Tomas9970

Read what I said. The F-35 had quite a few upgrades over the years, which may have allowed ED to get info on the early versions that are no longer in service. Present-day F-22s on the other hand are still very similar to the first versions, which would make it much harder to get any real info. Don't know why ED went for it specificly though. As for why an F-22 isn't better for DCS than an F-15C, I was more-less reacting to people who want newer planes solely for the sake of getting advantage on PvP servers and wouldn't be interested in anything that doesn't achieve that. I just don't like the attitude.

Maybe because F-22 is probably still a lot more classified than an early F-35 (where all planes have been upgraded beyond the spec we will be getting). Also in DCS, more powerful doesn't mean better and the F-15C was highly requested for the past decade.

As far as I know, the F-35 doesn't have a HUD. Only the HMD, which is projected in front of the visor and therefore would be easier to read with the visor on.

Hello. As you may or may not know, the Eurofighter has a somewhat special placement of the Meteor missiles on the cheek stations. More specificly, the rear ones are rotated 90 degrees inwards (probably to allow air into the engines). However in the 2025 and Beyond trailer, all shots show the Typhoon with it's missiles rotated the same way. Is that just a WIP? Or am I missing something. And yeah, I know I'm rivet-counting but I'm also quite curious about it.

Broken link repost.

Probably in the first or at most second week of 2025. Just like the previous ones.

I think that's probably due to the technological dept that DCS has and what the large core projects like Vulkan rendered are supposed to improve. On that note, I think I'll adjust my own wishes and say that I want to see core features mentioned in the video. Also high memory usage isn't a memory leak in the traditional sense because that would mean alocating more and more RAM before an unavoidable crash. It's just the game core working properly but working with content that it wasn't particulary designed for.

If I remember correctly, every project of a Russian or Soviet aircraft for DCS developed by ED has to be checked by the Russian department of defense and if it doesn't get approved, ED can't make it without facing serious legal trouble. However this doesn't apply to third-parties that don't have ties to Russia so they can still make Russian planes if there's enough available info. Only exception is the Su-57 that was explicitly forbiden by ED. Though things may have changed since I last heard this.

Honestly, I wouldn't be much of a fan of an early Super Hornet as it would be way too close to the F/A-18C that we have (other than having a different body and 6 pylons) and a later model would require an AESA radar, which is clearly a massive feat to implement. I know that we are running out of the "teens" jets and similar with most either being done or being too modern but maybe there's a chance of a Gripen? Unlike Rafale, this one at least had a mechanical radar. Though it still isn't declassified in the slightest.

Thanks for the explanation. I was asking both about the panel with the large circular connector and the one with the screen but in the end, it wasn't too hard to find that it's an ARC-231 radio.

Hello, I'm not trying to complain about the version of the Chinook that we got but just out of curiosity, there is one panel that was in the cockpit even during the pre-order and release trailers but was removed just before the initial release. Does anyone know what it is and what it's for?

Well, we know for a fact that the F/A-18C was a huge commercial success that also brought many new people into DCS. So yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if ED went for another glass-cockpit jet. Also if I remember correctly, the Chinook was announced out of the blue with good 3D model and everything so it's not like ED is bad at keeping things secret if they really want to.

For the UH-60, I believe Matt said that they want to do the UH-60M and are pretty much waiting for data to be declassified instead of making an older version. As for predictions, I want to see the F-104 and the Typhoon. On top of that, I obviously do welcome any new surprises or hidden teasers.

The OP is obviously not very determined but to anyone who finds this afterward, I had this exact same issue when spawning in with the F-15E and A-10C II. Sometimes the crashing could be reduced by lowering the graphics setting but usually it just happened no matter what. After looking through the log files, I found a bunch of "not enough memory to load X" errors (which brought me to the settings reduction). At first it didn't make sense because DCS wasn't reaching any obvious memory limits on my PC but after I set a 16 GB pagefile, the issue completely disappeared. Specs: Ryzen 5 3600 32GB DDR4 3200 MHz RX 6700xt 12GB Now I can run pretty much max settings (Extreme draw distance, etc.) at 1080p with 60k preload but it makes me wonder whether or not I should upgrade to 64GB of RAM. I mean it's 60 dollars but at the same time, I don't see much of a point besides fully satisfying DCS.

Just an idea. Could you maybe take an approach similar to Steam's limited accounts? Let's say if your account has more than 30 dollars worth of purchases (aka you own a single full-fidelity plane or a single paid map), it will become verified and you will be able to start trials without needing extra authentification. The two-factor requirement would therefore only be used if the account is absolutely fresh. That would make having multiple accounts to run infinite trials (which I assume is what the restiction is about), pretty costly while having minimal impact on regular customers or even relatively new people.

I was just amazed by the weather patterns flying at 10000 feet and decided to take a few pics.

It's been so long since I looked into this but as far as I know, the original avionics is from the very end of 20th century so it can't be too bad in terms of data availability. Then there was the 2010 upgrade with large MFDs (JF-17 style) and encrypted communication capabilites, which wouldn't be simulated anyway. Anything beyond that is experimental and not really implemented at scale.

So in your opinion, DCS has a free to play aspect just so you can access the core regardless of what module you pay for? To simplify this. I think the SU-25T is the whole reason we are having this conversation. It has good capabilities as a plane (satisfactory for an intruduction) but none of it's weapons are something people would be immediately familiar with as opposed to western stuff.

In my opinion, the TF-51 is more important as an entry point into DCS not only because it's high-fidelity, but also because it's a trainer that you can use to learn the fundamentals before flying anything else. As for the SU-25T, I think it's just unlucky that it's an eastern plane and therefore nothing about it is exactly mainstream (despite having LGBs, TV-guided weapons and in general the things we demand from our new plane here). If ED really wanted to make a free western plane with modern weapons, I think it should either be some basic light attack plane (I'm sure we can at least find something AGM-65 capable) and/or something with a lot of off-the-shelf avionics where a lot of systems had already been researched in other projects. As for the 2 week trials, I think it's amazing if you want to evaluate a thing as a somewhat decided player but at least for me, it's hard to imagine having the first impression from a trial module as opposed to actual base game content.

On a deeper look, it seems like only guided weapons launched during trailers and showcases were GBU-10 and GBU-12 (Paveway II) so that's what I assume will be included on release. There is a GBU-31 drop at 1:30 in the Pre-Order trailer but the shot switches to an LGB impact so I wouldn't consider that.

JHMCS is promised at the end alongside the Sniper pod.

Some loadouts were shown on 10 Percent True if that's anything to go by. https://youtu.be/ZdC7wm02Frg?t=270 Lantirn is the first TGP with Litening and Sniper XR planned for later. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/97330-dcs-roadmap-unofficial-no-discussion-here/page/139/#comment-5152563 AGM-65 Mavericks were teased at some point but aren't shown in the loadouts. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/97330-dcs-roadmap-unofficial-no-discussion-here/page/137/#comment-5133366

It's been a while since i was interested in this but I still have 1:72 models of an A-10 in woodland camo, F-8 in US Navy livery (checkered rudder fin, don't know what that is) and F-104 in NASA testing livery. Looks like new 1:72 models cost 100 dollars or more regardless of if it's an F-35 or a U-2 so that will certainly keep me out of this as well.

Yeah, I'm basing my math on a reflector telescope but I also never heard about using any different formulas for different types of telescope. A quick google search of a Litening TGP head shows refractive lenses behind the front glass so maybe it is a very short refractor as everything has to fit inside the head. I agree that an SCT-like design would give longest focal length but a refractor has an undeniable advantage of not losing collimation with rough handling so that makes it an obvious choice. On a second look, there are photographic lenses with catadioptric internals, convex glass at the front and no visible secondary mirror. These obviously don't need regular collimation so that might be what is used in our pod (unless someone comes with official info).

It's simply 114 divided by lens diameter in mm and the result is in arc seconds. For example if you have a 76mm lens, that's 114/76 so objects with similar color have to be more than 1.5 arc seconds away from each other in order to not blend together. On that note, there is also a good amount of light amplification that comes from having a large lens so maybe night CCD image should be brighter than what you can see with a naked eye. The amount of amplification is simply a ratio between surface area of the lens and surface area of 7mm circle (fully expanded eye pupil). For a 76mm lens, this is around 4536,5/38,5 so around 118x more light.