Hawkeye_UK

Currently i can only set the GBU codes for one code - thus each bomb on the aircraft has to have the same code? This is far from Ideal - we need the ability to have different bombs on different codes. For example you might be working with an ingame MP jtac for some stores, but then need to use a separate code for a different target or to avoid confliction for more important targets (eg, might be carrying 4 GBU12's for TOO, using Jtacs, and have a GBU24 for a shelter or comms bunker that you need to self lase)

Yep I must admit i was expecting to see the same F14 style stores page, along with GBU codes.

This is interesting as i had the same issue on the Syria map and came to the forums purely for this reason - never had an issue with ILS and its one of the things i normally test on any module early on. I also had a failed capture on Sinai (although there are so many freqs missing on this map its not a good test map). I will have to retest also (i know the weather was ok as the test mission that i use is always set up for ILS weather landings re wind). I had the right dial set to VOR/ILS and also the Left dial to Vor/Tac. FD on and triple checked the ILS freq (as had set it in the ME) but also tried moving it manually up and back. Also volume was turned up on the panel controlling the ILS/VOR channel (below throttle). One thing i would add, ILS landings really should be added as a checklist in the manual, its not currently. There is a section on this in the manual but being honest i thought it could have been better explained than it is currently, as a procedure. Note also i have the dash one, but the manual copy that included in the HB manual i found really hard to make out the image. To add i wouldnt normally go into the manual for setting up an ILS, as well they are pretty self explanatory normally in a western gen 3 jet, along with navigation, but having had 3 failed captures i did go back into it (i had read both this and the dash one a few times prior to release) and given i understand ILS approaches well, for a new player i think it could be explained alot better. I think that part of the manual for navigation the left and right dial for the ADI and HSI settings needs to be reworked.

I see the issue here is performance, surely we should be able to see the cockpit clearly without this on. For me same as OP, Pimax Crystal, gamma 1.5-1.6 (any brigher in DCS the sky is too bright and also other parts of the model generally). Its darker than any other cockpit i can think of. Stunning, but dark, agree with OP. Also the red lamps where these not moveable in the real aircraft to direct the angle of the light of the floods - i have no idea but often floods can be rotated and adjusted.

can we confirm what exactly this is trying to connect to and why - what does it drive in the game? Olympus means zero to me also?

Damn i just left some feedback in another thread about trim, missed this main post. I completely agree reminds me of when the mossie came out where a quick press and release would add way to much. In the other thread i would be interested to hear the SME feedback as i am suspicious that the real aircraft would move the control surface that much (looking at the F2 view during a momentary push). There is quite a few keybinds like this where a brief push goes way to far, reticle depression is another one, literally momentary push adds 10-20 units. Also instrument lights that control the gun/heat/radar and other features in the front cockpit, its really either on or off. Someone at Heablur needs to sit down and map and test all the keybinds really as quite a few are off.

One thing i would add about the trim, is that one quick press of the trim seems to move the stabs along way - i'd be surprised if this was as per the real aircraft. Would be interested in any SME feedback on this one. It reminds me a little of the mosquito trim where literally one quick press and release would add too much. 50% of what it currently is would be helpful to enable trimming out, but again be interested in the SME feedback. I mention this as is seems to be an issue with a few of the keybinds, reticle depression being one of them where a quick press of the keybind shifts it down 10-20 units!

What we also need is configuration settings confirmed for Patriot, Hawk, Roland etc. Note Shrike's real world where setup for Roland attacks.

Heatblur, Just looking at IFF return's and note all friendly aircraft are shown as a double horizontal bar from the radar skin. This is odd, it implies all friendlies are running the same mode and code. Slightly confused, the top bar should represent the code, the bottom bar the mode. So challenge of 4A would draw a blank if the other aircraft under the range gate target is running 4B. Or say challenge of Mode 3, if you had a mode 3 and code of say 2245, would only have a double bar from the radar skin if the other aircraft was operating on mode 3 and 2245. If the other aircraft was running mode 3 and any other other code, it would show as one horizontal bar beneath the gate (as in confirmation of coalition friend on mode). Is there any plans to implement this correctly within the module / DCS. Starting to implement IFF correctly would add a good dimension for those looking at more realistic operation of virtual airspace. PS - Amazing effort - purely mention this as know you guys are all about recreating the most realistic as possible module.

@Massun92 Congrats, about time i have no idea why ED didnt include these earlier! You asked for requests - i have only been asking ED for over 5 years now - a desert/sand coloured HAS. Given that every paid map, with the exclusion of WW2 maps Normandy/Channel and now the modern colour this last week every map is desert. Mission makers to not have a desert shelther (that is used alot in mission scrits for logistics etc and targets) are all green. So if you fancy putting some time into a desert shelther that would be great (oh and sneak it into the pack for ED to actually implement). ED if you read this - why has such a simple reskin of the green grass to a desert coloured one taken 5 years - utter nonsense to be honest.

This would imply ED have controlled or classified information about the chinook subsystem's. I find this highly doubtful and completely improbable. ED may or may not have SME's with this knowledge but again i wouldn't expect them to release any information for a video game given the consequences. Thus i'm not sure why we are even referencing classification of systems on this thread as a context of development, its very irrelevant given the people writing the code will not have the relevant clearances to be party to this information even.

Nineline, to be clear we still don't have MT for server's - so are we saying logistics is going to be single player only. Once again we get back to the core not being ready?

Own pretty much all the modules and know how to use them. Have been flying flight sim's when able for 30+ years. I also always pre-order content, that stops with recent events and this is final nail if it needed any reinforcement not to do so. To bring out a LOGISTICS chopper, and such an iconic one at that, and not have the mechanics inplace for this is pretty insulting and a bit of a disgrace it has to be said. Once again relying on very talented community coders to part solve your problems is not a solution re moose/mist. Someone once said DCS stands for Digital Cockpit Simulator and well event's like these are not exactly inspiring to change that gowing perception. The promise of later in Early Access i think for many now, when it relates to such a core function of a module has worn thin. For context to this you only have to mention mission planning and ready room for the Suppercarrier, what 4 years on now. Or Combined Arm's and the state that is in still years on with multiple units in one group, or single threaded servers still, or weapons splash damage and not just on the graphics and trees swaying for content creator video's! Sadly "high priority" means nothing these days when ED say's it, what about Mi24 cargo, that's been out a few years now and already teased years ago regarding its ability for troop carrier, surely this is the same mechanic? You only have to read this thread, or one's over on reddit to see that this concept of release has been poorly thought through. Quite simply bringing out logistics choppers without putting the core engine in, would be the same as Heatblur releasing the F4 without any missiles or bombs, it really is that simple and comparable. There is no other term for it but an absolute shambles. You may reply with EA is not for everyone, but when someone that has been buying your products for along time, only about the CEagle and mig 19 i dont own, and would generally pre-order, and i'm one of many that now won't pre-order, you know something somewhere you messed up.

One thing i would add to this discussion, whilst the map has many great features, and the additional high detail buildings will be good for chopper missions, they are lost at 500 knots and altitude. The thing that strikes me most about the map is the repeated tiles for factory units and hotels complex's, and even to the fields for that matter. Would like to see an increase in the variation of these and additional efforts made. often the same tile is next to each other repeatedly. Appreciate early EA, hence why asking if this is something you could factor in. Also as highlighted by another user - the red sea has loads of coral and is visible from the air, esp the Sinai coast and be great if the water textures around the coast could be heavily updated. Tabuk Airfield In Saudi would be really useful for MP missions also.

Should this really still be being sold ED given that people away from discord will not be aware of any freeze on its development and the ongoing discussions. I add given it now seems like Razbam have lost some lead F15 developers (they have gone public with their resignations) and as such surely there comes a morality issue of still selling a product when you have resonable suspicion you may not be able to deliver the item as specified? Probably worth a temporary hold on all further e-sales until you can hopefully resolve this issue and provide clear consumer direction.

I doubt it, given that a mod hasn't replied to it in 5 months even, alas......

This is not my experience - the Crystal is way ahead of any headset i have every looked through and is leaps beyond the Reverb G2 or Quest 2/3 compressed data. Something somewhere isn't right with your setup, or a defective headset. Simply put the Pimax Crystal is sharper, clearer, jaw dropping colour representation and a generational leap than any other headset i have seen with DCS (and been using DCS with VR since DK1 days and onto my 8th headset). The only gripe i have with it, ergonomics which had to really play around witht he headset face interface (on another post), its very poor to say the least, the worst out the box of any and currently using the back of a Quest 2 elite headstrap as a top skull distribition and secure fitting, its not ideal. Its very poor and also the weight distribution and lack of counter balance. But the clarity, and view, yea staggering how far consumer VR has come even in the last 4 years.

@jaapgrolleman My only gripe with the Cystal thus far is the very mixed messages with the instructions - manual's, leaflets shipped with product received yesterday (UK) and videos from Pimax all state connecting both USB's to the Hub. I have had a battery go in less than 3 hours?! Then we have this that say's don't connect the Black USB - seriously? So what gives? Which is the correct method and why the mixed messages to the consumer? I also note the message about the USB C direct into the headset, however note this will not work if any of the USB's are connected to the PC via the hub, thus making it unusable when playing DCS ( i noted no wattage being supplied when a reader was installed to measure the pull of current). Please can you confirm; A) What is the correct method and why the mixed messages (also there are alot of people asking the same question on the youtube video for the last 3 months but no one has replied - not good)! B) The best way to get the longest game session and how long this will last for (some MP games will go on for along time, i have known 10 hour sessions in a G2 and this is not possible at present) I dont understand what the thought process was to use batteries in the first place to be honest. As for the headset itself, poor ergonimics for sure and the most uncomfortable of any headset in terms of the face fitting (ilve used DK1, Rift, Rift S, HTC Vive, Quest 2, Reverb G2, Varjo). To note staight away ive had to pack the maxilla bone area at the bottom mask by 10mm of door/window draft foam to take some pressure of the frontal bone, without this you need to clamp the rear so hard to stop side to side movement and the pressure on the Occipatal region is really not pleasant or fit for purpose. It's a pity design wasn't put in to alleviate some of the presure onto the parietal bone accross - im just not sure how the headset passed the R&D in this context re skull shape (im pretty standard and never had issue with helmets etc). Is there any plans to bring out a much improved facial foam fitting, as i believe this is an issue that most people are going to complain or be unhappy about (and let's face it its a velco attachment so its not a huge developmental issue if pimax want to expand further into the sim market). I believe what you do with this could be quite important to establish your customer base as you have a unique opportunity with G2's about to be redundant and Varjo pulling out of the consumer market. Visuals stunning - next level for sure. Greatly appreciated if you could clarify a few points.

Having got this campaign tonight and also playing in VR, note i didnt crank the gamma up, this all rather sounds like a skill issue, for me i flew on instruments, nearly had a mid air on forming up through the cloads, all very authentic. Why should a content creator who prides himself on recreating accurate missions make it easy for those that are struggling? It's like the same one's who don't like to air to air refuel generally or critise speed and angels for being too hard etc and disagree with grading... My suggestion is practice alot more. Rarely comment on SP campaigns but yea @Reflected keep up the good work pal - i actually just buy your campaings now one in support but 2 knowing they are going to be excellent - not to mention the rediculous attention to detail and in the knowledge that when ED screw up the game and campaign with an update (or Urga re parking slots as i read the issues first) you will work your arse off to sort, noting the time of the thread im guessing you did nothing else over christmas but reslot P51 slots, the reality is most players have no concept what goes into the mission editior to make these. Hoping your bring out a P47 campaign next for the same time frame for Overload and Normandy in June 44. Thank you for what appears another best in class campaign, looking forward to carrying on with it tomorrow! PS for those that fly VR, if you can upgrade to the Crystal i came from a G2 (given they are being bricked) and all i can say is wow, its insane!

i'd be really interested to hear anyone running the Crystal on a 3090 (non TI) and what their performance is like with Quad views and DFR, running the "sweet spot" at native resolution, say with the main settings on cockpit high, terrain high, terrain distance high, clouds high, shadows low, tree's 100%. Have just pulled the trigger on the Crystal (wish i had known about the $100 deal however!) but after looking at all content creators they are running 4090's, now slightly concerned it could be like trying to run a G2 (what im upgrading from) on a 2080 when coming from a Rift. Currently running EVGA 3090 FTW ultra, 13th gen i7k, 64GB ram. Can i expect a big drop in frames from the G2 (as in do i need to upgrade to the 4090) such as the jump from a Rift S to G2? Would really appreciate anyone's thoughts on this/advice.

Ok so would really appreciate some advice on this one. Given the G2 is going to be bricked on the next windows update have decided time to upgrade and pulled the trigger on a Pimax ( i have used DCS and VR since Rift days so know my way around set ups and happy to put the time in). My question is with eye tracking and quad views FR do people that already have the headset think a 3090 FTW Ultra will run this headset in the sweetspot at Native resoltion? How will it compare to the G2 in terms of performance? DCS has changed alot in the last 12 months with performance, and the rest of the machine is an i7 13700k (i got lucky on the silicon, it runs happy upto 6ghz) and 64 GB Ram on Samsung 990 nvme. Would really be greatful if anyone has any thoughts, do i need to get the 4090 for my usual settings which would be on the main settings Cockpit high, terrain High, View High (not ultra), shadows low, tree's 100%, clouds high, then in the VR tab pd 1. I ask as see alot of content creators are natually running 4090's so wondering if i need to start thinking about ordering a new GPU (my preference would be that i don't given i only got my 3090 last summer and its hardly been used with being away alot). I want to avoid the situation of say having a G2 on a 2080ti and not being able to run it well at native like when i went from the Rift S as it makes it pointless having a higher res headset. As i said, all thoughts welcome on this one from those running a Pimax.

Shelters at Goose Green, i actually raised this some time ago here, didn't realise it had already been posted. Please can we remove them!! Can confirm, unless its a recent thing in the last decade or so there are no shelters at Goose Green strip i'm totally unsure why they have been added as they were not present on release.

Nearly 3 year's on, are we still in the "soon" timeframe for hope of hearing something? Just curious as was thinking about the barricade and other aspects as seeing if anything has changed with the module so stumbled on this thread and when reading was surprised to see the asset is already there in some format (not sure how silver dragon above managed to get that image up but it looks like its in the game)? What's the latest with this and the module as note from the updates on this part of the forum its gone very quiet.

The problem is alot of DCS players don't even understand the concept of BARCAP and area denial to allow other assets to go about their business. Its always target fixation and chase thinking they have to kill the aircraft for their mission to be a success. Here lies the problem, a strategic lack of understanding. Edit - it also makes me smile from the early days of when the Aim54 was OP to now people thowing the toys out the proverbial cot because they expect it to be better than an Aim120, and be killing 9g turn fighters from 40+ miles down low. There is a reason the F15 isn't equiped with Aim54 and its not politics.

@Raz_SpecterSorry i missed the poll - however for my tuppence. I see online quite a few people complain about how Barren the landscape is lol. I find it quite amusing, people that haven't even been to the Falklands commenting on what it should look like. I think the South Atlantic map offers something quite unique in DCS and also some of the most realistic looking terrain we have (i have along time ago been to the Falklands) and yes the area is pretty bleak, think the very north and desolate parts of Scotland and that is a good starter, its also bloody cold and windy, often with poor flying conditions. The mainland itself has vast areas that are pretty remote (i've been fortunate enough to also go climbing in Patagonia) and well i don't know what people expect to be honest. Again think for those that are EU think northern Norway gives you an idea for the area's around Ushuaia and going West. My only wishes are not for any changes to a fake synthetic map, but if anything increase what you have done, certainly a further mesh bump in topography resolution would always be welcome (although then others will complain on performance or map size, which is a real bug bear, why limit people when SSDs are so cheap these days - i'd have no issues a map being 150GB). I actually did a fly around yday in free fly mode and so many parts i've not even been to yet, the West side of the Andes, some great terrain to be found across the whole map. Think the map is excellent, however people always want something perfect yet run it on something with 8GB vram and a 8 year old CPU wanting everying on high, i think alot of the issues are unrealistic expectations and terrain setting to low (which does look radically different). If i had to request anything for consideration it would be increased seasonal weather with snow, however appreciate that might be impossible given working on sat images, which is fine if so. Also remove the light aircraft shelters at Goose Green strip, they are definately not there in the real world, unless its a recent thing? Other VRP's would be handy such as Camila Creek House etc although you can make out the location from the gorse bush on the sat image and well i place a barn there in the ME. Also the rock textures could be more jagged in places and defined (not the set of rounded rocks that is repeated) as the rock outcrops are pretty sharp across the islands. But yea with that im sure would come increase performance drops with shadows etc etc. Lastly i think the map would benefit from a good sustained marketing campaign and ED could do alot more with that for you with their youtube shorts, some of the mountain scenery makes for great shots - there is so much nonsense and negativity around the map that people don't actually know what it looks like. keep up the good work and thankyou for allowing me to virtually fly around a part of the world i love seeing, but can't just hop to, VR does a great job these days though, it's a long way since Janes F15!