Lace

I had a list which I posted a while back, but many of the issues I had raised have now been addressed or are in the process of being addressed. Weather - visually a huge improvement now, but turbulence especially in and around CB should be implemented, as should dynamic weather systems, with options to deteriorate or improve as desired. (I'm sure it will be). ATC - Desperately in need of overhaul, and currently in progress too. SC comms adds immersion even if not 100% accurate (apparently). A/D environment - More vehicles, marshalling personnel, armourers, maintainers, etc. Again SC has shown us what we can expect on land based A/D soon (I hope). AI/UFO FM physics - Always improving I guess, and a lot down to the mission designer to correctly set up (as mentioned above). Dynamic campaign - I don't want to feel like I'm in a movie, I want to feel like I'm fighting a war. I don't want a storyline, I want a strategic objective. Tied in with this... Logistics - Realistic warehouse stocks, and interruptible logistic supply chains. Better make sure that C-17 full of JDAMs makes it though or you'll be dropping iron bombs for the next few days. - Likewise spares and realistic repair times for campaign missions. More AI air, land and sea units - If you want realistic scenarios then we need a much broader selection of units - another one which is in process, but seems glacially slow. Other stuff in which is being worked on and will help include the thermal modelling/FLIR implementation, weapon blast effect, ground unit reaction to effective enemy fire, etc.

I think the Recce/BDA mission is essential for the new dynamic campaign. If players needed to actually gather intel, rather than just be presented with it on a map, it would add a huge element of realism to the tactical planning of sorties, and the strategic considerations of target selection.

The Viper will always be special to me as it was my first real introduction to military combat simulation in Spectrum Holobyte's excellent Falcon 3.0. It is my primary DCS module even in its unfinished state and the only one which is getting it's own dedicated VR sim-pit built in my study. There are so many aircraft currently offered within DCS and many more coming in the near future, but none which will knock the Viper off it's top spot IMHO (That will maybe only happen with a GR1 Tonka).

Good info there Northstar. If only we had the depth and breadth of units to run realistic scenarios to go with the realistic basing. As always, some poetic licencing will be required for any map or module use. Also, wartime dispersal will mean many units are far away from their 'normal' homes.

AGM-145 is for DEAD, not SEAD. IRL a DEAD package will not be a single aircraft firing a single weapon, there will be multiple coordinated flights, combined with EW aircraft & HARM shooters to supress, while other aircraft destroy with JSOWs or CBU. You might be able to kill older SAM systems alone, but any of the modern stuff can target even the low-observable standoff weapons.

GIUK gap would be great, but DCS is not a naval combat simulator, and in order to incorporate the non-carrier based air assets, we would need to expand to include Scotland for Lossie and Kinloss, maybe even down to Leuchars. Norway too, even right up to mainland Russia. Otherwise the REDFOR will all be air-started Bears and Backfires. It would end up as a huuuge map, or just lots of cold water. As you say a better option would be the Kola Peninsula and the Barents sea to the north. You could still include Norway, Finland (and maybe the far north of Sweden too to allow the Viggen to be operated from it's native frozen lakes and roads) and the Russian naval and air bases around Murmansk/Severomorsk. Still plenty of water like GIUK, but with the option of some ground warfare to support, and a smaller, less densely developed geographic area, like the maps we currently have.

Thanks, I'll take a look at those. From a quick glance the main choice seems to be 64GB slower RAM, or 32GB faster RAM. At the moment I'm running 32, but aware it might be worth future-proofing a bit with the 64GB option.

I may be breaking some forum rules here, but I think anyone on reading here would be interested in Operation Crossbow - A UK charity in the process of (re) building a flying Mosquito. This will be the fourth flying Mosquito in the world and only example outside of North America. Newsletter Signup - The People's Mosquito (peoplesmosquito.org.uk) NB, I am in no way affiliated with the People's Mosquito charity.

That'll be why then. The red triangle are DL symbols shared via other flights or AWACS aircraft. In order to lock you need your aircraft to detect the target. Most likely reason it won't is your antenna elevation - your RADAR needs to be scanning the right bit of sky, both in azimuth and elevation in order to detect the returns from the target aircraft. Azimuth is achieved by moving the TDC cursor over the target, but your antenna may still be scanning over or under the target. You need to move it up or down until you get a white dot indicating a solid return (which may or may not be in the same place as the DL symbol, but should be close), or a solid red triangle (indicating a correlated return). Fortunately, the number on the red triangle is the DL target altitude. The two numbers on your acquisition cursor are the upper and lower altitude limits of your scan. If the red number is between the two white numbers then your RADAR should pick up a return. However, this is a huge topic and well worth further reading if you want to get the most from DCS. The Viper manual is a good place to start and I'm pretty sure the APG-68 manual is out there somewhere too...

Is it a RADAR return (white dot) or Datalink symbol (red triangle)? You can only lock a primary return, DL symbology there for information only.

Nope, Marianas was a non starter for me. Maybe after a bit of optimisation it will improve (I found the same with Syria though, and even the SoH back in the day). I'm well aware of the compromises I am making with my hardware (I even started a thread about a new laptop earlier this week). Of course we expect more, and games have moved on immeasurably from the early 90's, not quite sure the point you are making here, I'm not comparing DCS to Falcon 3.0, other that in the same sense, it requires (required) the very best hardware to run it. Cars now are much better than cars in the 90s, but there are still people out there who think we would be flying around in autonomous pods by now. Expectations should be managed accordingly. The 'pick two' analogy works for so many aspects of our lives. I am willing to sacrifice quality for VR immersion, some are happier with a 4k monitor and TrackIR. I would love to turn it up to 11, hence the search for some better hardware, but the latest software has always and will always be one step ahead of the latest hardware, it's what ensures longevity in the software, and drives demand for new hardware. If DCS maxed out ran at 90fps on a 2080, nobody (ok the miners would) would need new GPUs, which would be bad news for hardware manufacturers, and there would be a thread right here on how ED is being too conservative and the graphics would be so much better if they were willing to push the limits of the new hardware. Everything is a compromise.

VA is the manoeuvring speed, i.e the maximum speed for full control deflection. Below this and you can pull any single control to the stops and will not overstress the aircraft. Above it and you will exceed the design loading for the aircraft. Whether this will break stuff depends on a lot of factors, but it is not something done routinely. The reality is that it is easy to do in the sim (no physical resistance to control movement) and hard to do unintentionally IRL (lots of physical resistance to control movement).

I just find it staggering to believe you guys with the 30x0 cards are struggling - I am running a 1070 Mobile in my laptop and it is perfectly playable on a Rift S. Are you running thousand bomber raids? Running all settings at MAX and expecting 360fps? One of us is doing this wrong, I'm just not sure which of us. Perhaps it's because I grew up on this, I am more willing to sacrifice visual quality for performance. Maybe those more used to fancy graphics are expecting too much from VR? You have immersion, quality and performance. Pick any two.

I set CMDS Program 4 to Chaff BQ 2, BI 0.25, SQ 10, SI 1.5, Flare the same BQ 2, BI 0.25, SQ 10, SI 1.5, which puts out 20 of each over a 15 second period, triggered just before a pop-up attack run.

Thanks, so no 'pairs' as such, just a slow manual ripple.

I can't seem to find any reference to releasing multiple JDAMs on one target - does anyone know if this is possible, for example if I want to drop a pair of GBU-31 on the same point in the same pass? Will a second release (within the bracket) still send the target data to the weapon? (i.e. two consecutive releases, rather than a pair). I guess another option is I could just have two very closely spaced steerpoints, release, quickly cycle to the next one and release again, but that doesn't seem the most efficient workflow.

I have decent performance from my 1070M and Rift S. Sure, the detail is dialed down a bit, and the PD could be higher, but it is certainly playable and smooth. The only times I really struggle is with large unit count missions. I'm surprised you aren't happy with the performance of a 3080, perhaps you just need to manage your expectations?

According to my very rough Google Earth measurements, a map covering East and West Germany would be about the same size as the current Syria map. A 1986 version should be less object dense than modern Germany, in terms of major cities at least, though certainly more dense than the current SoH and Syria maps.. I'm sure it must be on ED's long term plan somewhere (it has to be surely...?), perhaps they are just waiting for the hardware to catch up in order to do these types of map justice?

Thanks for that - great info. It seems the 4k is a bit of an issue. I would happily go for another Aorus machine as mine has been faultless, but the majority of alternatives seem to be going for higher refresh rates, rather than higher resolution. I guess the market for 4K gaming is small. My 1070 is still just about useable, on low unit count SP missions and med-low settings, but It would be nice to crank up the visuals a bit and maybe upgrade the VR headset for something with higher clarity and FoV.

I'll bet if they'd done an AH-1 Cobra it would be finished by now...

I've had CA for so long now, I'm not sure which features are CA, and which are DCS core.

How have I only just discovered Liberation? I had heard it mentioned in passing in a few places, but naively assumed it was some server based MP thing (I know it can be). I never realised it can be used to generate SP offline missions in a coherent campaign. Tried it for the first time last night flying one of the basic Caucasus scenarios as part of a DEAD package of Vipers. Compared to my home made missions, the coordination of the other ATOs and packages made the whole thing feel so much more real, as though I was genuinely part of something larger, rather than a one-man-air force vs the world. I would like to say a huge thanks to the developers. This would be an essential purchase for me if it was a paid module, but as something offered for free then I am even more appreciative. If the DCS dynamic campaign engine is as good as this then I don't think there will be much complaining. Thanks again, especially for offering low-unit scenarios as an option too, as many of the commercial, scripted campaigns I've tried are so unit-heavy they are unplayable on my modest system.

The F-15E, A-7 and A-6 are all day one purchases, as is the Mossie, even though I don't really fly the WWII stuff much. Further down the line, who knows what will be announced. The hype train for the Phantom is going to be a busy one!

Very much this. The idea of a sandbox covering a time period of circa 80 years is ambitious as a 2D strategy game. For a high quality, full fidelity combat flight simulator it is just crazy.

With real radio comms. Accounting for path propagation, atmospherics, interference, jamming and the physical location of the battlefield commander on the map. Units move out of range or behind a hill and you lose direct control, and no longer receive contact reports on enemy positions.