bfr

It seems quite specific though about downloading it via Orbx. And DCS as a prerequisite is a given whichever way it works. It does leave more questions than answers though. - Is it available via Orbx only or will an option to buy/install via ED exist also? - Is the 'no Steam' thing temporary only? EDIT: Ah, seen the screenshot from Discord someone posted now.

Looking at the Orbx 'coming soon' blurb then it looks like Orbx Direct will handle install/download. https://orbxdirect.com/product/orbx-kola-dcs

And kind of how the DCS trial system works now, albeit its pretty much never available for fresh off the press releases.

Although Orbx clearly have the capability to host and deliver that kind of size of content already whereas I don't think Heatblur do. Whether ED want everything under their roof (or can even currently support a mixed environment in the way MSFS works) I don't know, and it might end up that you can choose either source.

It'll be interesting to see how that pans out in reality. Their store and content delivery works very well with MSFS. I don't know if its possible that they can handle the file management and DCS handles the licence, or if you'll just get served up a DCS licence code after purchase from the Orbx store and then everything from there is handled by DCS' ecosystem. I guess we'll find out in due course.

I knocked up a similar 'shock & awe' type scenario for my amusement ages ago (I think I used B-52s instead of B-1Bs) and IIRC then even for dumb bombs you need to space the points a bit for them to get everything in order for the bombing run. It is amusing to watch your screen momentarily reduced to a slideshow though when things start to go bang.

It's been out of sync with releases a couple of times before. I assume it's just edits haven't always beat the deadlines to be bundled with the updates.

This. If there is a happy resolution I expect there will be a bit of a positive joint PR push from both ED and Razbam and then everyone moves on with things. Until then, we watch and wait.

Its entirely possible for both things to be true. You can have escrow arrangements where a supplier is obliged to always push up-to-date source to an external repository. The other partner does not have any access to that escrowed source until a defined trigger condition occurs (e.g. insolvency, breaking of the contract). This means the buyer has contingency if a key but small supplier goes under, and the supplier can maintain full control of their own IP whilst they're still trading and/or keeping up their side of the deal.

Fwiw i absolutely agree Chromium can be a a bit of a resource hog but the last post was on a windows 10 subreddit about a low spec machine and kind of illustrates the point I was suggesting.

It may well be that it was something like lower end kit (which they might not have tested it on much until thrown to a much wider testing pool) that it ended up as being unusable on. Its hinted at it was an OS v hardware thing. Wasn't there a thing with people still on Windows 10 and certain CPUs and scheduling that was a bit hooky in the past?

Not an axis, but 'view up slow' and 'view down slow' are the Y axis options when mapping a POV hat switch. 'Absolute Camera Vertical View' might also be one to experiment with as an axis.

Depends how they define 'create your own content'. I very rarely throw up fully fledged and heavily populated missions (because it is indeed hard and time-consuming to do well) but lots of times i'll throw up very basic scenarios with a handful of assets and waypoints just because I feel like blowing something up (or even just having a guided joyride) in a particular location.

We don't know its a fact. Nothing to say that things can't be patched up and people return to what they were doing (or competent replacements be found if those who said they were 'done' are indeed 100% not ever returning).

The reality is that the core of DCS itself is an ever-moving train and for any given module then there is no guarantee it would still work down the line if no one is maintaining it. I don't know what arrangement ED have with third parties in terms of being able to take over maintenance of released modules if the original developer pulls out, abandons, goes bust or whatever. As Alba57 alluded to, I hope there is some kind of provision in place given we've had one instance of this previously with the Hawk.

On the plus side, some say "don't look at the basket and probe too much during AAR" and in the Harrier's case its damn near impossible

and maybe loose off a Sparrow as a futile gesture for the purposes of light foreplay before the knife fight begins.

And one particular bright spot amongst the announcement is the performance looks like its going to be pretty decent considering how far it looked like they were pushing the envelope in the previews issued to date.

Same here, albeit I haven't tried for a while ('can I land it on a carrier when I shouldn't?' is an essential part of breaking in any new module). Generally come in quite flat and on the cusp of a stall.

Is the 6 week turnaround between releases a hard limit though (as in they can't possibly do it more often than that now without undue risk) or just what ED currently want to work to in terms of work planning and release cadence?

Yeah, I'm aware of the intention to change the damage model (and ASM warheads) to something better but it has been on the 'to do' list for quite a while now. I hope it does happen as it would open a whole new side to the game versus the current situation where you seem to need an awful lot of firepower to put any decent-sized armed naval vessel out of the fight.

And it would still be a valid tactic if DCS' damage model supported taking out individual systems on ships. Sadly it doesn't and its been a sore point since forever. As it is then boats can basically fight on until they're on their way to the bottom.

I'm fairly sure there was a list of things due in the short to medium term doing the rounds in another thread and the -130 was towards the top of that list. I can't recall where the Maverick was in terms of priority but I assume it is fairly low down considering it was rarely even trained with IRL.

F is 15 in hex, April is the 4th month, so an F-4 launch has to be 15th April

Yeah, their flight paths seem fine but they seemed to come off and on the burners quite a lot. Although the puff of soot dropping out of burner became a handy reminder for me to also get off the gas. I think it'll be a good tool for brushing up on formation flying and voiceovers calling a lot of sharp turns also helps with avoiding those 'unexpected traffic conflict' moments. The only very minor gripes are that the AI don't seem to get THAT low that often and they missed some good low flying areas out (e.g. the valley upstream from the dam you pass is a cracking LL route). I don't know if the altitudes used are the mission having been set up conservatively or just a limitation of DCS but i'm sufficiently a lunatic that if you don't land with green smears and twigs on the underside of the jet then you weren't really trying.