Hawkeye_UK

Reflected whilst climb rates are set by ED - the actual speed of the flight is set by yourself and this is changable. Recommendation, reduce flight speed, they are as it is maxed out requiring to fly well beyond normal engine limits to keep up either way and certainly not great for fuel. I'm not quite sure why you have been so high with the speed, there is a solution, along with smaller waypoint's with fixed cruise limits. Appreciate you are having to compensate for ED's stupid coding, but it wont be the first time or the last. Your video referenced above absolutely highlights the issue, your sat at above emergency manifold pressrure boost (52) all through the set course section for over 10 minutes. The maximum is 5 minutes and appreciate ED havent modelled engine damage accurately yet but i dont see why we should literally have to flog the engine to death. Currently its not right and after playing mission 1 i have now stopped the campaign, dissapointed to be honest. Please can you revisit this campaign and have more sensible speeds set to actually make it realistically flyable (within parameters). Edit - i note its also an issue in some of your other campaigns on Normandy map from memory, been a whilst since i played them.

Guys lets not over complicate it - i'm just asking ED if they are even going to attempt to have some form of George ID ability, pretty vital for a helicopter gunship.

Yep as i said its an isolated incident against 1000's of sorties, mistakes happen. There is some irony in your comments, i understand all too well the reality of fog of war. I was saying also about Afgan, your referring to an operation 15 years earlier. Reality is ask anyone that's been out there they would never not want an Apache overhead. Anyway back on point, this is away from the thread posted. Reality is if a gunner can see he should 99.99% be able to ID. At present its not even modelled. Enough said. Your also trying to compare FLIR to Optical, the two are very different.

The point on all of this is that we need to ensure ED are clear on what they are selling. At present there is no confirmation either way, which is not right. As for being able to ID targets IRL, bare in mind in the 1000's of sorties undertaken, these are literally the exception. In terms of the Apache, there was two instances in Afgan, both involving personnel, not vehicles. One an American crew, the other a British, both in early stages of the conflict, both involving failures from both air and ground personnel. The reality is if the gunner can visually see a vehicle it he should be able to ID, if not he's in the wrong job. Lets not make excuses for ED not implementing what should have been a day one release, aka modelling the vital systems to release munitions prior to ones that sell modules.

Hi Bignewy When you say no news, what the Dev's have just shrugged their shoulders and blanked your question? That is a concern. Surely there must be some news as in no its on the roadmap, yes there is a problem, no there is not a problem. I fail to see how there can be no news to share - this implies you are just being ignoring? Also lets just highlight that this has been ongoing for a long period of time.

ED, Please can you confirm whether George AI will be able to visually ID targets and differentiate between friendly and enermy units. I note to date, AI Petrovich still cannot and thus with free fire will purely kill all units infront of him. Extremely poor given MP servers and ground and newer players given if Petrovich can see it through his scope he can visually tell if hostile or not. I assume you will be using part of that code for the apache. Prior to pre purchasing the module there are potential customers that would like to know the importance that ED is placing on this and whether it wil be included on the build as a vital operater ability for the AI from day one EA. Please confirm with the Dev's and respond back to the community so an informed decision can be made. Thanks.

read forum post

Whats the light level like? Don't forget if dark it will only work by cycling your external lights on and off

Unbelievable thread for what purpose? So you can meta the game in MP, the F15 is already bad for that and over G's as it is - and the answer should be a definate no. I have been an advocate for quite a long time to not have this asset in MP (apart from the 3 button start) servers for this very reason, it over performs on G pulling as it stands and needs actually reducing. Planes are more limited by what a pilot can tolerate, not just an airframe, most people start passing out at sustained 5g. Pilots at 9G is for a limited time with full G suit and extensive training on how to stress and hold blood in the upper body / brain. That said there are many components that would be damaged at the level you propose, not including the airframe itself. Please close this ridiculous thread.

Surpirsed no one mentioned the following point already. Case 3 landings the runway lights and the boat lights itself are not visable until almost in the groove, literally they appear mile and a half ish. Please can we see the runway deck lights from much further out ! Also as reported datum lights need tweaking, meatball not visable enough either and unusable during daytime. Lastly great job Cobra & Heatblur team - looks fantastic the deck is so so much better than the SP!

I note the overheads to run the hind are alot higher, which is especially true in VR and or running a post affect sharpening like reshade. This is on 64GB or ram, 5GHZ CPU and 2080TI (hardly a potato machine although not the fastest since 3090's are now out). It seems that at ALL times the sim is modelling (and thus using CPU/GPU) in full detail the front seat (essentially useless in MP). Simple question, why is this? Surely it makes sense to only model the seat your using, or at least make it an option so that in MP you can shut off the front seat and it not require the overhead. This will yield HUGE performance gains.

Nineline it doesnt affect me personally as on the warbirds i have this function off along with rudder correction, but i was wondering what the hell was going on and why people were struggling to get airborne with the mossie all of a sudden. Im passionate about the module and in fairness i've been looking forward to this module more than any other and have been an advocate of people buying the module after the initial excellent release, so its frustrating to see the situation play out with no consultation with the community first. I mean a post could have been done on these very forums for new players do they want this feature removed as its not working properly yet, leaving in until new solution working, or leave status quo etc. Then action its results. Especially until the FM has been finalized and the trim setting's for joystick assignments are refined to a realisitic level. What you have now is a situation where people are clearly struggling to enjoy what is a great, gorgeous, beast of a module, albeit in EA. Again i reference the poor commercial sense on this issue, hence the frustation. We need as many people into warbirds with positives experiences so that they buy more modules and thus allow this area of DCS to expand. It's also why i'm an advocate of people using stand alone and not steam (if you check recent posts re funding allowing more dev hours). So not to have learning "stabilisers" is like trying to get a child to ride a bike for the first time. Its a cliche but so true you dont get a second chance to make a first impression. I also have seen as people get more into warbirds they will often start with this option on then cut it down to 75%, 50% and then 25% and eventually off as they get a feel and more experienced with the FM (and generally by this stage bought into the hardware required).

Already reported as soon as the module came out. Nothing concreate reported back on whats going to be done for this

Better Communicated? As usual dev's do one thing, english speaking customers get chinese whispers or in this instancelittle information and reason. How about get the new system in place for helping newer players prior to removing one that worked? I'm fortunate in that im used to flying warbirds and have a very good hardware setup with hydraulic dampened MFG rudder pedals with toe brakes. I feel sorry for people that dont have rudder pedals it must be nearly impossible to take off, or less quality ones that do have the accuracy. To note the amount the brake affects with rudder the lateral nose attitude id also heavily question its sensitivity for a prop plane. Just like the elevator trim notches for joystick binds. Deaf ears on the English forums, abolsutely. Ive gone from highly recommending the module - to telling people to steer well clear of it if new to props and lacking hardware as having seen loads of people crashing today who are just no longer enjoying the module. What were the dev's thinking - detached from commercial reality? Talking of such and last point its not a great commercial decision - this will negatively affect your sales i'm certain as words spread fast (especially when you have large online squadrons expressing issues). To note i may just try and take off without rudders pedals, i doubt its even possible yet note at the point of sale you mention no requirement in the hardware. If you can't get it airborne without rudder pedals then it's a sold by misleading which is a strong case for refunding the module.

Nope i see nothing of any value in any of this, or equally anyone that was into simulations. For example, friends are in the real world. Online players that you play with are available via discord / SRS that are required for communication. Screenshots live in the screenshots folder in saved games. Steam does use an overhead, why run it alongside a game when you dont have to. For VR players every part of your CPU and memory is valuable (and thats someone with 64gb of ram, 5ghz CPU and 2080TI) Lastly, if you serious about improving DCS dont give a large % for steam who do nothing. Support the product. I rest my case.

Lol its FC3 non clickable cockpits! Need full fidelty, do you really think a $15 module has the same clickable cockpit as a $80 module? Anyway the more obvious question is why are you even using the A10A when you have the A10C ?! Just doesnt make sense unless you dont know how to use the A10C? Infact if you have the A10C, why even bother with FC3 anyway, makes me grimace even thinking about those 3 buttons and airborne planes.

Standalone always - especially so you dont suffer like this post from tonight. There are no positives with being on steam, screenshots, payments all work fine on standalone. Certianly nothing complicated about installing standalone either so not sure why the last post found it difficult (just download it from ED website). Also easy to convert, ask if you dont know or check the forum post. Alot of negatives, 1 Your running another app taking overhead resource when there is no need. 2 No free trials on modules for 2 weeks before you buy. 3 Flash sales that come on ED and third parties are often prior to steam sales (which is why ever time we have people crying about it). 4 Updates are sometimes released onto standalone pre steam (granted not much of a time delay, but its there). 5 No lock out of modules as per the post from today and the numerous issues steam users have had. 6 Have to update on steam, there are on occastions patches that you may wish to not install until a later one. 7) Lastly think about DCS , do you like it? Do you want better content and quicker bug fixing and module variety? Well this all costs money so why give a large % of your money to steam when you buy a module as they do nothing. Imagine if all that money was going straight to ED / Third Party Dev's it means they can afford more man hours, which gives us a better product. Everyone that cries about dev time and how long for this how long for that, ask yourself are you buying standlone modules, if not then have you got a leg to stand on? No! Start buying/supporting and thus helping where it matters. Think.

SOLUTION - MOVE TO STANDALONE (its easy) . I believe this is a Steam Issue as issues in other games today also. Benefits Support DCS, that means more money for ED and third party dev's to spend money on dev time. Steam do nothing yet take a large % that could be spent on more dev's to improve DCS> I honestly think if your passionate enough to be on the forums and want to play, think about supporting the product, no excuse. Also gives you ability to try modules for free and not limited to steam sales (as there are contant winges and wines when is it coming to steam etc). The ultimate bonus, less overhead being run so more performance for your CPU/GPU to run DCS. Negatives Zero PS and just to reinforce this - on our server tonight (around 30 people on) all the regulars had no problems with any of their modules. A few newer players on steam that have not converted over couldnt play. Switched to standalone and you wont get this issue ever again.

+1 A year on no reply?

If only this was available on the F10 Map for MP. I really see the potential in this obviously great for static mission planning but surely its best use is for Tac Commanders in real time re FLOTS? Please please can you pass onto the dev's that this is pushed though to the live F10 map?

DCS is not optimised that well, have you got xmt2 on in bios?

+1

Ok so i could have put CID but most people would be what do you mean, the point i was getting at was that Petrovich is looking through the scope and can visually see the unit he should be able to tell with his good old Mk1's and determine its target identification. The current state of the module is that for complex and moving ground situations in MP with human tac commanders the hind is only good as a logistics bird at best. It's extreamely dissapointing that the most important thing for an attack chopper is that the front seat can determine what he's firing at and ED have totally failed to deliver, it should have been top of the list along with flight model on release. It's not an EA issue either, im fully supportive of that feature, it's a release culture issue of lets have shiny and noisy things first over critical systems (sell modules for SP with labels on) and for example would have chosen to implement Petrovich AI over say having ATGM's at launch, they should have come after as useless when the AI cannot safely deploy them. Incidentally some ground forces can and do carry a form of IFF. Its an area that is currently being heavily researched and invested in across various Nato Partners. Anyway lets get back on point about Jester AI - im confident that Heatblur being Heatblur will do an amazing job and good to hear IronMike confirm, perhaps they can share their know how with the Mi24 team, just give them the code lol if they can't !

I hope nothing like petrovich, as he cannot IFF friend from foe, the hind as it stands is useless because of it. Lets hope Heatblur can do a better job than the failings that ED have released. Ai gunship that can't identify,usefull lol, mind boggles on what ED see as a priority to implement prior to release. So lets hope Jester can be smarter (ALOT), or rather the coders making him.