Hawkeye_UK

Dudikoff agree with your point in principle, its probably not that high though, alot of community are rivet counters ( I will add i'm not, its a game etc etc but i do like to be able to do the basic's when it comes to damage and being able to control the systems, i mean it is a "combat" sim after all). I think my primary concern is the fact we have this clear distiniction in the manual of not available, and not available yet. Being able to turn off the fuel to each engine i would say is pretty elementary stuff, and makes me wonder about the overall damage model etc and the model behind it. As i say its about branding this as full fidelity if the manual is correct and these systems won't be available. Thank you for your feedback on the thread.

Well aware of Early access hence why i reference it, but congratulations on not comprehending the point i raised and the aspects of why.

ED, On first impressions, short of a few issues like IFF for MP (this as i say to all dev's on any module has to be a day one release feature these days) and the att hold for autopilot and few other niggles I think ED have done a great job with the fulcrum. Its alot of fun to "fly", brings a much needed improvement over the Mig21 in terms of Gen 4 for the red side and on superficial play looks and feels great. Night 1 a solid 6 hours of learning the basics, circuits, handling capabilities, playing around with rudder and splitting the throttles, high alpha moves and navigation systems, zero vis landing etc to get a really good feel for it, its instant nose authority and sustained speeds ingame for rate fights etc i noticed the engines can flame out in certain conditions which "auto relight" with windmilling and throttle to idle. I thought I will move onto the emergency procedures post learning the radar and attack. Night 2 of learning its A2A radar, and ground delivery modes all seem good, well worth highlighting the IFF friend and foe lock that i see most people complaining about cannot lock on (when testing say and trying to lock a friend). Night 3, starting to take a deeper dive and here comes the wall, there isnt any. Past superficial play and once going into emergency regimes i note alot of the panels and features are not selectable and do not work. I've worked through the manual and note they say not available. So none of the Emergency control panel works such as ramp retraction, air relight left and right, ab emergency cut off, fuel shut off left and right, they are all listed as not available. I note other features such as the feel control unit states not implemented yet, a clear difference. Considering the heritage of what DCS Full fidelty means and i refer to modules such as the A10C or the KA50, there clearly is a large gap in what full fidelity means and what concerns me is the engine/model behind this. If this is the final state of the Emergency control panel and other panels not available one could very easily interpret that the back system for this is not there also re damage to systems? Please could you clarify if this is the new standard of full fidelity because if this is the case its a very clear departure from past modules for example in the A10C i can literally control all aspects which actually during play is super useful when taking damage can manage the failures and in alot of ways the A10C is still the gold standard all those years ago. If the manual is correct and these are not going to be available i would suggest a rebrand to Mid fidelity. Look forward to the clarification, hopefully this is just a translation issue and the systems will be modelled. This is not a "hate post", far from it, as i said really enjoying what it brings to the game and recommend people buy it but just seeking the direction of this module and futures ones like it (as in conversions from FC3 re F15C).

Yea we've seen this before, no worries. Given that the EA access is now close for release - and the EA manual is not going to change much prior to release (I mean it may release tomorrow with a fair wind), any chance we could make this file available to get slightly ahead of the curve, you know for those that would want to read the EA manual Thoughts? Just be great to get a little upto speed.... @BIGNEWY @NineLineineline

yep agreed, however my point was to the gentleman making the reference to the english cockpit, for those that want to fly in metric, keep the cockpit in its native form Cyrillic. Yep my point was someone was asking for metric in the english cockpit - when in the western world we don't use metric. If you want metric use the native Cyrillic, no need for additional waste of dev resources for people that want to fly metric but not prepared to think russian lol.

Never seen an approach chart in KM.....feet and miles.

Just caught up with Wag's video's and cannot unsee the helmet sight optics flickering either side of the HUD control unit, aka in direct eyeline, pretty annoying especially the RHS which has alot more white in the image flicker. Looks like there are 2 metal levers above them is this some slide down door to protect the glass and can be shut when not required (aka 80% of the flight). I'm asking as in VR this will be even more annoying - can there be a special option to have these static, its enough to make me not buy the module and sure it will annoy others also.

Guys, It is not 2017 anymore, we now have Cold War, Afganistan, Iraq, Kola, South Atlantic, Syria To pull together the nav data for each of these is a day's work and publically available for it to be entered into a data file. Can we explain why the NS430 is not being supported with "new" map data. It has to be said the current lack of navigation as a critical process in flight simulation, is very much out of focus within both the mission editor and F10 map. All the normal routes, low and hi, intersections points and beacons, sid/stars should be present for each map. This adds in additional importance when you consider the upcoming c130 release. Please can one of the team get this in order and updated. Even a base standard would be a start, i dont think anyone is asking for a monthly AIRAC cycle but a base requirement is going to be required. Also as a heads up the C130j has the potential to pull over a new crowd into DCS, but you never get a second chance to make a first impression and as such the nav modules and presentaton within DCS needs dramatically improving, and its not complex surely?

Bumping, Afgan, Cold war, Syria, Sinai Its a valid point at AIRAC also another user highlights, especially with heavies coming into the game re C130J. Even a base as at such a date would be a start. This should be mandatory for all maps, and all third parties making them. Good example is Sinai that was and is in a terrible state re nav beacons, or rather lack off on what is meant to be a flight sim. We need to get to a point where not only does the NS430 have the data, but for those that own the module all this is selectable on the F10 map, and a tick box at the top to push on and off. Its fair to say that the nav part of the game is often so overlooked.

Cold war and Kola? Question I thought i knew the mission editor really well, how are you getting these displayed @buur The maps displayed so far are you saying that all of these have the intersections built into the 430 (i know they did on the cauc map). I know elevation data is missing on some, think syria from memory etc. If they are there, my question to ED is why cannot they be displayed on the base map in the mission editor if you own the NS430 with a tick option to display them. I see this being even more important with the impending C130J module coming out also. Its always been a big critism, a flight simulator with such a poor nav database, and how often to maps come out and the nav file is shocking, Sinai case in point. @BIGNEWY

Bumping @BIGNEWY @NineLine 19 months on. The ability in the Mig 29 to talk to towers and freq's not pre programmed will be very much needed for unplanned landings etc.

Yea It was purely for when you have an hour's downtime thought it might interest you, some great shots. Our greatest generation bar none, its when you hear the combat losses at the end, some groups think I heard 9 of 18 returning etc for one mission, then to go and do it all again the day after. B17's that's 90 men, one sortie, one group.

Reflected - Saw this on youtube and thought you might enjoy it, probably already seen it but well knowing your interest in WW2 flying and authentic recreations I thought I would post on the off chance you haven't. Might not be of direct help to campain building but sent purely for your viewing.

That's great i guess you are one of the dev team, wishing you the best for the project. Any thought's on the other points i raised reference ECHS MFCD loadmaster panel, duel stage cargo drops, weather impacts, varied canopy requirements depending on load, JPADS. I mention JPADS as this could be used for so many mechanics within the game for MP object placement and third pary campaign dev's (as in once the cargo lands it then converts into an asset with additional lua framework etc) and give the module a greater escape window/accuracy. Are the CARP/HARP points relayed into the flight management systems such as the HUD etc?

Guys, Just seen the Pre release video, looks like the module is coming on well. Congrats. Don't forget the Caution / Jump lights (red/green respectively)! I mention as in the brief look at the video the one thing that struck me was they were off during the drop - they should cycle up from red to green (and obviously back to red when out of release parameters for DZ) to indicate launch acceptability range. Anything that is going out the aircraft, be it pallets or people then they are on green. Good luck with the rest of the dev, are you doing the full CARP implementation, loadmaster station and ECHS MFCD that can be interacted with for Onload/Offload/Combat offload,Airdrop, Jettison etc. Is this something that you can jump to in VR as a crew position etc, rather than some overlay? This also leads me onto another point, how are you modelling HARP and two stage equipment drops for cargo? Does this involve work with ED surely for the physics of how that works re similar to HALO principles. I mean the module has the possibility to be the most complex planning module in DCS if you are going into calculating drops in any detail. Have ED or yourselves done some modelling on the different principles of this, the different parachutes and systems and are the varied meterological conditions in game affecting these drops? Are you planning to do JPADS? I ask as from a Multiplayer perspective, and no doubt the third party campaign devs this could prove invaluable. For example in MP players could drop cargo that for example with say moose/mist could then spawn into an asset that are used in MP missions such as command towers etc. This would give the module alot of capability, also with a far greater precision for HARP operations with safety from ground threats. Edit * Also how is cargo loading going to be simulated? Is there any movement of this be it vehicles / winch /crew etc? Can we loads troops?

wondering the same @Calvin.Pimax as note you didnt reply to this comment from another use. Given the headset has only been out for just over a year (and i've hardly used mine - note it got delivered with one failed battery and the headset drops charge really quickly even with the hub etc plugged in) But I wondering now was the Crystal Original just a test headset to be honest at this stage and to raise revenue, given the very soon after release of the next two versions, its never mentioned in the updates and few weeks ago i tried to find the manual on the website and its not even there. Seems everything is geared around the light, which is what a third of the price nearly and the Super. Is there any loyalty for the people that bought in early (as in a year ago) with what is the outlook for this product (and support). Thanks.

Hi YoYo, Just for clarity as in you replying to the guy above saying about US crews, image 1 and 3 are defo RAF lads and helmets (image 3 is clearly lads from 30 Sqn from memory), not sure about the other could be the OTU, it's definately a training flight though as that is defo UK terrain below them. Your last image im skeptical on, don't think its real world the picture looks too professional (re focus lenght/clarity etc) and the terrain through the window doesn't look real world, looks sim as a heads up. Plus again most crew's wear gloves when airborne, not all before the other guy jumps in, but certainly depending on mission set. Certainly it would be normal for RAF crews to be wearing gloves when airborne its just part of the kit even during training flights. But image 2 yea thats US crews clearly, with helmets. You also have to remember with the US, its not just the air force, guard have a large component of crews for people looking at released images etc etc. All i wanted to do was to correct the record from the first comment, which was very inaccurate, especially for combat.

Crews from Cannon and Hurlburt are very familiar with wearing helmets, agree there is no need to go back and forth, just highlighting its not just a British thing, as i said depends very much on the mission set and AO. I think it will be down the list however on dev priorities given its a combat sim.....

Simply not true my friend that Herc pilots don't wear helmets. Depends, night time operations under NOD's or in hostile AO's and mission set they wear helmets, and the guys in the back. The very fact they are down low in small arms fire engagement and frag zones not to mention you need to have a helmet on to mount NOD's. Peacetime daytime flying is different and in peacetime yea sure units will fly just with bose headsets etc in the states. Note the trailer was done on the Afgan map, the herc is flown more than just US crews lol. RAF crews flew with helmets daytime and nightime during the Herrick years. To note British crews wear helmets whilst peacetime flying in the UK. It would be misleading to say the USAF crews didnt, because they did wear helmets, depends very much on their role, where they were operating from in Afgan/Iraq, the squadron and mission.

without using any other third party app or having to insert files into a saved games folder, please explain how waypoints set either in the mission editor or mission planner tool would then give leg distance, bearing of each waypoint and this be loaded into the kneeboard prior to takeoff, and easily available during play? If you read my post, you will note time and also VR considerations. Note personally i use open kneeboard and also have a drawing pad/stylus that can write into that directly - however most players will not. This is not about what i want, but what is better for the module and players in general with simple improvements. This is about getting basic information calculations into the kneeboard from the off, which is easy for a PC to do if you have known GPS positions. Having the bearing, and distance to the next waypoint as part of the kneeboard would be invaluable. It was then a logical progression to have a speed table to calculate times on the fly in a vertical column, or even two columns would make sense. Again i do that myself and have experience, but this is about making it more realistic and helpful to the majority. It wouldnt be too much of a push to have a base fuel calculation either for each waypoint.

Heatblur, hope this finds you all well ! Many thanks for taking my recomendations with the flight computer last year, I note on revisiting them recently it is far superior to use with the clickable values. I have another request, which "should" be relatively straight forward, or certainly for you guys. The large joy of this module is to be able to navigate correctly to target and is critical for its attack runs. I note in reality a good few hours preflight would be designated to route selection, map making and cutting, choosing the nav points from the terrain profiles and then working back from target for good offsets/nav fixes and final IP's to begin attack runs. So that from this a kneeboard can be made with the drawn legs with timings, heading, dangers etc etc. However at present, especially in VR it is very problematic for this information to be calculated and referenced. Given that the game engine stores in GPS format (a joy) there are formula's out there that will calculate a magnetic heading and distance from point A to point B. Given that we can plan a route in the mission editor, or indeed from the F10 map - can we in the back end populate this into the kneeboard. It would be a quantum shift in ease/reality especially for those of us that cannot say spend an hour planning the "mission" first and measuring marking legs with distance and bearing. So with the time players have they could concentrate on route selection, but then the "donkey work" would be completed and be able to referenced inflight. It also stops us having to reference the F10 (which in itself is a cheat mode) during "flight". This could really be represented on one page (an additional bonus would be for it to be split in addition onto the map pages within the kneeboard itself). It would be a huge help for either single crew flight, or for a nav alike that flies in VR. It would be most beneficial for just about every single phantom player that really wants to play with the module in the spirit of true gen 3 aviation. It would with this data then be very simple to have to additional boxes on right hand side, that you could select airspeeds, say 420, 480, 540 (ideally starting at 360 in clicklable 20 knot increments to say 600) that would then populate a time for that leg. This is bare bones, currently i tend to use 450, 480 (8 miles a minute) and finally 540 for attack runs (9 miles a min) as it gives easy timing on the fly. PS Note to map developers - when you build a map start putting in the aerial masts that are shown on pilot charts, every time a new map comes out i end up populating it with around 40+ of them lol as they make great VRP's.

Thanks Zabuzard for the reply, apologies for the time taken to respond I did have the basic knowledge from the dash 1 and have read the manual, i think i may have had an issue with a joystick asiz reversal (Aka was going 100 at the min setting, but then fading to zero again at the top point, or the max Night setting if that makes sense) but also on reflection didnt explain myself too well in what i was experience in the game with the lack of control of the lighting, i will revisit as ive been to bed since lol. I should have referenced the side dials as was trying to control the HSI and airspeed lighting separately and all i could get to work was the rear aft dial just to the right of the white flood switch. Thanks for the clarity however, i will check its as per your brief.

Excellent thank you for the quick response. Will wait for it on the patch notes, as a workaround ive created templates in 4k resolution then they are there int he rearm tab that i can then manipulate, but for newer players or others may not have this ability so great to see this sorted.

We need to get past this copy paste response Bignewy - I wouldn't post a message if i had Mod's running or if i'd not already done a repair to test first. Not everything needs a log or track file. The issue is not my PC, or mods, or anything else apart from game resolution (i normally fly in VR so dont have monitor setup at 1440 as pointless). If the weapons table is too long to display in 1080, then you cannot select the weapons on the bottom of the weapons table (aks GBU10, 24,MK84 Air etc) You can test this yourself on the F4 module with station 2 and 8. The issue is very much an ED issue, not Heatblur, as Heatblur themselves have indicated in the above response. DCS needs to have a scrollbar in the weaspons table, as pure and simple as that. Please submit to the dev team.

What about having it on a special weapons adapter then it would appear at the top of the list in station 2 and 8 ? Or having a template (that is selectable no matter what role the aircraft is configured to in the mission editor) that appears in the list so could select a loadout that says has 4 x GBU 10 and a centreline Fuel Tank? The player could then select and change the outer pylons if they wanted additional fuel tanks etc? Seems a win possibly? EDIT - OK so i did change my 2D to 1440 and can now see the list - can now select. That's so dumb though @ ED