LooseSeal

So this is a strange one, and the second time recently I've had an issue with moonlit missions. I started up one of the early missions in the Persian Lion campaign and was greeted by the brightest, most intense seas the world has seen since that fiery episode of Game of Thrones. I've attached the screenshots and I'd say they speak for themselves. It would only look correct if all the coastlines had been doused in napalm. I haven't seen anyone else mention this, so maybe it's something to do with my settings? Screenshot of those attached too. The other issue is the weird and highly distracting/obfuscating glow around both the HUD and the rear of the aircraft. Lights are off, and the glow does not diminish depending on direction or angle to the moon, etc. Will post examples of that as well. More screens.

It actually has been talked about before in other interviews. To be honest, there wasn't really much we didn't know about before.

Asked and answered many times before, I'm afraid. Due to political sensitivities, as you rightly supposed, it isn't going to happen.

That size would definitely exclude fighters. As soon you took off on a map that size you'd be within range of most modern missiles. I think Syria and PG are more than detailed enough, the former more than the latter. Better spending resources on new big, detailed maps that can be used with the dynamic campaign, etc.

I don't think this is Hornet specific, rather something to do with how the AI uses power, or how much power it has available to it. I used to find, in the A-10C II, that my wingman would never keep up with me, despite having exactly the same loadout. Then in the Bf-109 my flight lead would pull away from me inexplicably, again despite having the same loadout and me using full MW-50. Fairly sure it happens in most modules. Just an AI thing maybe?

Ah yes! A Dynamic Campaign update, just what I've been hoping to see! The combination of a dynamic campaign with the AH-64D =

I've been using a Warthog for about 4 years now and frankly... I cannot wait to have enough saved up to get rid of it. You get it out of the box and think 'wow, so heavy and shiny'. But I think that illusion wears off fairly quickly, and if you were to try a VKB/Virpil/Winwing etc then you'll see the night and day difference in construction/sensitivity. However - it is obviously a more affordable option, while still being above the entry level stuff. If money is of less concern then absolutely look at VKB or Winwing. It's a pity you can't get Virpil as their collective set looks a bit better than Winwing's. As for collective vs throttle - I guess that depends what you're going to fly more, helo or fixed wing? As for rudder pedals, I upgraded to MFG Crosswinds this year and they're fantastic. Really easy to set up and use. They're also highly configurable, and very easy to install the 'hydraulic' mod that allows them to function more like the anti-torque pedals on a helicopter.

I'm also thinking about a collective and, between the two on the market, Virpil seems rather superior. I watched RedKite's new video on the Winwing collective and I wasn't all that impressed. It seemed a bit clunky and not entirely well done. I'm personally going to hold out for now and just hope Virpil are secretly developing an Apache grip - surely that would sell better than the Ka-50 one!? They've known DCS was doing the Apache for nearly a year now, so you never know...

Pre-order today then?

Can't see it happening, unfortunately. I seem to recall them not wanting to put stuff in the game that could potentially be construed as 'war crimes', or something along those lines. Ahem, cluster bombs.... Also, while it seems like it would be cool, there are so few scenarios where it would be applicable that I don't think it would be worth the effort to make brand new models and new civilian AI, and implement it seamlessly into DCS. In the majority of scenarios we encounter in DCS there is a 'war' situation, and realistically the airspace would be shut pretty damn quickly. The only scenarios I can think of are; interceptions of bombers; the very first hour of a major conflict; small-scale, civil conflict where civil traffic hasn't been closed off from (a la Flight 17 over Ukraine). Don't think it's worth the effort, I'm afraid. Perhaps a couple of generic passenger jet models would suffice for mission/campaign makers to add of their own accord?

I finally started trying out the WWII part of DCS recently, with the 109. Tried the instant mission "Maltese convoy" or whatever it's called. Immediately destroyed by the first shots of flak. So I tried again, this time much higher and weaving around. Hit again almost immediately. And I chose the "easy" setting at the start! Let's just say, if flak was this effective during the war and could hit a tiny, fast-moving target like a 109 at will, then I'm not entirely sure how Allied bombers managed to level Germany quite the way they did. Those 8.8's are as frighteningly accurate as the dreaded ZU-23 hidden in a field (helicopter pilots know all about that...). In general, I feel like AI gunnery in DCS is, ironically, a bit off-target. There's little to no human error, delay or dispersion.

You would think so, yet Wags recently posted somewhere that it's only a fraction of the complexity of the Hornet or Viper. They certainly seem happy with where it is in development and confident that we'll see it in 2021. Perhaps the biggest/longest/most complex part of its development might come later with the FCR implementation.

I'm not sure why a year old thread needed to be resurrected for this. But also... 5 MB/s?? I'd kill for that. Unless you mean 5 'Megabit per second/Mbps', which would be terrible. But as previous posts in this thread indicate, if your speed is low then it is probably your own connection's issue.

I had almost this exact issue 2 weeks ago - I had a BSOD while playing a game. Then it just wouldn't boot. Like you, I could get into the Bios but I couldn't save any changes or anything. I could get into the Windows repair screen but it wouldn't repair and said it couldn't locate a system restore point. Bad news: I took it to get fixed somewhere and was told my C drive had failed - hence why Windows wouldn't boot. Maybe it's the same for you?

Very interesting! I'm wondering though, how much of an issue will tree coverage be in missions/campaigns set in the Marianas map? For example, if our target scatters when initially attacked and runs/drives into the forest where we can no longer see/hit them... could this be an issue? I find that DCS trees tend to be made of vibranium or something and block all attacks - yet allow the units under them to fire back at will.

Hey, I'm not sure if I totally follow. What do you mean by where the rudder is "bound"? As in the keybindings? There isn't a Warthog rudder pedal (it's only the stick and throttle), maybe you mean the T-Flight pedals?

Huh! I had not seen that at all. Thanks for linking it! The Herc would be pretty cool for doing paratrooper drops and such. But... probably not something I'd personally go for. I'd be very pleased to shoot one down though. With a Hellfire from my Apache

I'd be interested to know where this cargo plane info is coming from. Everything I've heard from ED pointed in the direction of no plans whatsoever for transport aircraft, or indeed any large planes. In my opinion, DCS isn't the right place for large, strategic aircraft like the Lancer. The Black Hawk, though, definitely should be a thing. Especially with some lovely fast-rope capability/animations.

Yes, but there's the small matter of Norway, Sweden, Finland and numerous other northern countries between Russia and the UK. Not to mention the rather large North Sea. The two countries are not close - strategic bombers just tend to have enormous ranges.

Good god, my PC can barely cope with little Damascus as it is - London or Birmingham alone would set it on fire. Not really sure what conflict would be taking place there either? Unless ED plans on developing an RUC Tangi module, then I don't see the point Unfortunately, I think a certain civilian flight sim's use of cloud-based terrain technology (which is heavily subsidised by its massive tech giant owner) has created a false sense of what is possible for a regularly-funded developer like ED.

As regards to the Apache, I've never seen it in reality so it would be foolish to comment on it. But as to the 'moving maps' in the Hornet and A-10C, no - not F-10 quality. But then the F-10 map is essentially a 'cheat' mode, for lack of a better term. I personally don't find the colour maps that useful and always turn it off in the Hornet. The useful part of them is maybe the contour lines that show terrain altitude. The other parts, such as town names, etc, I find very difficult, if not impossible, to read. Anyways, just look up some Youtube videos for the Hornet/A-10C and you'll get an idea of visual quality. I'm sure someone knowledgeable on the Apache can be more specific as to what information it displays, as every aircraft seems to have different implementations. The A-10C is quite different to the Hornet.

AI - 100%. For mainly singleplayer users like myself it must be a huge concern. It encompasses so much, not just behaviour of air units but also sea and ground, as well as how ATC orders traffic/taxi patterns, etc. It's a huge area that needs to be improved; and furthermore, the dynamic campaign simply will not work unless the AI is improved. DCS Liberation is the perfect example for that. A great mod hampered by infuriatingly limited AI.

There could probably be a little more data in terms of the target list provided. Maybe an estimated distance next to each target for example? I feel like the gunner in reality would have some idea of how far away each target is, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to have Petrovich provide us with an estimate. In terms of other data, perhaps when at an especially close range Petrovich could have a go at specifically identifying the target, rather than just listing generic 'IFV/Tank'. Maybe throw a bit of human error in there, like mistaking a Chieftain for a Challenger? Just ideas of course!

And I'm just going to keep this thread alive... I still cannot use any cloud preset other than clear skies because it's just making me feel sick while playing and looking at the jittering. And no, I'm not going to stop using TrackIR because it's not the same without, and VR is out of my budget range. The lack of communication regarding 2D/TrackIR users is bordering on disrespectful... Just an acknowledgement of the issue would be great. Would really love to experience the new weather the same way other users are!

I find campaigns good for learning systems too. For the Hornet, I think the Serpent's Head 1 and 2 (the former free and latter paid) are decent in that regard. They aren't explicitly training campaigns, but are start with simple missions with simple loadouts and progress from there. Much less complicated and with less going on than Raven One, for example. If you see a mission coming up using, for example, IR Mavericks then study how to use them beforehand with Chuck's Guide or something - then put it into practice in the campaign mission.