Xordus

"We really can't understate how satisfied we are with what we've achieved with the F-14 flight model." Oh that's what I want to hear! Also Co-op campaign? That's unexpectedly awesome!

I completely agree that the 'black dot' is a relic and I hope they get rid of it or severely reduce the range at which it appears. It really nerfs radar atm. There's absolutely no reason to use the F-5's radar since you only pick up targets at about 18 miles and yet you can see the stupid dot from 40+... I really don't think we should be seeing dots beyond 10-15miles. Have you ever tried to spot airliners at 30k feet? Thats around 5.5 miles and a GIANT plane and, without a contrail or some glint, they are virtually invisible unless you know exactly where to look (btw I have 20/15 vision)

I appreciate everyone'e anecdotes but without proof, it didn't happen. I do believe SpeedTrees are running on another thread, at least it seems as such. I get literally no difference in framerate between 0-100%. It's pretty amazing. It's also likely one of the reasons people are seeing broader core utilization. I must say, I'm really impressed with 2.5. Disregarding MP atm the sim is so much smoother with higher framerates, not to mention beautiful. Even VR runs better than ever! Now if they can just fix MP..

I don't mind that they wanted to shorten this process, but ELIMINATE IT? Instead of just removing a large portion of the realism in starting a Mirage, they just added a checkbox that says "DO MAGIC START UP". Why not simply shorten it to 3-4 minutes, thereby largely keeping the startup sequence intact? The only reason you'd need to skip INS alignment is if you don't care about realism and prefer "Air-Quake" which everyone seems to agree is an unfortunate part of DCS.

I think this would be the perfect plane for RAZBAM. Simple enough that they could potentially implement all of the systems. That'd be a welcome departure!

It's just Marketing. The Gulf War was literally named for the Persian Gulf. It's instant name-recognition that is more appealing to a potential customer than a Strait no one has ever heard of. Hopefully this map will be expanded at a later date to include the entire Gulf area. We really need bigger maps in DCS if we want to expand the player-base to include more people from P3D/XP11. It's literally the biggest concern and adjustment for those coming from commercial-focused sims. We'll never have the whole world but we really need more space to operate; especially if we ever want to include full-fidelity tankers/AWACS/Transport/Bombers.

Man that sounds cool. I wish ours sounded that cool. RAZBAM did a good job on the initial noise but then it just fades. Really glad Boeing is working with ED for accurate Hornet sounds.

How this heck is this stuff not in yet?? How hard is it to add a BIT? Some things just aren't a priority.... This was posted 2 YEARS AGO

It would be really nice if this problem would be addressed... I understand waiting till 2.5 but this problem has been around for a long time and it makes the Jet unplayable unless you turn off Deferred Shading. THAT'S NOT OKAY. Of course It's not like I can even join a server to use the aircraft anyway. 3 out of 4 tries I drop from the Server when trying to even sit in your plane... I love this module when it works but it is all kinds of screwed up atm. I really hope this isn't what we can expect from the F-14.

having same problem.............

That's not really a fix... I'm having the same issue. Happens only when the radar is on but its pretty damn annoying. Also using AMD How has this problem not been fixed for 3 months??

I think spotting is pretty well done tbh. We def need the extra things like glint, smoke, trails, as mentioned but people have this idea that you should be able to readily see planes that are 22 miles away; that's bull. The only way that makes sense is if you know exactly where to look and still you probably won't be physically able to see it without some glimmer or something offering contrast (and I'm talking giant commercial jets). I have a bit of a problem with the "single pixel" approach for long range visibility. It provides a huge advantage to those with 1080p monitors. At 4k you can barely see a single pixel. I don't think that approach is fair or realistic as the pixel shows up outside the range that would be feasible for normal human eyesight. VR is a whole different discussion. I don't think there's any reason talking about it until the pixel density gets to an acceptable level. Right now its laughable (and I own the Rift).

It's not just those switches, when you load missiles they're already receiving coolant. It's not a deal breaker, the modules are great but I buy them, not only to "be the pilot", but to have a fully functioning re-creation of the aircraft. If a lot of switches are bypassed or have no functionality it cheapens the presentation and breaks the illusion of fidelity. On the M-2000: the INS isn't complete and half the PCA buttons don't work... The missiles already receive coolant, the INS can be bypassed, etc... I'm not reporting bugs for the most part, they're design decisions and I don't get the design choice to dumb this stuff down. When a dev makes a plane, they don't care how its used, what they're selling is a faithful representation of the aircraft for you to do what you wish. Its just annoying that RAZBAM has decided to include shortcuts and leave systems unfinished as long as they don't pertain directly to combat. I don't like the precedent it sets either.

Why are many of the switches in RAZBAM's aircraft "pre-flipped"? Is it really a Cold&Dark startup when the skid switch is still on and the generator switches are still flipped among many others? I understand some people want to just get in the air as quickly as possible but it seems to go against the value of authenticity. The other devs don't do this and as a result I seem to learn their systems more quickly and to a deeper degree. I'm just wondering if I'm in the minority being annoyed by this. I don't like the idea of "simplifying" startups for the sake of "ease of access". I don't like that you can bypass the M-2000c INS sequence (maybe shorten it some if you must). This is supposed to be a high-fidelity "Simulator" after all. I still love RAZBAM aircraft, I just feel like these decisions lessen the authenticity of the product and devalue their efforts elsewhere.

yea today the server would randomly drop 20 people at once. I don't know why people kept coming back, it was dumb.

Fixed the landing lights illuminating the cockpit - Thank You Lots of great fixes here. I hope allows it to live up to its potential in 2.2. Atm it's a disaster at night... Great job guys! Love this aircraft!

Woohoo! New work from Mbot! Can't wait to try it out. More content for my favorite DCS plane. Thanks for your hard work. You make DCS single-player awesome.

This is a really annoying bug... I planned out a nice elaborate mission with the Viggen which started pre-dawn only to find out that I basically have no taxi-landing lights due to the cockpit being illuminated... I wish they'd hurry up with this update. A single, dumb bug ruined all missions in the Viggen after 8pm...

I have a 34" 1440p Samsung CF791. I also have the Rift. The Rift is great fun for flying but terrible for combat since you can't spot/ identify aircraft. The monitor on the other hand is amazing. The curve is perfect, the colors are deep, the resolution is spot on for DCS (any higher and you can't see the pixel of a long-range aircraft). I don't see a good reason to pay for a bigger ultrawide considering how well 34" fills your vision. I think it's the best option of any display for DCS. As for VR, if you don't mind not be able to spot aircraft besides seeing a giant dot because pixels are so big, go for it. VR is incredible and one day it will absolutely be the way to play DCS. Right now its only the way to experience flying, combat operations are nearly impossible. People will tell you otherwise but they all know how terrible and unrecognizable other aircraft appear outside of a few hundred ft...

I think a T-6 Texan would be awesome in the sim. Texan II would be cool too but the original T-6 is cooler. I honestly wouldn't mind if GA aircraft were introduced for the sake of progression and learning, tho it wouldn't be my preference. I just don't want to see ED divert resources to do it! I'd be perfectly happy with a new third-party specializing in prop trainers/ GA training aircraft to take advantage of the elite flight modeling possible in DCS. I will say that I came from FSX and without spending 6months learning procedure and navigation I'd be pretty clueless about aviation. DCS has no direct means of teaching these basics and I doubt ED wants people to have to resort to another sim in order to learn how to fly properly.

Oh man, this update sent my hype meter to 11! Really happy with the roadmap Heatblur is setting out. It's hard to believe we'll soon have a Tomcat and a Hornet on DCS 2.5!!!!!!

I can understand the lack of large player-controlled aircraft in the modern arena but for WW2 it just seems so critical to the experience. I'd love to see them in modern combat, but I understand priorities. For WW2 their absence doesn't make as much sense. Most engagements in WW2 were not for the sake of air-superiority. The vast majority were in support of, or defense from bombing missions. While AI B-17's are fine, they have no impact on Multiplayer. Right now DCS Multiplayer devolves mostly into "Hop into the air ASAP" "Find any target ASAP" "Kill target ASAP". Adding large player-controlled assets like bombers would inherently create structure and purpose in multiplayer engagements that currently only seems possible in narrowly defined mission scenarios. If the goal is a sim that mirrors reality, providing alternatives to "Air Quake" seems like a worthy objective. Plus flying a bomber with the physics made possible by DCS would be seriously cool... We know they would sell well. A2A has proven that, even without live-munitions. I'm just surprised that a hugely vital and omnipresent war asset such as the bomber is rarely even mentioned by ED or their Third-Parties. It just seems to be a gaping hole in the combat environment ED is creating.

I used to fly the B-17 created by A2A in FSX/P3D and consider it to be one of the greatest aircraft ever made for flight sims. Unfortunately it was made in a civilian simulator so it's really just a novelty (although an incredibly faithful one). I've been wondering for a while now if a developer would bring a large airplane into DCS. I think it would open up an entirely new avenue for mission designers and give players a totally new way to interact with the Sim, especially in multiplayer. Plus the airplanes are amazing! I can't imagine how cool it would be to multi-crew a B-17 for a bombing raid into Caen with P-51 escorts, or flying AWACS to facilitate a true GCI in the Caucasus. Having this capacity would certainly bring in new players who so far have flown large military aircraft in impotent civilian sims. Their inclusion would also provide mission-specific objectives for some of our current aircraft. They would also go a long way towards shaking up the "Air-Quake" mentality that undermines some of the authenticity that the sim is capable of providing. If the goal is realizing air combat theaters how can DCS continue to omit Logistics aircraft and, especially for WWII, large dedicated bombers?

One thing I've found that helps with that is to load up an 'instant action' first. It dramatically reduces the subsequent load time for servers. I still get crashes from time to time though...

so Blue Flag is down in 1.5 and on NTTR? I took a break for a few months and when I get back Open Conflict is gone and Blue Flag is down... What good is DCS without the best servers?