OLD CROW

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.

Time: 28:25 ATA 1.41 Oil Temp: needle between normal and high reading Time: 28:39 ATA 1.72 Oil Temp: needle goes to max. mark reading Time: 28:46 ATA 1.7 Oil Temp: needle drop to normal- high reading At this point the engine sound changes Time: 28:56 ATA 1.65 Oil Temp: Up to Max. Engine totaly fried giving its last breath before total dying Time: 28:59 ATA 1.58 evident loose of power Time 29:05 Old background sound (like if the pilot opens the canopy and the air blows direct in the ears) of total engine failure. I've never owned the Dora also never have tried it out in the trial mode, but first time I've watched Hobel's vid it recalled me, like 2 drops of water, same engine total failure in the P-51D Mustang, before inplementing new coolant system. Maybe is a hunch... but maybe 10 years ago engineers did a kind of copy-paste from the previous model (TF-51/P-51) DM scripted model and implemeted it in the Dora DM one and they'd also copied, unwittingly, the issues it carried. I have NO leads on that I only try to help the team pointing out a possible starting point from where searching and fixing the issue/es.

I couldn't attach the trk file due it's over 50Mb's, but I took an screenshot of the IA's settings for the FW190 A-8's in the mission editor. They all are carrying a SC 500 J belly bomb. These pictures are taken from the mission #5 in the big show spit campaign. Original settings and triggered ones can be observed in the following pics. I put this mission as a reference for you in the case you would recreate a similar situation with the same AI settings. AI's are carrying the external 45 gal slipper tank

Sorry but this an AI oddity. Here you got another example out of the Spitfire (First engagement against an Anton 4 elemet flight). Same situation and the worst of all is that they did a break: didn't drop the ordnance (whatever they carry: bombs, fuel tanks, ice cream tanks or beer tanks). They can perform high G turns with the full bell without loosing a pound of energy, also the script choose to deploy flaps but not dropping the ordnance. This is an AI issue and not specifically attached to the spitfire AI script. As soon as they detect an oponent and perform any defensive/ offensive maneuvers they should jettison whatever they carry in their bellies as a default automatic option and if the mission creator thinks they have to keep their ordance till the end of times then should be an option to override the automatism, not the other way arround... It has ZERO logics from the human user/player angle. I've normally order to my own flight wingmen to cover me in the stock radio menu and use the F10 to send the rest to confrontate the bandits, but it doesn't matter whatever I tell them all: they all keep the tank with them all fases of the flight: my own flight or any unit from the rest after the dogfight and in RTB: They all fight with the tank on and RTB with the tank on too. We can be conprehensive with the fact AI units use a simplified FM-DM and all that bla,bla,bla... but inside that disorder, could be a bit of logic order?... Just a bit. If AI detect a fighting situation then it should actuate according to that situation and the first thing a human pilot does is to asset the situation and then take decisions according to the situation. If you've decided to do a defensive break because you're entering a possible dogfight in a dissadvantage position the most logical decision before even do the break must be dropping anything that can drag your combat energy, but due the simplier AI FM-DM that is not a requirement to enter a fight at all, so AI's, in fact, enter in pitbull mode in a blink of an eye and keep the ordnance with them. This is because nobody has scripted them to do in the correct way by default.

A MP solo sortie in the wild horse

While we were talking ED posted a kind of hotfix for the mt.lua file in the thread I attached. Give it a try also take a look in the thread posts. Sure something would help you.

... and nobody from inside has been wondering for years that this is odd and against any physical logic in a self suppoused "super complex" sim???? Should be time to start to address this PROBLEM, shouldn't you ED? Why don't they cut 95% visual textures if they've been demonstrated they're useless and odd and they barely match the actual damage and put more efforts in addressing the real DM and how it affects the FM in a more realistic way? Too much textures... too much make up useless textures, but zero core issues addressings.