av8orDave

Yeah, I agree. I'm already to the point after having the module for about 24 hours that I'm done getting whacked by SAMs and AAMs. It simply isn't much fun to start up, take off, fly to a mission objective, and get thwacked without ever knowing it was coming. I play Retribution offline almost exclusively, and even with careful mission planning, it just isn't much fun to fly the -29.

Best I can find, the -15 has downed seven MiG-29’s in total (5 in Desert Storm, 2 in Kosovo). My big takeaway from the DCS module so far is that the avionics are just stunningly bad… the radar is pretty rough and the RWR is almost useless. The HMD is pretty cool and adds some nice capability within visual range, if you can manage to survive that long.

Just saying… it is easy to see how the F-15 has been the end of many MiG-29’s… and why the roles were never reversed.

First, the good: ED has done an outstanding job of modeling the Fulcrum. The visuals look great, the performance feels right, and it provides a great suspension of disbelief; it feels like you’re in an early 4th gen fighter. The bad: I’ve always suspected, read, heard that the 4th gen Russian aircraft were high performance, short legged, and barely more advanced than a household microwave. They could climb and turn as well as anything, but could do so for barely any time, and were so primitive they wouldn’t be effective in a peer to peer environment. The ugly: The sim confirms the bad. The radar is barely functional, the cockpit ergonomics are horrendous, and the RWR is basically just a noisemaker with flashing lights. So, having said the above, I think the MiG is going to take a ton of practice in order to be able to use effectively.

Fired up the F-15C for the first time in a while this evening. Checked all of my control assignments, verified buttons were working, all that stuff. The trim on the F-15C has literally no effect. Wasn't like this last time I flew it, which was quite some time ago.

I think the solution, unpopular as it may be, is a subscription model. Don't want to pay the subscription? Then you get the game as it stands at the time the subscription model is implemented with no further development work. I'll add that as critical as I may sound, I love DCS and have played since its inception (and earlier with the original SU-27 Flanker games). I have nearly every ED and 3rd party module, and every map (except for South Atlantic). I'm one of DCS's most loyal customers, but I firmly believe the current business model will result in an unmanageable "ecosystem" of software with constantly growing maintenance needs with no ongoing revenue stream to sustain it.

I've said before and I will say again... it is a broken and unsustainable business model. That is at the core of all the DCS "issues". ED gets an upfront payment for an early-access module packaged with the promise of future development efforts bringing the module to completion. Before that module is ever complete, another early access module is launched, and they get another upfront payment, which is necessary and they surely need to be able to continue to pay their staff. With each module launch, the amount of work required to bring the early access modules to completion, maintain the existing modules, and work on the core grows exponentially, all while needing to launch *another* early access module just to have an ongoing revenue stream to sustain the future efforts. It is crazy, and it doesn't work. The amount of maintenance required on existing modules and early access modules for which ED no longer collects revenue will eventually become unsustainable.

I had the same experience the other day. On a mission where the goal was to take out an SA-6 battery, I glanced at the kneeboard and saw that the target at the waypoint i was referencing was a "Kub blah blah gibberish". I was momentarily very confused until I realized "kub" = SA-6.

No, I don’t have random failures enabled. I was flying in light rain at about 9,500 ft msl in cold weather.

Flew in light icing conditions on the Afghanistan map after cold starting. The airspeed indication in the IHADDS went to zero, and I realized the pitot heat wasn't on. I tried to turn on the pitot heat on the appropriate MFD page, and found that you are unable to cycle the auto/manual system, can't turn on the de-ice or pitot heat, etc. A quick search showed it has been this way since 2022. Will this be fixed? Thanks

I've been doing the VR thing for a few years now... I've had the Reverb G2, the Quest 2, the Quest 3, and the original Pimax Crystal. Today I continue to use the Quest 3, as I think it offers the best balance between visuals, ease of use, reliability, and comfort. Is there anything new or noteworthy in the headset world? Any others I should try that offer a better experience than the Q3?

Is this going to get fixed? For two months now, you can’t tune the radios on the Chinook. Is there a workaround?

I honestly don’t believe they have anyone actively working on it. I think they tinker with it from time to time.

I just don’t think it is good business. There are no “boundaries” to ED’s early access model. Does the pace of development so far on the Chinook incline you to believe someone works on developing the module full time, or that someone tinkers with it here and there? Add to it the fact that with every module released, ED has a growing base of modules to constantly maintain with each update… an exponential amount of work that they effectively no longer collect revenue on, but must make sure continue to function. Unsustainable business model aside, the open-ended early access with glacial progress (if any meaningful progress at all) and no ability on behalf of ED to provide guidance on some kind of timeline to when the module will have some basic features has soured me on the whole thing. I’m spending more time with other sims and hobbies. It Is simply not much fun to wallow around the sky in a half-working Chinook that has barely changed since it’s undercooked launch day a year ago.

Hi Bignewy, Man, I respect the position you're in and the responsibility you have. Thanks for what you do to moderate these forums. Having said that, this module released bare-bones, and has seen very little development in the year it has been around, to the point that the CDU is barely functional. Heck, it kind of sort of has radios. I've been a loyal and avid customer since 2008, playing A-10C and KA-50, and I've been around for the whole journey. I'm going to be very honest and say I don't believe anyone is working on this module as a daily part of their job, a module that I spent money on, discounted or not. The direction things are heading, in my opinion with Eagle Dynamics and DCS, is not a positive one. I have never missed an early access module purchase in the 17 years I've been playing this game, and I have to say, the MiG-29 and C-130 I absolutely won't spend a dime on until I know that they will be developed in a focused way on a reasonable timeline. I am bothered that the tone of communications even seems to make it kind of sound to me like "hey, you got a discount, the development takes however long it takes." I hope there is a way to make the development of these modules more time-bound and focused. The way it is done today doesn't work. If there were competitors, and I have to think that eventually there will be, y'all would be in a world of hurt. Not trying to be a malcontent, just straight talk.

Is there any sort of "guidance" around how long early access is supposed to last for these modules? This was released over a year ago and still doesn't have a functional CDU. Seems kind of, I don't know, wild. Hard to believe someone is working every day on this. I don't mean to be negative, but it might be good to set expectations appropriately.

Only thing that has been a minor annoyance to me is that the JTAC ATHS (the system that transmits JTAC 9-lines to the CAS page) no longer functions (it once worked great).

As of the last CH-47 update, it seems like none of the user liveries I've downloaded from the user files section show any of the tail markings anymore... just an unmarked tail. Any ideas?

I've played DCS for probably 15 years and never knew this. Anyone know if there is some kind of reference doc or manual that outlines some of the "nuances" or "quirks" about the AI?

Try virtual desktop. The software is considerably better than the alternatives, and performance lately has been quite good.

This is the answer. Thanks buddy, greatly appreciated.

Maybe this is already known, but I went to use the QAG with the Marianas map yesterday, and the F4U isn't available with the WWII era setting. Also, when selecting the F4U with any setting, carrier start isn't an option. Will this be added?

Thanks for the reply, and I do trust and believe the team is working on it. The reason for my negativity is that this process has been what I would say is really, really long. The link below is from 2021, and estimated implementation of Q3 of that year.

Has there been some news that I've missed regarding Vulkan implementation? It has been discussed for probably five years or more without any actual evidence of the work, so I'm skeptical that we'll ever see it. I hate to be so negative and I'd be glad to be proven wrong.

Any Corsair nerds know why the preferred fuel tank selection for takeoff and landing is the reserve tank rather than the main?