Lace

The fog is an excellent update. The Strike Eagle really comes into it's own now with auto-TFR low-level IMC missions. It really suits the Kola map. I only wish we could get some way to disassociate and independently set swell from the wind speed, so we can set up some authentic winter North Sea 2nd Fleet carrier ops. The mission editor copy/paste is a very welcome addition, Honestly, I'm struggling to see a huge difference in the F-5, though I admit it is not my most flown aircraft.

It usually goes live mid-afternoon in Europe.

Will Fulda be the 'big reveal' though? It's already been teased in several videos and stills. Might it be something from a 3rd party? It isn't always an ED module (Phantom was teased in a 'beyond' video).

DCS players refreshing IFR procedures & approach plates this morning.

Yep, it would be great if the mission editor could generate PLOGs and briefing packs, with calculated magnetic headings, drift, GS, fuel burn, etc. It shouldn't be hard as the numbers are all already in there somewhere.

I think those of us who regularly inhabit this forum are a tiny minority of DCS players. There are many more causal players who don't spend their time here discussing the game. It must be this 'silent majority' who drive the decisions on which content to produce, as it often seems at odds with the general consensus on this forum. ED have the sale figures for each module, and I guess the data says modern tech is what people buy.

Yep. My only reasoning is that the 'latest and greatest' has the wider appeal to the customer base, whereas the older 'A models' are more of an enthusiasts choice. I'm sure they do their research but I would also much prefer more relevant older versions. I'd love an F-16A (biggest export model), FF A-10A (cold war and Desert Storm icon), AH-64A (also DS), F/A-18A (DS... you get the theme here...), etc. An xx-60 Franken-Hawk would be fine for me, generic steam gauges, and able to sub in for a Sea-Hawk, Pave-Hawk, Black-Hawk etc. and far preferrable to a modern single-variant.

+1 Yes, I remember being very disappointed when the Hind launched and this was not the case. I had rather hoped it would have been introduced by now, but I guess it is not something ED are planning. It's a real immersion breaker in VR as it is currently implemented.

The biggest thing I changed to reduce the workload and control assignments to memorise is to have as much commonality between modules, and don't worry too much if the cockpit or HOTAS controls are in the correct place or not with reference to the 'real' aircraft. This solves, or at least reduces the need for a physical control map nearby. As for the HUD/cockpit view FOV, I've not really done anything in DCS with multi-monitors, so I don't know if you can achieve what you really want. With your proposed setup, how would you check-six for example? It sounds to me that a VR pass-though might be a good option for you, which allows you to blank out areas from the VR display, allowing you to see your simpit and docs monitor, but again, this isn't something I've tried. Honestly, I don't think the perfect solution exists, short of flying the aircraft for real. Any setup will be compromised in some way, such is life.

It's nearly that time of year again, what do we expect to see? Any predictions for the final reveal? What do we have rumoured but not officially announced? Central Germany map? Any new fixed wing modules in the ED pipeline? It would be nice to see some progress on the dynamic campaign, though I'm not sure how well that will work in a cinematic context. Some of the legacy 3D models being updated would be appreciated too.

'Better' is very much subjective and there is no right or wrong answer here. I do all my flying in VR. I have a half sim-pit, with MFDs and a Viper ICP, all of which I can use with muscle memory and a bit of careful prodding. I know I am compromising some performance and visual fidelity for immersion, and that's fine with me. The one big disadvantage of VR IMHO is the inability to quickly look at briefing docs/manuals/kneeboards etc. I know there are some mods and PDF readers etc, but they are a bit clunky and certainly not as convenient as simply glancing at a printout or iPad as you would with a single or multi-monitor setup. If I was exclusively doing civvy flying, then I would consider a three-monitor setup, but for more dynamic combat flying, then there is no way I would abandon VR, unless it was for some kind of 360 projection full-motion simpit, which is just not feasible for me.

Forgive my ignorance here, but why couldn't the fog layer just be treated as it is in real life, i.e., a cloud layer in contact with the ground? Why does it need to be rendered differently?

Don't get me wrong I'd love to see more variants of the aircraft we have, but we all know the likelihood of ED making a business decision based on developing them. If it genuinely was quick, cheap and easy, we'd have them by now. I think the F/A-18D and F-16D would be closer to the C models we already have though in terms of avionics suite. The Bs were based on the earlier, and much more basic A models.

Is it possible to MP spectate from the F1 cockpit view? That could be a limited workaround for training demos. That or teach the basics principles with one of the excellent 2-seat trainers (or even Mirage F1 or F-15E) we already have?

Regarding this. You can aways place a 'dummy' (invisible) search RADAR to generate the threat ring, then the actual position one of three options close by, depending on the nature of the site - some being more mobile than others. This adds in a bit of variety, plus the reality that the best intel is not always 100% correct or up to date. It is a little more work, but given the replay-ability a worthwhile time investment IMHO. I'm far from a ME expert, and these random flags and trigger are pretty basic to get a handle on.

I play a lot of my own SP content. The best tool for replay-ability and randomness is setting random flags to activate groups, so you are never sure exactly which groups will be active on any single run through. For example, build several groups of ground defences and interceptors set as 'Late Activation'. You can then use a random flag to 'Group Activate' 1/3 of the placed groups. It will not be truly random (i.e. you still manually created and placed them), but it can keep you guessing, and the activated combination of AAA, SHORAD, fixed SAM, CAP and intercept aircraft will be unlikely to repeat. I sometimes put an easy/hard F10 radio option, which increases the number of groups which activate. I also place a lot of single unit search or search & track ground SAM RADARS without any launchers. This simulates a more 'target rich' environment, and prevents you from easily identifying the one or two 'active' sites which you placed. I also reduce the engagement ranges on some of the groups so they don't make themselves known at maximum range, meaning you are more likely to be surprised when a 'dummy' site suddenly shoots at you. It is also good practice to not place waypoints directly on top of mobile targets, as in reality this information will not be accurate or current. This adds a bit of difficulty in acquiring targets during the run in, or when lining up via the TGP. I don't use any scripting or 3rd party software, everything is 100% core mission editor. Also, make sure you click the 'Hidden on Planner', 'Hidden on MFD', 'Hidden on Map' checkboxes too, and keep dots/labels off otherwise you will be picking up targets from a very unrealistic distance. A good plan for A2A type engagements is to create a mission with no AWACS or GCI assets, meaning you have to scan for the intercepting fighters, which depending on the platform you are flying can be quite a challenge, given RADAR limitations. Especially when combined with the random groups, so you aren't even really sure where to start looking. Edit - Another one I just remembered is using zones to activate defensive sites, so their RADARS don't come online until you are within their MEZ.

No, it might not get us more maps, but it might get the ones we already have finished properly.

See, this is the line I have issue with. I'm assuming ED have a pool of terrain content talent. I'm sure there is more than a little cross-over of skills between the Iraq, Afghan, Central Germany, etc. teams and the fact that there are (at least) two 'teams' is only due to ED wanting it that way. I think people are questioning the wisdom of having many teams working on parallel development, rather than one well-managed team focusing on one product at a time. We hear the same about the aircraft models too. I know an SME on one particular platform's systems might be no use on another, but the coding guys, texture artists, etc are surely all transferable, it's just a matter of allocating them to the right places. It's easy to criticise, I know, but It seems from the outside, ED have too many plates spinning, and some of them are starting to fall. I hope I'm wrong and when released Iraq is amazing and vindicates ED and the poorly received launch of Afghanistan, at which point I will be happy to buy it. But right now, it sounds like I am not alone in having reservations.

I'm going to pass on this one. I was disappointed with Afghanistan, so much that I have uninstalled it until they have time to finish it properly. Kola I have no issue with, and is one of my favourites but honestly, I'm expecting Iraq to be along the lines of Afghanistan in terms of quality, so I'll wait until I'm proven wrong. To be honest the north of the country holds little interest. The south, with the possibility of some proper Desert Storm/OP Granby missions (especially once the Tonka GR1 is here!) is a little more appealing, but I can wait.

OK but you are looking at a colour screen or headset, and your eyes aren't actually adjusted for night conditions regardless of the time set in the sim, so you aren't washing out your rods by using white light in the sim. So yes, for better eye candy, but to all intents and purposes, from what I've seen it makes no difference in game. There'll probably be a LUA line somewhere for the RGB value if you want to dig around though.

I'll do some tests while waiting for alignments, etc. depending on the aircraft. They do seem rather pointless however, given failures aren't really modelled to any meaningful extent, and if you do get a failure, there is no mechanism within the game to rectify it or run to the spare jet. I'll never know why running some BITs is the 'gold standard' of realism, while every other aspect is sorely lacking. Comms (both inter-flight and ATC), weather interaction, tactics, weapons release parameters, operations tempo, arming and fuelling arrangements, etc. are all given a pass, but if you miss out a checklist item then you aren't doing it right! Digital Cockpit Simulator indeed.

No from me. The Caucasus map is irrelevant for the majority of units in DCS (except some of the legacy LOMAC stuff). It makes no sense from a NATO/BLUEFOR perspective, and only really exists due to DCS's long legacy and Russian links. Honestly I think NTTR would be a better default/free map as it is where a lot of real-world training takes place, and would make a better setting for all the module specific training missions. REDFOR units are secondary in DCS, and due to document accessibility and political pressure, this is unlikely to change. Kola is my go-to green map now, and probably will be for the foreseeable future. Maybe the Cold War Germany map will tempt me away. I have no need for the Caucasus map.

Indeed, that's the difference between SEAD and DEAD. As long as their system is down long enough for the strikers to do their job then it's a win for you. There are even stories of just a 'Magnum' call being enough to supress the radar operators, without even firing the HARM. Great value for money right there. Of course in DCS things are a little different and success criteria may be defined by different parameters depending on the mission creator.

Concur with these reports - no improvement for me. It's no worse to be fair, but certainly no better. Still some stutters, still CPU bound, and still struggling with any unit-heavy campaign missions. New Kola textures look great though.

'Fantastic' comes from the same etymology as 'fantasy', but is often mistakenly used to describe something as 'really good'. Essentially he is right here and fantastic aircraft would be produced through imagination, rather than hard data.