wowbagger

I think the idea behind this campaign was missions that are easy to hop in and get to the target in a reasonably short amount of time, without dealing with ingress durations of 40min + . As someone who has to squeeze sim time around real life stuff I appreciate someone bringing this approach. There are already plenty of campaigns that go the opposite direction. To be slightly more constructive than "hot start = no buy" (I mean, c'mon), it should be possible to provide two versions (hot start & cold start) with a minimum of extra effort. Heatblur did it with the Tomcat campaign I believe. There are other campaigns which offer different versions of the same campaign, changing things like difficulty or refueling required etc. Just resaving a second set of the missions with cold start would be possible, should Looking Glass wish to do so - although it could mess with some waypoint timings, I don't know.

HB are a class act. Respect and support for the way you guys do what you do. (There are a couple of modules I own which I dearly wish were in your stable.)

Just wanted to say thanks for this and for all the "information" type videos you do. They really compliment the campaigns and add a lot more depth to the experience that you don't get from either the common "DCS WORLD: Hornet ATFLIR tutorial" type videos that abound, or from the module manuals. I love the context you provide and the real world perspective. Instead of just yet more abbreviations and mil references that I have no understanding of, or just guessing how things were/are done, your explanations are clear, informative and show the reasons behind the procedures - and are super effective at drawing a player (well this player) into the world the missions recreate. Anyway, cheers. Hope you keep them coming.

Just wanted to add my congrats on the V for Victory release! (I didn't want to muck up the forum with a pointless thread) Very excited for this one.

Ah, okay. Thanks for the update. Assume it will make it back at some point...

Ya, totally agree with you on that. Dead reckoning draws you into the experience so much more than live moving map icons. It feels like you get twice as much for your investment doing it this way. I actually like these kind of flights even when there is no enemy contact. It still feels like an accomplishment. It would be nice if there was an option for map only with static flight plan marked out. The default kneeboard maps are rubbish in my opinion. However dcs has so many bugs, and is so breakable that there are times when being able to turn on map icons - at least allied ones- can be very helpful for figuring what the #$%@ is going on: is it user error, mission design, dcs bug, wonky AI? I've flown some campaigns where labels are forced one way or another, or off entirely.. and not even consistently through the whole campaign, with changes between missions. The number of times I've had to pause to check that my bindings are still working ... And on an enjoyment note, it would be great to fly into enemy air space, carefully avoiding SAM detection, get within range to drop your ordinance and then get to see it impact on target ... but with external views restricted we miss all of that. I guess one size can't fit all. (btw: champing at the bit for some mosquito action and a good reason to finally try to learn the harrier - c'mon ob patch)

Thanks @Mistermann I love the high quality stuff the campaign creators are putting out these days, but I will never understand why they feel the need to lock us out of certain parts of the game. I know they have their reasons, but they cannot know what my eyesight is like, or what hardware you have, or how she/he/they enjoys playing the game. Just giving a strongly worded recommendation for the settings with which the campaign is designed ("OR YOU WILL BREAK THE MISSION") is enough, in my opinion. I do sympathize with them for all the messages they get about mission support and bugs and such - many of which are simply user error. I try to buy as many campaigns as possible, even if it takes me years to play them all, mostly to support the campaign creators. However I've had enough frustrations with this that I'm now at the point of avoiding ones which force their views about labels, views, etc on me. I'll definitely put your clever technique to use on some of the ones I already have. Cheers

Can anyone verify if this even does anything? On my game it seems to do nothing at all (and never has done). That is, for me, the choices set in the mission design are always enforced regardless of both whether this box is checked or not and whatever my own settings are. cheers

Great, glad it works for you.

Yes, correct. There was nothing out the ordinary. Been very impressed with the way you wove in the real world considerations and tensions in the complex ToO. Nice work.

I just had the same issue - mission failed .... presumably for not pressing the space bar to clear that message. Given that we can now review any and all messages on demand, perhaps you could make this one now auto-close and not lead to an unexplained mission failure here. cheers

Price has been walked back to that originally stated. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/320411-dcs-newsletter-discussion-3rd-march-2023-normandy-20-hoggit-server/?do=findComment&comment=5164903

Thanks for the clarification. The map looks like a great addition to WWII flying!

It just would have been much cooler to acknowledge that there was a change in the previous advertised price. Not simply to state something new, as if nothing had been said before. It's insulting to your customer base at the least and just dumb. I suspect most would just say " okay, I can understand that, thanks for being open and honest". The people who are going to be upset are going to be upset either way. Now it just looks sneaky. Psychology seems so lost in corporate decision making.

Well, to be fair, a couple of years ago an ED trailer highlighted the Luftwaffe attacking a port in the Marianas so ..

Please keep in mind that I'm not asking them to change anything - just state what is locked out on the product page so informed purchases can be made.

Labels, external views, F10 map for some, etc. You can't "cheat" playing a single player game the way you like/need to play. No creator can take into account everyone's physical requirements, hardware availability, or simple play style preferences. To me it seems silly to lock anyone out of anything they want to do with the game they bought when a strong recommendation for the way the campaign ought to played for the best experience is more than enough. BUT please note ... I'm not not asking them to change any of that. Some of our content creators do amazing work and frankly make the game worth playing for many (me included). I know the campaign creators have their philosophies and reasons for setting things they way they do. I'm not taking issue with that. I simply want to be fully informed before I buy a non-returnable product. Actually if the mission has these erroneously created config files in it, they will get dumped into your temp folder on mission load up and definitely will override your own snap views file in Saved Games.

Yes, I think that is caused by the the mission editor sometimes dumping config files into the miz archive for no intended reason. I'm 100% sure the content creators are never doing that by design. You should be able to delete the offending files from the mission archive without issue.

Would it be possible to start listing the forced settings for the commercial campaigns - perhaps under the requirements section? Campaign creators are doing a great job of providing us with some wonderful campaigns lately, but for whatever reasons they are commonly forcing their play preferences upon us (I know they have their reasons). Since the files are uneditable there is no way around this. The "Use for all missions" check box doesn't seem to affect this either. As the person paying, I would like to be able to play the game in the way that I want, or not to have spent the money. I hope that makes sense. Cheers

You still end up staring at a little green video screen and letting your technology do all the work. It's an exercise of systems and procedures instead of piloting. Who says missions have to be set in the present? The maps we have lend themselves better, in my opinion, to previous eras than they do to current day. And that will only increase when the upcoming maps are released. Maybe then we'll get some supporting ground units, less omniscient AI, and some more campaigns set in the 70s, 80s, 90s.

Would love to have a higher percentage of missions, and (preferably) campaigns, which focus on getting your hands dirty rather than peering into TGP screens and dropping smart weapons from altitude. I get that many of the aircraft are late model blocks and hi-tech TGPs have ruled the skies for the last 20 years, and TGPs are what the game does best, but dropping GBUs kinda feels the same from an A-10C or F-18 or and F-16 or a Harrier. The A-10 didn't get its bad ass reputation because of the technical wizardry which can now keep it circling out of harm's reach lobbing smart bombs. The Harrier has a cool built in, old school targeting system, do we need to slap a TGP on it too? Perhaps some more Cold War stuff. I'd rather have missions which might take a few liberties with which block is being used when, but which also highlight the differences between the air frames rather than homogenizing everything towards a singular TGP simulator. Okay, rant off. I know most have different tastes from my own. Cheers

It freezes in OB 2.8 as well.

Okay, well a combination of slow repair and newest video drivers seems to have fixed it.

Yes. I did that at least once. Maybe have to try that again.