Hawkeye_UK

I'd love to see the justification for the JF17 not being in stable when the Viper went into Stable mid November 2019. There really was no argument for not doing so prior to 2.5.6 coming out. Agree with the OP. So keep a module that is stable and nearly finished in OB yet release a very early access Viper into Stable. Ignoring all the weapons system to be implemented we can't even add waypoints yet in the Viper so there is alot of potential stability issues still to work through! If only ED were as thorough as Deka in their product releases, or on fixing bugs and improvements on new modules in the same timeframe. Just have a look at the JF17 change logs, puts all ED modules to shame to be fair in terms of workflow. Surely it was a commercial decision and nothing else, aka two planes coming out at similar times. Doesn't affect me personally as i only fly OB but feel sorry for those that are awaiting the JF17 yet do not want to put up with the OB architecture. It needs to go to stable, as in release the exact same stable version just with the JF17.

A very constructive point to be fair - also made me laugh lol just the effort of taking the screenshots - brilliant. All the time the Supercarrier, just eats the dev's resources and we see little progress on Hornet / Viper. To be fair the Viper should have been ED's crowning moment to pull in may customers from BMS / Falcon 4, instead it was rushed out and launched way to early with not nearly enough EA progress made in the last what 8 months. When you look at it compared to the Deka module and how functional that is, wow. Say's something when third party dev's are knocking out modules of this quality, Heatblur also. The thing that has amazed me with the JF17 is Deka's willingness and ability to quickly resolved bugs etc, just look at the patch notes for Deka compared to ANY ED module in the last 7 months.

They are adjustable, i'd be more concerned with FLIR and especially concerning JTAC laser and assocaited smoke, cannot see anything anymore as the smoke acts as a heat source!! Night operation of FLIR with JTACS is now impossible, have been for 3 months, to be honest fed up of highlighted it to ED and patch after patch nothing done. Aircraft affected - F18 | F16 | Harrier | JF17 | A10C

Been this way for the last 3 months since 2.5.6 - Its a real issue have highlighted across numerous posts. You would think FLIR would be a priority even over A2G radar - ridiculous really especially with JTAC smoke & laser you cannot see any of the targets. So absolutely ruined use of JTACS at night, which in turn ruins alot of very good campaigns such as A10C Operation Piercing Fury and as for multiplayer, it has ruined night op's on our server. Worse is the ground and aircraft night lighting if a moon is present, ground vehicles glisten from 15 miles away, so obvious and get picked off by CAS, fed up of reporting it to be honest to ED and nothing being done.

PS - i should have stated though DCS in VR is a whole new game, its just amazing to be honest the immersion is fantastic. There is no going back to 2D ever.

No contest and that's someone that has a very nice monitor but also a 4k projector with a 120 inch screen. Nothing compares to VR. With the latest headsets their is no reason to wait really, you will be very happy with the Rift S, or Reverb. There is a catch however - You need the very latest hardware to have a good experience. The people that say otherwise generally are ones that are trying to run VR on lesser graphics cards / systems. You need lots of headroom especially with the OB. Dont look below a RTX 2080 spec, SSD, 32MB fast ram, fast CPU at or around 5ghz. If your not looking at this min spec go monitor.

Possibly the worst thread i've ever read and there has been some bad ones over time. If only all 3rd party developer's where at Deka's level - this plane i have to say is probably the best in terms of what they promised to deliver and what we got and its still EA. Worth every penny, buy it at full price and support Deka so that they have a future within the market place not try and score cheap buys, its this that is the real damage and negative impact on the sector. So for those that bought the original A10c - how many years of fun has that bought, for the price paid - some value for money is that. Same with this module it should bring many years of fun!

CBU105 useless? You are most definitely doing something wrong on the release profile. They are highly effective. Ok regarding the Mk20's again i find them effective on the harrier, if targeting a moving tank in CCIP i tend to set to ripple of 2 with a 20 feet spacing - kills most times. They do not seem to be as effective on the Hornet for some reason, although will still kill.

Cant see anyone has mentioned this but budget allowing - DCS in VR is amazing if your buying a high end rig. Rift S cannot go far wrong - will be amazed at how you become part of the environment - far cry from Falcon 4. Advice, if your ex Falcon 4/BMS hold fire on buying the Viper you will in its current state be disappointed as its very early access. Go for the F18 and A10c, both are excellent and will get you back into sims. Also look at the JF17, a very complete and well done module. Lastly goes without saying study the manuals and also the chucks guide will give you a brief synopsis (just google them). Lastly good luck!

PS also yes depending on launch parameters and motor burn out rate it is quite possible that bombs could have a higher impact velocity in real life. Your missing the point ARM's are not launched to kill the IADS they are there to close them down, hence the name suppression which then allow the target to be hit, whatever it is that the IADS is protecting. So for example even a dumb Mk 84 released from only 3000 feet level release will hit at circa 550mph into the target if dropped at 410 knots on the run in, impact angle circa 33 degrees.

Modding will not work for MP - Would not play on a server that did not force pure client or have no IC. To many people willing to cheat and cut corners sadly.

Just no skill in using LD10's - i'd far rather drain them and use mk20's/cannon as that is where the fun is. Makes me laugh everyone that say's leave them as they are, obviously makes it easier for them to win. IMO makes player reliant on weapons systems and doesn't encourage or reward player skill by way of good virtual flying. Its the same crowd that enjoy dropping command centre targets from 100 miles away with AKG's or 25 miles away with GBU's. As for balance its a game so yes it is important like any strategy game ( which it is in terms of the overall campaign - quite a few of the people on here play a server that makes great use of combined arms and tac command so we have a full modelled ground war with PvP ground units). In this case balance is everything, unlike players competing pve in all honesty it is difficult to appreciate or comment on this unless you play pvp MP combined air and ground war. Feel free to come and try it, its the DDCS server which really is like no other public server in terms of the dynamic air / ground war. As for simulation , hmm so many things are nothing like the real world especially how players play the game. How many times i see people electing to use negative g, especially NOE ridge hopping to get the nose back down always makes me smile then harp on about how they want accurate simulation. Anyway that aside if you do want it to be a simulation then ARM's are intercepted in the real world by various blue for systems currently in game, unfortunately this is not modelled for the LD10.

lol XPC who mainly flies redfor / JF17 - magnum x4 and kills all sam's on blue bases... This is about a wider discussion than our specific server, and balancing. To discuss an AA missile in relation to SEAD is pointless, need to be discussing against Harm - get with it XPC lol.

LD10's have certainly created a balance issue within the MP pvp environment. Hawk and Blue sam batteries are easily destroyed and there is no real ability to intercept these missiles. Normally i would place SA15 units around strategic points however they do not intercept the LD10's. In a test i did with 10 tor units 2 launched but they see the missile far to late to intercept and i've yet to see one actually destroyed. I would also love ED to actually work on the IADS defence logic for SEAD so that AI radars are much smarter controlled, even closing off their radar if no ammunition etc would be a start and if a missile launch is detected again switching off (but with the option to enable / disable in tac command). An increase in RCS or at least be comparative to the Harm should be reviewed.

I first reported this about 3/4 weeks ago and for me in VR it has helped the smoothness in MP. I also go from (if on large MP sessions with alot of CA) 200mb track files to 1mb, thus reducing the requirement to constantly delete. I would only take this out of my autoexec file if wanted to record for testing failures,

Ok thanks for the acknowledgement. There was however multiple points / issues listed so are you saying you want a screenshot of eash incident (including dust at intersections etc ). However surely you are aware of units inside each other, getting stuck on bridges even without telegraph posts - its got to be something with the bridge ramp as they get stuck on nearly every bridge, granted the screenshot was not the ramp but a telegraph post as that is also an issue. I can fill this thread up but there is literally hundreds of bridges where units get stuck? However happy to help but is this really what you want re hundreds of pictures of screenshots with coordinates on? Surely the team are aware or do you not place units on the ground and get them to move when either playing for recreation or testing professionally?

Confirmed and tested on multiplayer server. Hitting manual re arm whilst in Combined Arms Tac Command / JTAC causes entire server to crash not just client.

Thats the whole point this map shouldn't be out of EA its looks pretty but from a usability on ground war its non operational. Its Alpha at best.

Not really a ridiculous title it's a warning that the map is broke from a combined arm's perspective, a.k. a , a moving ground war. It may be your favourite Map but you clearly dont play competative multiplayer missions that use a moving ground war or use tac commander and just fly against static pve fixtures otherwise you would understand the problem. It's also my favourite map, but only from the air. There's a reason no third party has done a campaign on this map for sale, because the missions if had to move units wouldn't work!! The map is broke and currently non feasible to suggest otherwise well that is ridiculous.

No ED need to make the maps they currently have (esp Persian Gulf) work for ground AI and the modules that they already have out finished. But prior to all that they need to address the numerous memory leaks crashes and instability that is 2.5.6. It amazed me people are asking for new maps or modules given the current state of the game, even people chasing new cloud effects lol it makes me laugh given the priority should be on synchronisation of environment first, i.e p ayer a and b see the same environment (clouds are drawn client side) Time for a reality check - best thing ED could do is release nothing new ( including the supercarrier and yes i've pre-ordered it ) in order to expedite what they have already released to a working and stable state.

Just to let people know who haven't already purchased. Do not buy the Persian Gulf Map if you plan to have any moving ground units on the map as its currently unplayable and ED seem unwilling to acknowledge the issue. See, https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4299971#post4299971

And two weeks now @ED @bignewy @nineline ??? So guys the PG map is unplayable from a ground warfare / combined arm's perspective. Units constantly getting stuck and not following waypoint's at all near small towns, unit's decide to drive off into small building's and get totally jammed. This map is NOT finished in anyway stretch of the imagination. To be fair it should be sold with a caveat that it does not work with combined arms or compatible for ground operations, otherwise you are selling by misleading your consumers. A response is required.

Razbam, a simple post and two questions. There are many posts on night lighting and the Harrier cockpit, first reported by myself 3 days after 2.5.6 came out which renders the cockpit and flir unusable at night. In fairness the changes required are a tweak and intern level. 8 weeks and 6 patches later and no attempt has been made or guidance issued. It's beyond embarrassing surely for you? So when is this going to be reviewed? Razbam are now the only developer that are leaving a module that is unusable at night, ironic when its branded as a night attack fighter. Also second question, TDC slew axis binding. First reported over 2 year's ago and many times since. When is this going to be fixed? What is going on? Do you not perceive that there is a loss of trust occuring to fix simple issues in a more promptly manner, do you seriously expect you will be able to sell more module's given the poor communication that occurs? Take a leaf from Deka's book, they resolved the same issue on the JF17 on the first patch after 2.5.6 to sort out HUD night lighting issues. Please sort.

@bignewy @nineline Very good news if the carrier is delayed - it will give more time to resolve issues in 2.5.6 stability first. The mature and competitive multiplayer customers who value a working MP architecture and engine will not be whinging about a delay in getting the new carrier, which lets face it in terms of mission design just gives us more eye candy and immersion on initial release (re airboss training station etc not operational yet). Experienced players would take a delay anytime to focus on 2.5.6 memory leaks, desync issues, VR improvements and engine instability over someone making hand signals at us on the cat. I'm sure there is also a core of those players who would rather have an increased A2G capabiltiy on the Viper prior to carrier etc but anyway knowing that releasing potentially even more unstable code into the current system will just create more chaos. The people that are complaining are people asking for nicer clouds when the ones we currently have are not matched client side on MP etc as a simple example, or just a general lack of maturity / kids. Who is to know that in final testing in the last 24 hours they haven't discovered a significant flaw. Before anyone trolls just think about it - would you rather have a more stable game, or them release something that was going to cause more crashes / performance issues. Lastly if you buy into this or any other EA module like i have then fine but understand that its to buy at a discount / support the EA / Beta process.