Lace

Is that a new version of Tacview or something else?

It would be great if we had some accurate separation modelling with possible airframe contact and damage if weapons are released outside of tested parameters. There are some good videos available of mishaps during envelope testing. At the moment they seem to just 'pop off' the jet at any speeds or g loads. In a related note, over-G of the targeting pods would be great too.

It's difficult. As much as DCS likes to think of itself as a 'sandbox', unless you are willing to take very big liberties and substitute units then absolute accuracy to real world operations is not easy. We have the wrong aircraft and the wrong maps. I've built 'Operation Martyr Yalçın', and 'Operation Outside The Box' to a reasonable level with what is known publicly, but still with a lot of artistic licencing. Often I start building them and then give up as the assets are just not available to make it realistic. I sometimes feel that completely fictitious scenarios are a better way to go.

I'm planning a full rewrite of these once the Kola map is released - happy to post up here again if there is any interest?

Honestly, in terms of slick, refined gameplay, the DVG Leader series takes some beating. I've even played as a co-op 2-player with the kids. 'Red Storm' is a better 2-player game, and is based on the older 'Downtown' game, which is Vietnam themed. These are slightly less accessible than the Leader series though, and take a bit more set up and resolution, but it is possible to game out some large battles, especially with RS.

I looked at adding that one to my collection, but the turn time does seem like a headache. Not that I actually get much time to play any of them these days. I do really like the contemporary Cold War ones, in the same way I like Cold War era books - when much of the enemy intel was based on guesswork and grainy photos, rather than the post-89 stuff, when we actually got to peek behind the proverbial (iron) curtain.

Merry Christmas all! Let's see what 2024 brings...

Do it. It is worth it, but be warned, I have >2800 hours logged on C:MO, and that is only since the upgrade from CMANO. God knows how much in total. It also makes you realise how much is missing from DCS in terms of assets and sensors. It literally has every sea, air and land unit from the end of WWII until the near future modelled, plus a full globe (including orbital assets).

Yeah, I use Vassal for Red Storm/Baltic Approaches, since the play area and set up time can be quite significant. I think the 'Leader' series works well enough as a physical board game though, and to be honest I spend too much time at my computer as it is!

Anybody else play this stuff? I have the original 'Thunderbolt Apache Leader' from GMT circa 1991, and later relaunched by DVG. They also produce 'Hornet Leader' and 'Phantom Leader' which are solitaire games of moderate complexity, but very much in the spirit of our DCS modules and simulated Ops. They are good fun and if nothing more offer a way to expand understanding of tactics, ROE, threat systems and weapons employment. In more of a naval context, there is of course the classic Larry Bond's 'Harpoon', and the 'Fleet' series of games, which although mostly surface warfare based, offer an element of air action from carrier based assets and shore based MPAs. Harpoon of course evolved into the computer versions, which have been superseded by the excellent Command: Modern Operations, but it is nice to get the old, tactile feel of a physical game sometimes. There are others, 'Tac Air', and the more recent excellent 'Red Storm' and 'Baltic Approaches' add-on, which game out a 1987 cold war turned hot scenario in central Europe. Anyway, I thought there may be some DCS players who are not aware of this stuff who might find it interesting.

Oh, there are so many things which could be 'better' in DCS, but this particular one comes up time and time again by people who don't realise that it is not a mistake, but intentional*, and based on reality. Proper wind and water modelling, along with swells, chop etc. would be great. Turbulence downwind of mountains, rotor effect from buildings, trees etc. The list goes on. * (either that, or it is a very coincidental mistake)

I qualified my statement that there may be exceptional conditions. However a 50% and 30degree rule is good enough for this EASA ATPL study guide, and correlates with what I was taught while learning to fly. WINDS – EASA ATPL Exam Guide (wordpress.com)

It does make sense, if you know how wind works. I've posted this before, but here we go again... Wind works like this in real life. The way DCS does it a bit backwards, but does make sense if you want to define conditions on the ground for airfield ops. It is realistic that winds 'slack and back' (in the Northern hemisphere) when approaching the surface, so should be about 50% reduced, and backed by 30degrees (veer by 30 in the Southern hemisphere) compared with those at altitude. This is even more noticeable at night where the slacking and backing effect is increased due to colder, denser surface air, however DCS doesn't take this into account*. The effect is reduced over water where there is less surface friction. Again, not modelled in DCS's atmosphere*. Having these independently configurable wouldn't make sense from an atmospheric modelling point of view, as which ever one you choose to define will effect the other. It is just not realistic** to have the wind speed and direction the same at 1600ft as it is at the surface. Perhaps ED need to place a note in the manual explaining this to prevent this confusion. * AFAIK ** 99% of the time. As always there are some unusual cases where this might not be true.

Any update on whether or not this is likely to allow SC deck crew integration?

What happened to the Backwinder?

This has always been the case. Modifiers need to be set by module, I guess because the modifier button you choose for one aircraft may have a dedicated function in another? Bit of a pain setting it individually, I agree it should be global by default (which could be said about a lot of assignments).

Agreed, that alone would be a huge improvement.

The civvy sim allows instant and seamless switching between VR and flat. This would be a huge QoL improvement for DCS. There are no benefits from running the menus and ME in VR, and I wish they would swap the low-poly Su-27 & hangar for a model which matches the chosen wallpaper theme too, but that's another issue.

It seems that the graphics settings are becoming more complicated, and there seems to be many conflicting opinions on what to set and why, and since everyone has different hardware and expectations, so much seems to based on trial-and-error and plain guesswork, especially if you add VR into the mix. Is it feasible to allow the sim to run a benchmarking process to auto-set the various parameters based on a simple Quality <> Performance slider? Of course we should retain the individual options for those who like to tweak, but a 90% solution would be accommodated by the single slider setting or a target FPS input. I know other games I've had in the past run a type of benchmarking as part of the install process, and then self configures the graphics settings. I'm sure this would be a popular option for many users, especially those new to DCS.

We've seen virtually nothing of the CH-47 since last year's video, so I'd expect it to feature a little. Perhaps we'll see the A-6 again, and I think the Phantom will have a heavy presence. It would be nice to see Razbam's MiG-23, and our long-awaited Polychop Kiowa. The Eurofighter would be a pleasant surprise, and I hope to see some of Orbx's Nordkapp map I genuinely have no idea about the closing reveal, perhaps MiG-29A, but I'm hoping for something completely unexpected, who knows?

Now that's how you keep people updated. Take note other developers! Well done guys, day one for me.

Even just as a human pilot planning aid it would be a worthwhile addition IMHO. It is well acknowledged that the AI needs work in many ways.

It would be great if rather than just an instant direction change at each waypoint/steerpoint, the flightplan showed a calculated turn radius based on the planned speed and aircraft type. This would be especially useful for the Strike Eagle using TFR and coupled AP. The 90's Tornado sim had a similar function and it was great for lining up on attack headings, slotting into valleys, avoiding MEZ, etc.

Depends on your start and end points on the development timeline I guess. Initial internal proposal -> research start -> development start -> public announcement -> pre-order -> release -> end of EA -> 100% bug free. I imagine the F-4E had been in consideration for some time before any significant work was produced, but 2 years is reassuring given the other modules in the queue.

The Gazelle is the best helo in the game, (yes, you heard me). The Hip second. If you want something to help you learn skills you can transfer to the Apache, then go with the Huey, as the main rotor turns in the same direction as the Apache, whereas the Gazelle (and Mi-8/24) turn the opposite way, meaning you apply the 'wrong' pedal when increasing collective, and this could result in a lot of negative skill transfer when you finally return to the Apache. The real problem in choosing the Gazelle, is that once you start with it, you will never want to go back to that overcomplicated, heavy bus that is the Apache. You'll be killing tanks and ducking power lines while the AH-64 is still figuring out their acronym soup and configuring their screens.