OLD CROW

After several tries this last week, finally my game launcher downloaded and installed last known update, but... now... ...And this is the error message that comes out once I've tried to launch the "Repair Build"

I'm afraid of that is the main source of issues, and not only in this mission, but.... it's out of your hands

There’s something that doesn’t add up for me when it comes to active flight simulator companies: they all avoid recreating the last great battle between air forces. The pinnacle of aerial combat—where the objective was in the air for both attackers and defenders… yet no one wants to open that can of worms. Both ED and its WWII-focused competitors prefer to skirt around it. In DCS, the map exists. It’s a paid map, but by now, it could be as free as the Marianas. I’m not talking about the Normandy map but the other one, which, for some strange reason, hasn’t been merged with Normandy. Once the "map issue" is resolved, I can’t quite understand why they’ve chosen to dive into such a technologically complex environment (in terms of software and hardware) instead of sticking to an already created setting (Map/Maps and Assets pack), where they would only need to focus on modeling iconic aircraft—planes that practically sell themselves since they exist in the public imagination and have tons of easily accessible information. There are even flyable models in countless collections and museums worldwide. If 99% of those who own the K-4 were asked to swap it for an E-3/E-4 or their Spit Mk.IX for a Mk.Ia with just four measly .30 Browning machine guns per wing—or even for a Hurricane Mk.Ia—they’d do it without hesitation. And most importantly, they’d pay for it if it were a "sine qua non" requirement (since, after all, this is a business). That was the success of Cliffs of Dover more than 15 years ago. If the limitation lies in the "complexity" of AI flight models… no problem! Just boost multiplayer: human pilot vs. human pilot. 95% of Cliffs of Dover simmers only wanted to experience firsthand what it was like to fly in a battlefield where, in a matter of seconds, a calm sky turned into a hornet’s nest, with up to 100 players on a server chasing each other in spirals toward the ground. I haven’t felt that sensation again since leaving that game. And if you connect any sunday to any WW2 server.... They're "walking deads": no hard feelings towards all gents that put their efforts on them. Flying military fighters as if they were Cessna 172s on a casual Sunday flight shouldn’t be the ultimate goal of a simulator that has the letter "C" for Combat in its name. And even now, after the release of the "PTOS PACK," that’s exactly what’s going to happen. I could understand it when the first modules came out over a decade ago, but at this point, it makes no sense. I also don’t buy the idea that some "third party" will come in to save the DCS world—that’s not their responsibility. In my opinion, flying a Hellcat against an "AI piloted Zero-Sen" doesn’t appeal to me beyond the "15-day trial." However, piloting within a squadron of SBD Dauntless or D3A VAL, locating an enemy fleet, and learning how to execute dive-bombing runs amidst a storm of flak and bullets? Now that interests me—even in single-player. If they listened more to their customers, I think they’d make better business decisions, and their audience would be happier—or at least less frustrated.

Let's not get into stupid technicalities just to show the world how much you know about the subject, especially when they are obviously not the main point being discussed here. What is being discussed is that the OP wants the Hurricane, and it seems that the illogical reasoning of some users is trying to make him understand that this model has no place in DCS WW2 ETOPS. By the way, and make sure this sticks in your head, no one is speaking badly about the work done by third parties. In my opinion, the development of these modules for DCS is the result of DCS's internal policies. We all want consistency in maps, modules, and assets to achieve some level of immersion—that is the only thing driving the work on PTOS, and I couldn't care less if the initial module is the F6F, the F4F, or the PBY Catalina. Since you've gone so technical, can you answer the OP why early-war and mid-to-late war Soviet modules are justified despite lacking a historically accurate map and German aerial opponents, yet a 1939-40 Hurricane isn't? What is being discussed in this post is the viability of that module, not "who knows more about the RR 266 with 100-octane or 150-octane fuel." Don't try to divert the discussion to unrelated topics that have no relevance here. This post is about addressing the elephant in the room.

- BF109 K-4 NEVER SAW NORMANDY - FW190 D-9 NEVER SAW NORMANDY - P-51 D LATE SUMMER 44 - SPITFIRE MK.IX MIDS 1943. 1944 MK IX's were overhauled with brand new more powerful Packard engines- renamed MK.XVI (not available in DCS) - I-16..... NO COMENTS... like the "new kid on the block" La-7 - ....... I can only see a timeless map of Normandy (no mulberry ports, no nothing for D-Day or Post Invasion) and only one human driven module that matches in Normandy time: FW190-A8. To justify this amalgam of modules put toghether in the same bag most people repeat the mantra/euphemism of: DCS is a Sandbox. Using that mantra logics and observing again the modules list why the request of a Hurricane module does seem absurd, well DCS WW2 ETOPS is absurd in itself for more than a decade? Seems that "nuts logics" imperates here. So why not a Hurricane?

DCS version 2.9.12.5336 MT Please recheck this mission. It's cursed from the beginning. With the supercarrier deck crew enabled you can't salute them, remove chocks, so it means you can't taxi to catapult #2. I tested several times dissabling deck crew from the ingame Settings/Special/Super carrier menu and mission works 100% times fine, as it worked before deck crew implementation. Another bug I found is once you found the IL-76 in first place or the Tu-95 marauders you can't report them to KNIGHT so basically the mission stucks at that point and you can't advance next step. This second one is very anoying due you have spent 30-40 mins time in mission just to get frustrated by an script, or lack of it. Thnaks for advance.

@Aernov as an advice: "few" things here a frozen in time... One of them is WW2 and all its products (even the modules prices even they hadn't add all the inmersive details), so don't go in a rush if you want to grow old... Happy new 2025 and Beyond!!!!

I guess is more related to the module you're using. F/A-18 is more like your description of "glued wheels"... F-14, instead, the bounce after wiring is almost real... or, at least, like you can watch in real footage, but they need to polish the wiring / unwiring animation.

But that's only because the amount of neurons is inversely proportional to the level of humor used in that type of jokes. . Kill the chit-chat here.... could be better for your sense of humor... also for everybody's.

So... I guess you're the video editor who wrote the jokes didn't you? High level....

What a great example of 4 dopes plenty of war stuff and free time. The worst point is not what they're performing... it's when they call themselves pro's and warn regular people: Don't try this at home!! Who the hell in the world can do that at "HOME"?? Neither them can perform that at their "HOMES". I guess that cringe behavior is linked with the 24 hour sunny days and how that affects circadian rhythms....

You nailed it

Every times I use this mission just to practice a fast carrier landing I got same issues. Boom!!!! boulter and hard landing, and with the last undercarriage iteraction this hard landing is 99% times an U/C fatal failure due the amount of iron & FUEL impacting the carrier deck. So I did the homework, surfed thru forum topics and I found one entry that explained the Max. Gross Landing Weight in the carrier for the F-18 is 33,000 Lbs or below this magic number. So I did the mission 10 times, I dumped fuel till Max. Gross reached 33,000 Lbs. and 10 over 10 times ZERO problems broken the U/C in the Landings or even boultering due the rebounds. There are several solutions for fixing that. I just found a few by my own, but just for people that does not know that detail can you fix the initial amount of fuel aircraft is carrying or situate the spawn starting point several miles away, whatever easier than now due it is just an instant action mission and it should be easier for beginners no?. Thanks for advance.

You nailed the song.... even more!!! You've spotted it!!!! Here you have an example of what I explained before

Give it a chance. It's the best I've tested, also you will see a color improvement in your brand new 4k monitor. And the most important: it does its job If you feel uncomfortable with this solution otherwise you're thinking you're a kind of cheater then just turn on the black generic dot label in SP missions or campaigns. Spotting has been an endemic DCS issue for a long time I can't even remember. You can barely spot a B-17 or a Ju-88 in the default DCS grey and foggy atmosphere so imagine spotting a 109 o an I-16... With modern fighters most people have no problem on this: you lost 99% of time monitoring your MFD's and RWR's gaugages so lock and shoot your BVR missiles and run away, but in a fully visual SA enviroment you need a similar spotting clearness as AI opponents got on you. Remember the mantra: First to spot first to kill... and in the WW2 you're eye spotting was the one and only weapon you got in your own arsenal to do that. Another possible solution could be lowering you're ingame monitor resolution: lower resolutions= bigger pixels, but I think you would upset with this solution due you probably had bought this 4k monitor for any visual reason better than playing sims as you were back in 90's. The main issue in DCS is the LOD transition from a single black dot to a complex model. It's paradoxal that most times you should mantain a zoom out level just to keep the visual on that pixel, otherwise you can loose it as soon as you zoom in it. Also it's really hard to spot from above ( the natural position in a WW2 situation). There's no depth sensation between other traffics and the background, even in VR. There's no volumetric difference in traffics and background, so best way spotting anything is from below to above (I know it's nuts). You can see a pixel contrasting against the sky better than against millions of ground pixels. The only situations you can spot them better from above is when they're flying over the clouds or over the sea. Maybe once they introduce raytracing or any AI visual new tech spotting would improve, but.... in the future!!!! (try to don't loose your eyesight meanwhile searching for pixels).

In may 22nd. you'd said there was a bug in the paint kit. In october 1st. it has to be just one bug... but a big one I guess... No other i-logical reason for the release delay.

Quote from a post written on saturday: @[ED]Ben can you please give us an update on this bug, and whether the team is working on a fix? Thank you. This is a prove this bug has been already reported time back. This a direct status report question to a direct staff member because this is an already reported bug. Yours it's only a vague invitation to them to fix or not the bug or even to answer or not to the question. Who's been rude here with the customers?

for a few seconds I've been really tempted to mark your post as a solution of this bug report. Even writting this line I'm laughing and still tempted... I bet you 5 dollars they'd close this bug report as soon as I'd mark this even it were the most hilarious and surreal text in the world .

I cannot pass up the opportunity to greet another proud member of the select sect of irony and sarcasm. Welcome to the club. The more of us there are the more we will laugh. Come in and take a seat... it's going to be a long time journey, I hope to be mistaken on that, but meanwhile take a seat, just in case. Blue skies and comfy slippers for you too Slippa.

Could you be so kind as to recontact the producers after this short period of time, almost 2 years, and kindly let them know that what users of this simulator really want is for the modules to truly simulate things that affect and modify the modules "in flight" than "on ground"? Frankly, the experimental independent suspension technology they are using in certain modules, and developing to make the Abrahams feel every bump on the ground, is of zero concern to users in a module that flies and where hypoxia, or the lack of it, is more important due to not breathing 100% oxygen from an altitude at which historically this plane regularly operated. Then, we have to hear or read from people who self-proclaim themselves as opinion and/or content creators that the modules offered in this simulator are undoubtedly the most realistic on the market. I can understand this for modules implemented recently under the Early Access label, but for modules that have been on the market for a decade, it is embarrassing, to put it mildly. The reality is that no one flies at 35,000 feet in WW2 DCS, mainly because the maps are short, the missions offered are minimal, and the nemesis models fly at lower altitudes to better exploit their flight characteristics. We know that a paint job might be a minor detail for many purists who defend this simulator as if their lives depended on it, and that the rest of us are at least trolls who don't want it to progress. Here's a response to that: there's little to no progress if the offered product is mediocre and/or its developers don't show any intention to improve it. This is one of those uncomfortable cases where it's better to let non-positive comments blend in with the comments from the "cult friends" who do no favors to ALL users of this game (Because this is a GAME indeed). Users of a "game as a service" must learn to be more critical of what is offered to them, and criticism, even if some don't like it, serves in 100% of cases to improve the service and/or product for ALL users of it. Please convey this message to the producers, and hopefully, after almost 2 years, you can change the refrain from "No news so far" to "there's something new(s) to talk about it/them." Thanks in advance, fly safe and godspeed.

Fully agree with you... Anything would be much better than all we have had / have not had for SEVERAL years. But be patience I wrote first post in 2021 (...and beyond) demanding a simple mask they forgot to implement 10 years before that post. No news from ED til then. So.... Do you really think they're going to resize all pilot model with all that it implies in less time than just modeling and implementing just a part of it? I mean.... if you resize the entire pilot model you have to resize all aircraft 3D model, just to be consistent between the pilot scale and the aircraft scale, otherwise it would be like a LEGO doll riding the He-Man's BattleCat. And if you resize the visuals you have to resize all internal systems also the DM hit boxes, etc,etc,etc,.... ad infinitum. Most people know (or asume) Mustang pilot in this sim was born and raised in the same lab as Captain America or Hulk meanwhile the british one was raised among pygmies of the rainforest. That's the main reason why mustang pilots did not suffering from hypoxia beyond 25,000 feet with no mask also the british "MINI" was not only one of the most famous compact car of all times, it also was the nick used to "kindly" call the spitfire pilots... for obvious reasons. This is somenthing I've learnt reading the EDpedia and this is as true as I'm a talking jackdaw.