Raven (Elysian Angel)

For me, my main gripe is that aircraft at distances 10-20nm are very easy to spot (depending on the type of aircraft), while they completely disappear at around 1-2nm to shorty after suddenly re-appear as full-size models. I haven't yet found any way to fix that. Also, black dots suddenly turn light blue when against a backdrop of clouds (same issue that plagues power lines would be my bet).

This reminds me of back when we had the original Ka-50, and everyone was landing on moving trains

Well, yes but also no: the fundamental issues plaguing the original topic of this thread and the things you mention are exactly the same.

Yes, it does. But similar threads in the past about training missions not working (getting bugged over time) etc have seen equally little response - sadly.

It's not your fault though, is it? In the end it's up to ED to make sure all changes are included in a newly released patch as long as the 3rd party submitted them on time. This same problem occurs with other 3rd parties too.

Didn't ED go through that exact same process when they updated Caucasus for v2.5? If I remember correctly, there was a fairly substantial increase in ground mesh resolution, which led to concerns that existing missions would find ground units suddenly hovering in mid-air or stuck inside the ground as if it were another Philadelphia experiment. Didn't they make changes to the ME so that any ground units would be checked for elevation automatically? Even this week, I opened one of my older missions only to find a SAM-battery had the "units are tilted" icon in the ME, and moving the icons on the map just by a few centimetres fixed it.

And yet the FAQ says it will be JTIDS

And ED doesn’t care because they know it’ll sell like hot cakes no matter how many of the “greybeards”/purists complain.

Yes, I understand. You’re not the first to wonder that, but the answer remains the same: they are 2 separate products.

Which makes you a rare breed on this forum

Indeed. Perhaps this newsletter was light on details because of the timing of the team’s time-out.

Yes, as the third question in the FAQ confirmed. It’s completely separate from the FC3 version which will continue to exist independently. So you can pick whichever you prefer

No, people are complaining the first newsletter of the year doesn’t contain a general overview of what’s in store for 2025, while this was - up until now - a yearly habit of ED’s.

I tested various missions and it indeed seems to be fixed. I haven't been able to test a mission with fog yet.

Yes, but I understand resources are limited so that's why I asked what the cockpit differences are. The F-15E having EGI didn't bother me since you can set the mission date at a point where no GPS is available - perhaps I simply don't know enough about the real aircraft but I never noticed anything in the cockpit (panels etc) that looked out-of-place for an early-'90s bird - luckily we had the older UFC at launch. So if the cockpit of the MSIP II F-15C was exactly the same between late '80s and mid-2000s (and that seems to be the case), simple checkboxes in Special Options can achieve something that would otherwise take a new cockpit with certain panels removed and/or moved around.

I give up...

I hope that fixes the issue I was having, where on my missions after startup the on-screen message was stuck at "waiting for available deck crew" and I couldn't do anything (not even having wheel chocks removed because "air source is not connected" ). I'll go and test that today *edit* Yup, I was able to take off...

Yes I read the FAQ so I am well aware which version ED is modelling. Again that's not what this thread is about. 1. I asked people in general how the cockpit/systems differ between mid-'80s and mid-'00s - that was answered by various people so I'm happy I got an answer. 2. I asked ED if there will be a way to disable modern features (through for example Special Options) so we can have a believable late-'80s - early-'90s bird (basically akin to what RAZBAM was planning with their F-15E).

Yes, I already asked on the first page to fix that, as the tag has nothing to do with what this thread is about.

It depends on the mission scenario: I have no problem with frame times in the AH-64 nor F-4 unless there's a lot of them nearby. The CH-47 is unplayable even as sole unit on an empty map (unless you enable DLSS: in that case a 16GB card is just about able to keep up).

Sure I guess, but not until the legal affairs are over, one way or another.

Because it’s RAZBAM’s property? How do you suggest ED to purchase the rights to someone else’s IP during an ongoing legal dispute?

Ok I’ll engage cynical mode for a bit: Don't overanalyse what you see too much. It’s all just marketing B$ and PR designed to hype us up and create excitement for something we think DCS is going to be but what will actually never happen, with the goal of keeping us engaged and coming back. Think of their slogans “thank you for your passion and support” and “thank you for making our dreams come true” and what that actually means. ED is a company that will do what it does irregardless of what we want, as long as they can attract enough people who spend enough on modules to keep them in business. They are not interested in making *our* dreams come true: instead they want us to make *their* dreams come true. Latest Q&A by Wags emphasised them listening to their customers and implementing our desires. That is actually only true as a means to keep them in business. That is all they care about. DCS will never be what we want it to be. But it can be partially, enough of what we want to keep us entertained. ”Don’t ask questions. Just consume product and then get excited about next product!” Ok cynical mode off again. There is still a lot in DCS to enjoy. Take it for what it is.

It's an existing livery, though, for which Aerges was nice enough to include the chin-mounted camera (even if only visual and not functional).

Yes and as far as I understand, never actually used by the Russians until the R-77-1 entered service in the 2000s. But then again, the sandbox that is DCS shouldn't care about geopolitics and macroeconomics and just give us the tools as they were available, whether actually used or not.