïn Patriot site. Is this a strech to think they could have put a "piece of land" at this place even with a generic texture to allow us to place SAM systems ?

I do not doubt you are experiencing a problem. Something similar happened to me once as I was the only one having a problem with the radar in the squadron ; I had to uninstall the module and reinstall it after a repair to recover the use of my equipment. C'est la vie !

While this is perfectly correct it will make no difference when calculating weight xD

Hi there, I had some spare time and I did run the test a few minutes ago. I could not replicate your problem, I'm running the latest stable release. You'll find three screenshots attached to this post : The mission editing First pass over the DEST - the cross is where it should be Second pass a few minutes later from the opposite direction - the cross is still in the correct spot

These contradictions are making the decision to purchase this module very difficult. How are we supposed to make an educated choice based on these messages :/

Is this political thing an official ED statement ? I thought the problem was the current limitation of the engine and the large numbers of 3D objects like buildings and infrastructures on the Crimean region. I believed it was also the reason why we didn't get Bahreïn in the actual "Persian Gulf" map.

Thank you, I missed that message from Wags. It makes little sense to me as well. What I understand from this statement is that they're facing serious challenges with their own engine and that customers have to face a very tough choice to compensate their inability to fix the "network inconsistencies". Could this be the same reason we don't have consistent weather condition between clients too ?

It could really help if ED would explain why there is a difference between the upcoming Carrier Ops module and the current modules. I only own the Mirage and I can fly with any other aicraft currently available in the game. Also, I can join a server with Combined Arms slots. I do not need to buy each of the modules to interact with them or to ask a JTAC to lase a target for me. I really don't get why it would be any different with the Carrier Ops module. Are some of the users in this thread suggesting we should buy all the aircrafts modules to have them on our game sessions ? Sure it could be the easiest way to support ED but does it make any sense really ?

Someone already suggested the possibility of allowing the use of the future carrier to be free in MP. If the multiplayer community is as small as ED and others users are saying, why not let the most vocal part of the community promote the game and attract more isolated players to DCS World ? Most of the people playing online will probably not buy this module anyway, the people playing single player will buy it as they are not concerned with online activities. As an exclusive Mirage user, I have absolutely no incentive to buy the next ED carrier, but nonetheless I will be excluded from my favorite online servers. Thanks guys !

If I recall correctly, it is not planned.

Razbam announced several weeks ago on their Discord channel that their Strike Eagle will not support an AI at all. The plane will require two players to be flown with optimal efficiency.

I'm worried about this new micro-transaction system. I was clearly expecting a paid aircraft carrier module but what I did not expect was the fact that comms would not be integrated in the core game to the benefit of all the players. The fact that one of the most basic and fundamental feature of a flight sim will be sold to divide even more the community is really disturbing. The fact that Nine Line aknowledged that a 20 years old sim has better ATC since 1998 while we will have to pay for the same feature in 2019-2020 is also depressing. Do we have to prepare ourselves to another micro-transaction for the airports ATC ? What about the new weather system planned for the "near" future ? This announcement raises too many questions about your business model.

Hi there ! When can we expect the Serval library to be updated to reflect the actual aircraft line up in DCS ?

This is a Mirage thread from a different developper, wrong section of the forum pal.

What we need is to know why he was after F-22 and F-35 manuals as these aircrafts are clearly not in the realm of feasibility in DCS.

Hello Crayfish, You may try to use a TrackIR in conjunction with your VR headset. I discovered last week that I could use both at the same time ; you could get the immersion thanks to the VR while benefiting the high head tracking offered by the TrackIR. No more pain for you))

Please, give us a link for it... Glorious :lol:

Please, take a ticket. The Mirage is on its way to its 4th anniversary, you will have the right to complain in two more years xD (unless users will blame you for being childish after waiting this long to have a completed module).

Thank you for this comprehensive post, that sums up pretty well the situation.

Just wow ! That's frightening to read comments like these oO