Lace

Far better to just use the single landing pads and some HESCO barriers and create your own FARPs and FOBs rather than use the terrible four place green volcano. Especially with the newly added static models which really fit well in desert terrains.

During canopy closing pre-taxi, Jester calls out "stripes aligned", and the painted stripe on the canopy close linkage in the aft cockpit is indeed aligned. However, when I close the pilot canopy, in the locked position the painted stripe in the forward cockpit is not aligned. Should it be?

With the imminent arrival of the Chinook, it would be great if we had IR and visible strobes as placeable objects for marking troop positions etc.

I think preload radius is the amount of the map which is preloaded to memory at mission start, not the visibility distance.

Will there be any changes to the terrain mesh for the winter texture pack? i.e. will inland lakes become frozen and level? I feel a lot of wet water around the deep cold snowy textures would not give a realistic feel for the region at that time of year. Is it even possible to have two meshes dependant on season?

Agreed, same for SAM launch smoke and dust. Should be independent of draw detail distance settings and be visible from much further IMHO.

DTC - Data Transfer Cartridge, so you can pre-load pertinent mission data, like threat rings, countermeasure settings, Comms ladder, etc. DCE - DCS upcoming Dynamic Campaign Engine, on which many hopes are pinned and much is expected.

Yep. Needs a massive overhaul. I'm hoping this (along with proper DTC integration) will be part of the DCE changes when that eventually launches, as mission planning will be critical to any well fought campaign. I think that the mission planner, and mission editor should be two completely separate entities. At the moment they are legacy systems which are very limited and there are far better examples of how it can be done, even going decades back, so technology limitations do not apply.

I think that is by design. There have to be limits to the articulation of the pilot model. After all, you wouldn't expect to just be able to stand up and walk out of the aircraft, would you?

Not sure why this was moved to 'Bugs & Problems'?

Great work on the kneeboard additional pages, the attack profiles, intercept geometry, bombing tables etc are all really useful. A very helpful addition, and something often absent from other modules. I thought it was worth mentioning as I only opened the kneeboard yesterday and found it, even after more than a few hours in the Phantom. Will it eventually be moved onto the leg once the pilot model is available (like the Viper now)?

Westland Lynx please. Widely exported, used by Armies, Navies, and Air Forces. Agile to the point of aerobatic, and used in a variety of roles, such as anti-armour, SAR, ASW and general battlefield utility. A Sea King would also be a great shout. Also a prolific type, fulfilling transport, SAR and ASW and AEW roles.

In my experience, every new EA map suffers with performance issues, and only after some optimisation does it catch up with the others. This is especially noticeable as a VR user. I remember SoH and Syria were all but unplayable when they first came out, and now SoH is my best performing. Just give it a little time and I'm confident it will improve.

There's not a single modern 'British' aircraft in DCS (excepting the WWII pair). The Harrier is a USMC version, the Phantom a USAF one, the incoming Tornado and Typhoon are both German versions, and the Hawk is dead. Someone needs to give us at least one please... But I'd still be happy with a French, Indian or Omani one. Or a Buccaneer! A proper British aircraft.

The F1 is a French aircraft, and comparable in many ways to the Jag. The fact that it was operated by the Spanish doesn't make it a Spanish aircraft, nor the F-104 which is next in the pipeline. Of all the developers, Aerges seems the most logical to take on the Jag (given the role and era of their current projects). Whether they choose to or not is of course up to them.

I would love a Jaguar, I think my first thread on this forum was a request for the Jag. I keep telling myself the Jag doesn't have the broad commercial appeal of the F-series US fighters, but it was a big player in some major conflicts with the the RAF (Granby) and the Armee de l'Air (Epervier), is still in current service with the Indian Air Force, and was used by the Omanis until fairly recently. It is as prolific and well known as some recent and in development modules (MB-339, G91, etc). It fulfilled a nuclear and conventional strike role, recce, anti-shipping, precision bombing, was A-A capable, and later versions had Gucci kit like an HMD and TIALD pod. Not to mention the rough/unprepared strip capability. It is a good fit for the Kola, Hormuz and incoming Iraq & Germany maps too.

Polychop - It's not an attack helicopter. Also Polychop - Here's a trailer blowing literally everything up. Awesome work guys, can't wait to log some hours.

You could just swap the names of the liveries, rather than edit the missions. Maybe that would pass the IC?

Our Viper (so far) only supports Steer points 1-30. STPT 50 forms part of a line series which is not yet possible in DCS (for marking borders, kill-boxes, no-fly areas etc.

Jag is one of my favourites, I'd love one but at the moment the Mirage F1 is a decent contemporary substitute.

Landing gear is designed to withstand very high shock loading. One aircraft I have flown was landed so hard (not by me!) there were tyre marks on the underside of the wing skin! The undercarriage was inspected and no damage was found. A Viper landing gear will have a lower tolerance for g loading than a Hornet, but both are designed with huge margins of safety. A lightly loaded Viper should be capable of a firm landing on a carrier deck as the gear will be built to withstand a heavy landing at a high gross weight on a land runway. It will not take a fully loaded jet slamming into an upwards pitching deck. Tail hook physics, IDK. The Viper is designed to take the wire at the far end of the runway with minimum speed on. Whether it would take an arrested landing would depend. With a decent headwind it might take the wire as low as 100kts. I'm personally not a fan of the silliness of operating non-carrier aircraft from carriers, I've never even thought to try it as it would never happen IRL, but this is a game, and people can try all kinds of things which would never happen in real life. Look at the typical logbook number of deaths/ejections/kills and compare it to a real life fighter pilots stats. DCS is just not played in a realistic way by anyone. Tactics, procedures, operations are almost all pure fantasy anyway, so what difference does it make if someone plays in a different unrealistic way.

Not sure where to put this, but since the latest May update, Tacview is no longer exporting tracks, and the 476th Range objects are no longer appearing in the ME static objects lists. I don't know if the two issues are related. Both folders have been reinstalled in the openbeta/mods/tech folder in Saved Games, and I have tried disabling and reenabling within the module manager but without success. Anyone have any bright ideas?

Yes, and thank you. Very simple missions compared to some but I tried to capture the atmosphere of that part of the world, however it was before the new clouds system, and obviously the terrain wasn't a great substitute for the Norwegian fjords.

I was going to wait until the map was a little closer to completion, particularly with the RNoAF bases and the winter textures, but it looks like you are doing a fine job, I might not need to at this rate.

Looks great - I did a similar set for the Caucasus as a stand-in when the likelihood of a Kola map was but a distant dream...