Hawkeye_UK

Delete the Target Point then upload back in - Razbam what would be useful however is being able to set this as a keybind on Hotas not just on keyboard!

I would also suggest that in the CAS page they are imported with the last map marker first so they are ordered sequentially through time of creation....again for quick identification.

Firstly appreciating the update to allow JDAMS finally onto the harrier. I got quite excited on a single player training sortie however was then disappointed in multiplayer as we have quite a main issue at present which is holding back the potential. We need the ability that only the players Target points are brought through to the aircraft and not other players also. This is a real problem for online player and renders the harrier JDAM pretty much unusable (it easy to have more than 18 mark points down on a map). What we really need is two types being imported - your own Target points and a Tactical Commander which can assign map points with say TC01, TC02 etc instead of just T01. This will allow real time tasking and only the target points that are relevant to be brought in along with your own map points. Can you confirm what the plan going forward is, currently its not workable and i do hope its not going to be just down to a 9 line entry - we need to be able to replicate the Jtac 9 line line transfer to aircraft. PS - can we also ask ED about the GBU32 please .......again very much needed.

Nothing in this world is for free - if were seriously expecting free upgrades what 9 years after release for a whole fresh upgrade with new functions being a different variant / block its only fair that this is payware. Delusional to think otherwise. I'm looking forward to the new module and the ability to engage A2A at farps whilst slinging in multiplayer will be exciting. I was content to hear that existing members where getting the cockpit upgrade which is amazing, the A10c cockit just appearing pre christmas was amazing i thought (that said a little dark lol with the night texture in VR but thats a simple alteration). The point is they continue to deliver value for money. I would also ask what other game that you spent $80 on are you still playing with and getting so much fun?

Also general shots....

The buildings your looking at are in the domestic accommodation section of the base - see attached does this help, the buildings you have highlighted are in the top left of the picture. You could also contact the base directly (it has a phone number) or go via the MOD media enquires on 020 721 87907. I would get the RAF PR team involved i'm sure they would be happy to help as all your after is some direct photo's of these buildings textures nothing that is sensitive (especially if there was a small commission paid for the RAF Benevolent Fund). You never know getting them on board early they may even offer you a flight down and back on the skybus for research and its summer time down there!

PS - I should mention that whilst i have mine on an OC it runs really well without.

Just to add to this i run on a 9700K with an EVGA RTX2080 and this gives me solid performance in VR with a Rift S. I debated the i9 when i bought the new rig a year ago however just thought it was a waste of money given that DCS is my main interest. TO note it runs Cod, Battlefield all brilliantly in 4K also.

The JF17 in multiplayer and its associated rwr is definitely not functioning adequately - which they recognize in their release notes - its not so much a wider ED issues for online multiplayer issue its JF17 specific. I fly in a very competitive pvp server which is not designed for new players learning modules to be fair and their is a genuine difference between the hornet, F14, harrier etc which all seem to function correctly. I can confirm the JF17 gives little or no warning both in terms of A2A environment and A2G. There seems to be some hostility towards the OP post, which i don't understand purely raising a genuine issue and would suggest if your finding the rwr currently suitable then your playing in less demanding IAD theatres/ A2A environment. Deka have done a great job with the JF11 and its only been out a month that said this does definitely need's looking at urgently, for many its the top priority - my current preference is to take a harrier if ground striking over the JF17 as that way at least i get genuine rwr spikes and can react accordingly. Its a shame really as just this one issue is preventing its full application. But - great job Deka, look forward to your next module once you finish the JF17.

Harlikwin i think we are on about different servers - i was referencing DDCS - generally a pretty defined IADS around airfields (including SA10/Patriot) with additional player slung buks, tors, hawks, tungusta, strella, linebacker, SA2/3, rapier, roland, HVQ7, manpads etc Cant think of another server that has as many sams to be fair.

PS - Even the 250Kg bombs the KA50/Mi8 carries will drop a CC.

The problem @zippo with this if they do increase the weapon damage model to kill CC's then it will not then be available for your intended use in a well known Multiplayer server which is why i think you are raising the point. On a general note smaller munitions can kill CC's = Mav E/F/G/K, RB75, even Russian rockets S24/S25

Cannot recommend the Rift S enough - stable and trouble free - upgraded back in June and wasnt expecting much re the specs on paper! It was however night and day compared to the original CV1 and trust me first time you get in and load up you will be saying Holy S**t - being in the virtual world not just looking at it in 2D is a totally different game and experience!! Enjoy!

I have just spotted the picture title - FRS1 Doh! If i had read this and not just looked at the pretty pictures i would not have wasted peoples reading time with my posts lol !

You are indeed sir the bearer of bad news i was hoping for a late 80's model re the FA2 not the early 80's FRS1. I guess the hint is the falklands map, that said they are including Mt Pleasant airbase so strickly speaking we could have the FA2. I rather suspect, if this is indeed the case re no FA2, its because the Blue Vixen radar was the base for the typhoon radar development of which obviously data is not available and the systems cannot or should be modelled.

Yep understand the mechanics - my point is that the temperature variation between land and trees would not result in the high level of heat signature that we see, variation yes but not akin to say the thermal output from a house etc / vehcile which show as same heat. Also and appreciate that this would be a step to far but in terms of vehicles its generally where the engine and exhaust system generate higher heat returns - they do not appear uniform as is currently depicted which is fine - the tree's however are a different issue!

Seems really silly to have this functionality for only WOW, given that it replicates to some extent a JTAC element sending the 9 line through to the aircraft. Would be a huge drop in potential not to have the ability to F10 mark and import whilst airborne so if the dev's are reading this please can you comment on thoughts / roadmap.

Orso - in fairness the first mark point i dont name as T00 just leave it blank and the T01 , T02 still import fine. Zoom is critical as you say!

Its actually really simple to be fair once have gone through the process once - and also very very fast! One thing i have noticed though, unless its just me, is that i cannot import whilst inflight in multiplayer. This is not representational and needs to be looked at if its reliant or set to WOW. Also just to check - can we have the 9 line edit for input, in fairness coordinates only would be surely simple to implement and give us what we need.

It should also be planned for the Harrier, one on point of principle as it was listed as a point of sale but also as the GBU32 are carried by Harriers when required.

FLIR and Trees Simple question - why are the trees so hot in thermal. Its totally unrealistic to the level that they show up. What is the rationale for this and do you plan to tone these down dramatically?

@Decoy - Its not that we want them removing we need them modelling - can their be some discussion with ED on this one please?

Unless i've missed something then GBU32 are not available as yet? I do hope that ED get them modelled given that all other weapon classes in the GBU range are already complete and the systems for release are also complete - maybe they have overlooked them?? This is a real pain as these are also required on the AV8B.....

No why would you - go Titan....

Brilliant in VR love the new pit - it use to be a terrible position in VR its now spot on! Great work.