Lace

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.

3.0 will be reserved for the implementation of Vulkan and the DCE I'd imagine.

The Launcher updated, and then opened the new menu. I clicked 'Check for Updates', and nothing... Guess it's not quite live yet.

The most bombed piece of real estate in the (virtual) world.

It is possible to set up a trigger to launch a parachute flare if requested through the F10 menu. This works well to provide temporary illumination during landing if required. I often use it in my missions for those very dark, moonless or overcast night ops.

I'm firmly in the head-look-point camp, and have no issues interacting with cockpit controls without ever needing to touch the mouse. However, I appreciate that others may want to do things differently, so by all means offer an option, but please don't take away the coupled method.

Anyone who's been around here a while knows that 'soon' in ED parlance means sometime in the next 2-5 years. It'll be worth it when it arrives though.

Kept both copies. Ever the optimist I feel this situation will eventually be resolved, and it is too important an aircraft not to have in DCS.

Or, do they fit smaller, lighter braking systems [i]because[/i] they have a brake 'chute due to winter stopping requirements, and the SOP is to deploy it on every landing?

I think the main reason Soviet/Russian designs featured brake chutes is nothing to do with their inability to engineer an effective wheel brake system, but due to the winter conditions in which they were expected to operate. Same reason the RNoAF F-16s and F-35s have brake chutes, the Viggen has a thrust reverser, etc. You are eliminating the reliance on tyre/runway friction to stop the aircraft in ice and snow. It would be great if runway surface friction was accurately modelled, and varied due to weather conditions.

It would be great if the VR model would match the wallpaper theme. I'm sure it has been requested (several times no doubt) but it is one of those seemingly very easy to do, but also very low priority items. There is a LUA file which you can change manually but I remember it caused some issues for me a while back so I've left it alone since then.

Yes, the 'Pilot Position' needs to be bound from the WSO seat mapping, otherwise it doesn't pick up the input. Controls like this (and other views) really should come under the UI layer, but hey.

Just tried it now, works perfectly at 2x in 4k.