TBarina

Many thanks Actium. Outstanding posting! Even your last sentence is a summary of wisdom: I'd also add three things: Accept community help: some bugs and additional features are mitigated by excellent workarounds. At least ED could use them while waiting for full official reviews. It's been over a year since I solved the problem of the wingman calling "Radar contact..." every 2 seconds with Chump29's clever solution (even though Chump29 no longer maintains it: obviously, people get tired of maintaining things that require a lot of maintenance every time ED changes). Prioritize the Helios integration issue. There's a burgeoning market for "cockpit building," and it's crazy that a few lines of code prevent us from using the cockpit in multiplayer without breaking the integrity check. (see: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/338940-why-should-exporting-rwr-and-other-viewports-break-integrity-check/page/2/#findComment-5524289) Consider creating paid modules for advanced ATC. I don't know the sales figures, but I think Supercarrier was a success. I'm sure the same would happen for a "SuperATC."

In my opinion some are not minor errors: having ATC to give the wrong IAF for approaching the runway in bad weather? Or having the wingmen repeat endlessly the same things when they spot enemies? Or having wingmen crash on the tarmac? By citing Licence Conditions to defend ED position for the huge list of accumulated issues means throwing away the concept of "passion and support". There are incredibly talented community members who work hard to maintain fantastic solutions for DCS (without which I fear DCS wouldn't be what it is today) and campaign creators who put in a tremendous amount of effort to provide us with decent missions. It's high time for ED to do its part and dedicate the necessary time to fixing the legacy, otherwise we risk making life difficult even for those who are passionate about it. (BTW: I honestly don't think they'd even dream of mentioning the licensing terms. Luckily they are not an Insurance company )

Are you using VAICOM community software? There is similar functionality in there.

Modules are not freeware. We pay for them and we have the right to have bugs fixed in a reasoneable time. I'm not going to wait 35 years to get them fixed. I'm also available to pay for enhanced bug free versions of some module but so far I don't even get an answer in the forum.

I know that ED will eventually fix everything one day. I'm afraid the time will be too long to wait, though. At the moment lots of things spoil the flight immersion. Consider some posts (for which nobody hasn't even answered for months or weeks): - voice-over volume (for which is very difficult to find an accettable balance) - wingman endlessly repeats radar contacts: this is terribly annoying. ED refuses to use the Chump29's great job to reduce spam (BTW Chump29 doesn't support it any more) . Luckily I could modify my lua files and it works very well. But not everyone is capable of doing that and it must be manually reinstalled and updated every new releaes. Link here - do you enjoy building missions? I do. But when I tried to build a nice mission for Normady 2.0 I came across big issues (bridges resting on tracks across the railroad tracks and ATC targeting the wrong IAF when returning to base in bad weather; see the Normandy 2.0 forum for details). - The SINAI map also has some nasty issues (check out the dedicated forum). - ATC for Supercarrier? Well, SC is a really good example of a paid add-on that improved this area, but it doesn't have a good ATC. Just a radio message. Luckily, there are talented users who have built fantastic add-ons that were mostly ignored by ED. Some very talented community users saved VAICOM after Hollywood_315 had to abandon development, giving the software away to the community. And they struggle to update it with every DCS change. Also, check this out (in case you missed it). Here's what we would need for most maps: I'm not saying that DCS is bad. But all these new terrains and aircrafts may end up to delay the fixing of previous bugs or the introduction of necessary features for years. That's why I'd rather pay for a Supercarrier 2.0, some ATC boosters, etc. Meanwhile, BMS continues to improve and perfects the ATC between releases. Great movie of how BMS handles the pattern with multiple flights:

I'd love to see ED and its partners offer a paid upgrade version of some modules for customers interested in funding the resolution of immersion-breaking issues or encouraging the introduction of new features. A list of potential modules and a customer survey would be helpful. Most of the upgrades would certainly be a success (ATC, Dynamic Campaigns, Terrain improvements). Let's be clear. I'm not saying what's been done so far isn't good, of course. Excellent modules have been produced so far, and ED has delivered on all its promises over time and beyond (see F18, F16, A10, Wardbirds, the fantastic Supercarrier module, the weather system, etc.). However, in my opinion, there are areas that need a boost.

I'm afraid too! I ceased buying modules in fact. Each new one introduces tons of issues that I'll will never see fixed. All of them (ED, UgraMedia, & co.) had better propose a payware enhanced version of their modules for those customers interested in financing fixing those issues instead of releasing tons of new aircrafts and terrains. Surely most enhanced versions would be a hit (ATC, Dynamic Campaigns, Terrain enhancements). I'm not saying that ED is not doing well, of course. So far they have produced great modules and have fullfil promises (see F18, F16, A10, Wardbirds, the great Supercarrier module, weather system, etc.). However, in my opinion, there are areas that need a boost.

Has this been fixed?

if ED continues to postpone terrain, ATC and AI bug fixes (not to mention dynamic campaign) I think we will have an Early Access in a decent time

There are issues that have been reported but not answered so far. Who is in charge of it? Could someone at least provide some answer? Many thanks in advance.

I agree with you. Unfortunately I bought it but I'm not going go buy anything more until they fix (or at least give answers to) the various bugs reported so far.

Don't know why but nobody is taking into accounts these bugs. Is anybody at ED able to answer?

So far no answer from Maestro

Once again: I'm only posting here my opinion about how long are these posts and also how long the list of bugs is becoming. I'm not here to discuss the bugs in details and I'm not paid for discovering bugs. It's up to the dev team and beta-tester to do that. We are paying (and paying a lot) for buying products that are supposed to work or to be amended in a reasoneable time (not in years).

Let me express my humble opinion. Personally I'm a little surprised and a little worried. I fear that we are distracted (or led astray) by too many sometimes useless novelties. There are dozens of messages/posts commenting on insignificant details for a military flight simulator and almost none that support discussions on essential points such as ATC communicating wrong approaches to runways. Staying on graphical details, there are also significant errors in UgraMedia's maps, such as bridges lying on train tracks or shelters invading the tracks in stations. Don't get me wrong. I love DCS but the more you put in the fire the more bugs are left behind and it becomes difficult to manage and fix them. Honestly I would rather pay something to buy an enhancement that fixes the bugs still in circulation before moving on to new scenarios, planes and features.

I've added a mission with a flight in the proximity of the airports. Aircraft is in the air and radios have been set to contact three different airports in the zone (mainly: HighHalden and HeadCorn. Wind is set so the a user can quickly test calling different airports and check responses. IMHO this is better than a track to check ATC messages.

Seems like nobody cares for testing bugs.

12 months to solve! Very reactive...

It's even worse at High Halden or other two airstrips fields when asking direction to final or inbound. You are often directed to the opposite IAF instead to the the proper one according to the radio message inditecating the the runway number. Unfortunately, IMHO, ED is fully concentrated to release new modules and doesn't care for the bugs they leave behind. It's a great sim indeed and it would deserve greater respect and attention.

Anyone has had the chance to test?

Hi, make sure you use DCS’s Built-in “3 Camera” Setup This allows DCS to render three separate viewports (left, center, right) with proper angles and maintains vertical FOV more accurately. Go to ...Saved Games\DCS\Config\MonitorSetup Use or create a monitor lua configuration for a triple screen In DCS options: Set Aspect Ratio to your true value (5720/1080 ≈ 5.29:1) Set resolution to 5720x1080 Choose your custom monitor config Note: This increases GPU load significantly because DCS renders each camera view separately.

I've tested again and created a new mission with Spitfire coming from the south and the ability to contact both HighHalden and Headcord. I've tried to call HH first. I've given direction to IAF for runway 11. Message says RW 04 (it doen't exist ad HighHalden, if I'm not wrong). Where is this RW 04 coming from?| Besides, even if the intention was for runway 11 that would be the wrong one since the is wind from 285 at 20 kts). Then I aborted and contacted HeadCord. I was vectored west of the airport to IAF for RW 10. Controller said to expect RW 28 (BTW: not 27, there is no 27 at Headcorn). Theoretically this should be the right one since the wind is coming from 285 (Met.105°). But the IAF where I'm vectored to is at the opposite side and it's not the right IAF for RW 28. I cannot say it is working properly. For me it's messing up things. Not to talk of problems when there is no wind blowing. Please, let us know and take action with ED if you have power to. I'm available for further testing in case of need. TB Spitfire - RTB.miz

Has anyone else encountered the same problem? IMHO it's bug in the INBOUND response that names the opposite runway as the active one (for which, instead, it provides proper IAF).

Hi, https://discord.gg/QXySHjPj is not working (invalid or expired). Is there any other link?

Hi, thanks for your great work on ATC. Instructions explain that is necessary to include files in .miz It is about 35MB size per mission. Would it be possible to install files once in a common directory and use Symbolic Links inside the various .miz file that I would like to create?