Lace

The time skip is the workaround of course, but my point, which many people seem to be missing is that the time skip is not without consequence. For the player nothing really changes, but for the dynamic battlefield, those extended repair times mean day becomes night, FEBA shifts, SHORAD move and your intel is now several hours old. For example - If you are fragged to drop a bridge, and screw up your attack, you shouldn't be able to just RTB, and have another crack at it 20 minutes (game time) later. Sure in the real world 20 minutes have passed and for the player nothing has changed, but in the virtual war you have skipped 4 hours ahead, that armoured column has now crossed the bridge and you have missed your chance.

Yup. Lots to discuss.

Can't go wrong with an Xbox controller. Or just buy a USB zero delay interface card and make your own, it's actually very easy to do.

A backronym if ever I saw one.

Nobody is saying that. Of course you will have the ability to jump into another aircraft as another pilot, and the campaign rolls on, while your recently landed aircraft is being prepped. This will have no effect on the normal way people play, but anything less in the DC should not be possible, otherwise there would be no asset management element. Only in very well rehearsed, planned and usually staged scenarios. It is highly unlikely that airbases would be able to sustain these super-quick hot pits for long in a all-up war situation. There is an extensive thread on the C:MO forums on this very subject. Just because there are a few youtube videos of Formula One style rearms doesn't mean it is the norm. I hope so.

Can't disagree with that really. For me though, consider two scenarios - the first a 1v1 BFM instant action mission. Good fun and ideal for a quick buzz, and I don't really care if I get killed. The second, is the chance of a 1v1, after a 2-hour ingress to target, about to be bounced just as I make the IP. Now I need to fight, and need to win, and still make my TOT. I've invested all this time and I can't take stupid risks otherwise the mission is failed. There is far more satisfaction in making it home and hearing the gyros spin down as I sit on the apron after that kind of encounter (IMHO) than the the first type. Horses for courses, and I still like the odd instant-action when I am time constrained by real life.

It would be easy enough to implement 'Fast Repairs' as a cheat, like 'unlimited weapons/fuel', while maintaining realistic timings for those wanting a more true-to life experience. You wouldn't expect everyone to play with unlimited weapons, and just count the number they've expended to simulate realism, would you? Strange how many players want realistic button pushing, but not realistic warfare. No wonder people jokingly refer to DCS as 'Digital Cockpit Simulator'. I know I'm probably a statistical anomaly though, I play 3-day C:MO scenarios with no time compression!

Some great points @cfrag, but heavily skewed to the MP experience. As a primarily SP player I am hoping the EDDCE will not be solely a MP function. One thing I know which effects the way people fight in DCS, is the lack of consequences for death or damage (or indeed economical use of ordnance), which in turn means there are unconventional tactics at play which would never be find in the real world. I would like the DC to reward realistic planning and execution, rather than the type of operations which are seen on many (not all) MP servers.

I'm hoping this will be addressed in the new DC. At the moment, re-arm and refuel times are (for good reason) incredibly unrealistic. I'm curious to know how this will fit in with a real-time DC? Turn around times should be 1-2hrs in surge tempo, or 4-5 at a more sustainable tempo. Currently it is less than 1-2 minutes which would destroy any sense realism in a real-time campaign. Take this for an example - say an airfield has an allocation of 16 Vipers - these are useable assets which can be fragged on tasks, flown, damaged, etc. Let's say three flights of four are on a mission, and return. At this point there are only four available for tasking. They could be immediately occupied by the player, assuming the role of a different pilot in a different tail number, but at some point, through attrition, maintenance and lengthy repair of battle damage, it could be conceivable that there will be no assets remaining which are flyable at that time. From a gameplay POV, it would make sense to have some kind of fast-forward time skip until their are enough aircraft available to continue, but in a multi-player environment this could be challenging to implement. DCS already has warehouses implemented for airfield munitions, will aircraft spares be added to the inventory, meaning asset repair could actually be impossible until the relevant spares have been delivered? Could airframe damage render an aircraft irreparable for the remainder of the campaign? I guess these are more questions than wishes. My wish really is that it is done in a realistic, meaningful way. Endless hot-pits and battle damage repaired in minutes would remove the requirement for proper tactics and planning to minimise losses to your limited number of assets, and as a result make for a very unrealistic campaign.

Great video as ever. Both F-4s looking fantastic. Also happy to see the CH-47 included. For me that bodes well for the new EDDCE, since BLUEFOR has been lacking a heavy-lift helicopter, something which is essential to implement the resupply elements of the DC (amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics). Combined with the C-130 it will add an interesting new aspect to the gameplay.

Full-fidelity simulations, 1993 style. Alternatively, this is a great book to set the scene: Tornado Gr1: An Operational History: Amazon.co.uk: Michael John W. Napier: 9781473873025: Books There is a 'dash-1' available online, but it is so heavily redacted as to be almost completely useless.

The Gazelle is a good module and my favourite DCS helicopter alongside the Hip. As long as you fly it in a realistic way, it will perform in a realistic way. It is a very light, manoeuvrable and nimble helicopter. You can push the envelope way beyond what any sane real-life helicopter pilot would, and you will get some very unrealistic results. However, I don't feel that detracts from the module at all. Most modules can be abused in a similar way. For example, the Viper will allow you to exceed VNE without consequences. Fly as you would in real life, and you will enjoy the process more IMHO. I mainly use it for recce, and I'm not sure how it currently works with multi-crew, which is pretty much essential for the anti-tank missiles. For single pilot, guns and rockets are fine.

The DCE has to be one of, if not the biggest improvement ED can bring to DCS. A literal game-changer. Sandbox is great, but directed effort is better. It might finally feel like we are fighting a virtual war. Happy new year to the team!

Source? Your eyes must be waaaay better than mine if you can spot humans from 10,000ft IRL.

Only a couple of FC3 have never been flown, but most modules will have at least the occasional flight. I definitely have my favourites, and most anticipated releases, but with the complex modern stuff there are simply not enough hours in the day to properly learn them all. 90% of my DCS flying is in the same two or three modules. I bought BS3 on release, took a couple of minutes to set up the controls, had a quick 20 minute flight, and then thought, nope, there is no way I am going to learn this one. Not to disrespect to the hard work which has undoubtedly gone into it, but I just know that it will be a permanent fixture in the back of the hanger, gathering dust with the others. There are some modules you can just jump into and have a go with minimal reading (MB339 for instance, most WWII aircraft), but others are just too different from my calibrated normal to be worth the effort and the risk of negative habit transfer (Tomcat, Apache, anything Russian or Swedish). My go-to fixed wing is the Viper, until the Tornado. For Rotary it is the Hip and Gazelle, until the Kiowa. Same for maps. Marianas and South Atlantic are hardly used. Most of my flying is NTTR, Caucasus or Syria. Personally, even if I know I'm not going to fly a particular module very often, I would still buy it to support the devs. The next module they produce may be one of my favourites.

SA-15 has a maximum range of 6nm and 15,000ft, so relatively easy to stay out of it's MEZ and ignore. The problem will be if you are forced lower when engaged defensive against the SA-10. As you pointed out, a single ship against this target is completely unrealistic. My tactic against a single SA-15 would be a low altitude ripple launch of two AGM-65s. One of which usually gets through. You don't say how many Gauntlets there are, or how tightly packed. Do you need to kill them all to reach the Grumble, or can you take out one or two to punch a hole? Assuming make a gap big enough to give you some manoeuvring room against the SA-10 my tactic then (since the AI is pretty dumb in DCS) would be to sit at the edge of the MEZ and play with it. Bring ECM and lots of fuel and repeatedly pop-up, wait for a couple of launches and then duck behind cover. Extend, rinse and repeat. Once the SA-10 site is out of missiles, you could cruise up and gun the Flap Lid if you wanted, but a HARM or Maverick would be safer. Depending on how big the site is, you may need to RTB to re-arm and refuel before it is safe to press the attack. Realistically though, as Exorcet said above, stay home, and wait until you can allocate sufficient resources to do the job properly.

Great, thanks!

If I leave the GPS switch off, or disable GPS through the MP, does anybody know if the INS drift and at what rate? Is this currently simulated?

I guess persistent damage, fuel and ammo consumption would be a core requirement of a dynamic campaign engine, so it would make sense to add it to the mission editor.

This is exactly how I do it. Not sure how it can be any easier or quicker to be honest. I'm not sure how or why so many VR users seem to overcomplicate it. My trim hat is mapped as LMB/RMB/Scroll up/down, with trim functions mapped as modifer+trim hat.

There are work arounds for most issues. However, it should really feature as an item in the briefing pack. It is pretty important information, which is notable by its absence.

That's a function of the viper, rather than the campaign though? The TOS function of the CRUS page only works as a Direct-To the selected steerpoint, it doesn't take into consideration any intermediate waypoint of deviation from a straight line. At least, that is how I understand it to work. It is still achievable to hit the TOS as fragged, it just means a little more mental maths, and occasional SP juggling. Often I will set the TOS for the target SP, but then fly the planned route either manually, or using heading-hold, rather than steering-select. Depending on how much the route deviates from the ideal direct route, then add a few more knots. I think the computed times as planned is a problem, as the clock essentially starts ticking as soon as you enter the mission, rather than the fragged takeoff time. It essentially assumes you are instantly airborne at waypoint zero, and then calculates the TOS for each steerpoint based on that time, which is why in reality they are usually 15 minutes behind due to the startup time and scheduled takeoff time. I think this is as much a mission editor issue, as a campaign one.

The Ka-50 looks amazing, but one has to beg the question, why? Apart from some very niche content creators, who exactly benefits from the beautifully rendered equipment hidden behind maintenance panels? Is there any gameplay value there? I mean, I get the whole 'different departments assigned to different tasks' argument, but there must have been thousands of hours invested in the 3d artwork that likely nobody will see, whereas we have some AI assets which look like they belong in MSFS 2002. I hate to be critical of what is genuinely impressive work, but I just wish they'd address some of the terrible legacy units first.

Full burner, emergency jettison, pitch up and turn for home. See if you can get to FL400 before your tanks are dry and then glide to a dead-stick landing on the EPU. Quite a fun challenge I think. You can get 50-80nm if you are lucky (and with a following wind). Or at least get yourself the right side of FLOT before ejecting.

Or even better if a kneeboard package could be created and customised as part of mission planning! Then the pilot gets to choose exactly what goes on there; briefing images, chart extracts, approach plates, target info, or even PDF manual extracts.