FalcoGer

Then what does the missile tone audio knob do?

when pressing the handsoff mode button next to the rwr, the light should stay on, indicating h/o mode is active. it does not. the separation button lights up when you press it, but it doesn't actually separate anything. and it too should stay on after pressing the button

Put radio squelch on. it's under the volume knobs. firstly this shouldn't happen with the radio off. and secondly those knobs should be in SQ position to begin with.

Given the peculiar way the viper handles steerpoints, SPI and steerpoint offsets, the cursor zero option for HSD, TGP and A2G FCR pages is quite vital. However no such function is available.

when adding a new waypoint via the DED page, that waypoint doesn't show on the HSD page on the MFD. When selecting that waypoint as the current steerpoint, then no steering information is given on either the hud or the hsi.

DMS right should only disable the HMD when pressed long. And in that case it should not affect the right mfd pages. currently dms right toggles hmd and switches through the right mfd regardless of long or short press.

When locking something up in nav mode and then switching to aa mode, the lock is broken.

EEGS levels are missing. Currently we only get the gun funnel for level 1 eegs. However there should be an impact point projection on the funnel as well as a plane of motion indicator among other things after getting a lock. See page 186 and 404 in this here unclassified/fouo document: http://falcon.blu3wolf.com/Docs/HAF-F16-34.pdf While we are there, LCOS (lead computed optical sight) is missing.

After you lock something up in dogfight mode, the cross on the hud/the circle on the hmd does not disappear.

I tried both the cold and dark quick start and one of the airstart quick missions in which you attack bandits. Going to List - 7 (CMDS) - SEQ and trying to set up any numbers there for sequence or burst amounts will then reset them back to zero when you move the cursor off the item after pressing enter.

I put PLF (Pilot fault list) on the HUD with the hud control panel. Then when selecting IFF on the ICP, the DED is mirrored to the hud for that page only.

Thank you. It seems that I was mistaken about a few things. I guess it's wishful thinking. Apologies. Anyway, I want it sooner than later <3

The F-16 should allow you to use radar boresight mode and allow aiming with the HMD, while only showing the cross moving on the HUD. but in wags video it did not do so. Also there should be an option in the DED subpage for the HMD to turn off and on blanking when looking at the hud and/or pit. so hopefully that allows locking things up with the hmd in the viper

A while back matt has produced a post where he showed off a menu for the hornet in which you could configure default settings for the aircraft such as volume knob positions and the like as well as counter measure programs and the like. It was a video of a rather bland looking black interface with a treelike menu and some drop down lists, I think. In the same post he announced that "it is almost finished and working and only requires a nice UI and the feature might make it into the game with the next open beta update". I was looking forward to that, and now a few months and several updates later there is still nothing of the sort. I tried to look for it again to confirm what I imagined I have read (see above) but I can't find it anymore. I looked over matt's youtube channel (I think it was a video) and can't find the video. I looked over the hornet mini updates in which i think it was posted, but again, I couldn't find it. Am I crazy and have imagined such a thing? Or am I blind and it is there but can't find it? Or did they silently drop the feature and deleted any evidence of it?

Su-34 is a nice and big plane. Not as huge as a tu-160 or a B1, but I'd still very much enjoy it, I think. And it does pack a massive punch.

All over the world english is used in communication between aircraft, at least in civilian areas. sometimes in small airport or on airstrips you might hear people using their native language, but that is bad practice. In russia they practically do their own thing and they talk in russian. in fact russia is the only country that reserves exclusive rights to their airspace and only allows a select few companies to fly into their airports while other countries only charge service fees for overflight and/or landings. I'm not sure how it works in the military, but from what I could see in a german jtac training, they talked in english between the german ground troops and the german pilots in their tornadoes. I imagine it would make sense to talk english only, even intraflight, especially since most nato brevity codes are english anyway and that at least a good few airforce pilots would come from a background with civilian flight, but that's just an educated guess. On the ground of course you have a lot more time to articulate anything you might want to say, and you are not working with a limited bandwidth radio most of the time, so of course infantry will talk in their native language.

I don't understand how the viper integration is causing week after week of postponed updates and bugfixes. Don't they use branches in their version control software to work on integration and bug fixes separately? When the viper is ready, merge it in. While this may cause some merge conflicts, I don't see how the whole update cycle is being halted by a new module. Especially considering the severity of some of the bugs present in the current version.

Right now the blue chat color is really hard to read. There should be an option to adjust the color of the letters for different messages (system, blue, red, all, etc) and they should all have a reasonably thick outline to make them out in all backgrounds. While at it, make the chat box movable, allow different fonts and sizes, etc.

What the title says. A modern Su34 strike fighter/bomber as a module.

+1 Or simply display more than one format at a time.

If they expanded into the ground/sea side of things, things could be more dedicated to ground wars with limited air. of course air power will always dominate, but with fighter and sam cover a ground war is still very much a thing. aside from that there are significant turnaround times for aircraft that are simply not modeled in dcs (and I hope they will not be modeled, as that would be ridiculously boring) It is not like you can have a jet every square mile to pounce on any tanks that roll your way.

Right now ground units feel very arcady. All the tanks have basically the same interface, there is no interior/cockpit like view. the driving and shooting is done by the same player, commander and loader is completely abscent. The sam systems are a joke, it's basically point and click. Ships are basically not controllable at all, sometimes they fire, sometimes they do not. There is no direct control and everything is done through the map screen. The damage model on ground units is practically non existent. They're either dead or fully operational. A few things do exist, for example tacan stops working if you scratch the deck paint on the stennis. I know that CA is not very well received, and I think it'd help if you fleshed it out some more. I know damage model is in the works, detrack, loosing fluids, crew injuries/death, etc certainly would make it a lot more fun. Adding interiors to tanks with controls to click, optics to look through, lasers to fire and so forth would go a long way in making an interesting tank simulator along with the air element of DCS. The ground is made of large sections of flatness that then transition into sharp edges over hills, etc. This makes it hard to find cover as you are fully exposed, but can't depress the gun enough to shoot downhill as you come over it. Roads float in the air over the terrain, and in general it looks rather ugly down there on the ground. I don't know if there is anything that can be done about that, given the already huge map sizes, but perhaps a bit more detail in the terrain would help a lot here, too. I'd love some multi crew naval action, being at the helm, radar, sonar or fire control of a surface vessel or submarine, even with a simplified interface would make it interesting, maybe able to switch and share stations with others. Underwater sound propagation is fairly well researched and can be simulated, but of course that requires some serious addition to the engine to add to what is mainly an air combat simulator. Pressure, temperature, salinity, sea state, currents, sea bed materials and shape, etc all affect how sound is propagated through water. But things can start simple and get more complex as we go. Even something as simple as this should suffice for a start. It is better than nothing, since we basically have no player involvement in naval warfare at all as things are now. Also please forgive me that this is in reference to a game, but the explanation is still relevant to the real world. (as said game is a simulation.) And given that said game can run on a toaster, the concept should be able to be integrated into dcs world without too much of a performance loss. Those things can go into modules, as combined arms would probably not make up for the cost of developing such things. Make proper modules for specific tanks, air defense plattforms, ships, submarines with the appropriate stations and weapons please. Digital combat simulator right now is mostly "digital air combat simulator with some arcade like shooting from tanks that no one uses."

I'd really like to see an E8 in the game alongside the E2/E3 AWACS, flown by AI and providing information of ground target locations for tasking. Obviously they'd need to know what the tasking is to provide such information and not just give any old truck because it's nearby while your job is to locate and destroy a convoy. Until such logic is there, they could provide enemy positions on the F-10 map, maybe even just as generic vehicles without information as to what they are. Or for platforms which support it provide data-link targeting information. For those who do not know, an E-8 is basically an AWACS for ground units. It has a huge air to ground radar antenna strapped underneath the fuselage and can pick up and track ground vehicles over large distances.

Yes, hang yourself up on the two words in that post that could be considered toxic. Need I point out all the great and numerous things that DCS does right, praising it to high heaven to mention that there are flaws? It's a great flight sim. It's the only flight sim that allows such detailed operation of a multitude of aircraft with different people at the same time. We all know that, we're all passionate about DCS and flight sims. Don't you get it? I complain and point out the flaws and issues so that they can be fixed. I give them my opinion on the state that I see for myself, an outside perspective because there is nothing else that I can do. Call me toxic, whining and what have you, but your criticism of me being all negative is certainly less productive than I have been pointing out objective and some subjective flaws. Praise for what has been achieved is great, and due, but what all of us want is the greatest experience. And we can't get that if we don't say what we think is wrong. And sorry, but telling someone what's wrong is naturally a negative thing that's mostly not received well. And I commend NineLine for his patience and taking such much of his time to engage with us. What do you expect? An essay about how sorry I am to complain about this otherwise great sim, how amazing it is, how unique the sim is and how lovely all the developers are before I point out that it has gone down the drain over the last few weeks with annoying, sometimes game breaking bugs, and that I want things to change and turn around for the better? Instead of doing constructive criticism on me and others, you simply label us toxic and negative and accuse us of being destructive with our endless whining and complaining. Go on then, how are we to voice our concerns? And yes, considering I spent a good €300 on this software, I do feel entitled to a bug free experience. Call me crazy. If you bought a tire for $50, you wouldn't be happy either if the profile was missing or air was leaking to use your analogy. And I'm owed the software, not the universe. Aside from that it's literally tens of thousands of dollars, not just my money. Everyone invested in the game. I don't demand patches for myself and everyone else can screw it, you know. In fact I don't demand anything. I stated my observations and opinions and hope things will change. I'm glad to hear that you are happy with what you got and hope that you have many hours of fun. Also - Off topic here but: tires for less than $50 on amazon

I think everyone here has been fairly civil, at least until this post (and I haven't read any further). I stated some concerns and how I feel about the game, tried to be constructive and certainly didn't say: "[insult here], I'm going to play X because it's oh so much better, dcs is [insult here]." I'm vocal because I want things to improve. And yes, I wanted to vent a little, because I'm frustrated and disappointed as one might get, being human and all that. The simulation genre is a niche market and the choices are limited. As such it's only natural that the game I spent $300 on, not including hardware, (and some people much more), is going to be scrutinized for the actions they take, or don't take for that matter. Every time I log into multiplayer servers: - people blow up on the carrier deck because of rubber banding into each other, at one point to the point of sinking the whole ship - pressing F6 to get cool shots for video streams shows some missile that's flying underground in the flatness of the end of the world - manpads and other infantry don't fire at me at all, even when hovering in their faces with a helicopter, or maybe they're terrified and want to give up but don't have the animation to raise their hands in capitulation? - every time I land the game freezes up for at least 1-2 seconds, particularly on carriers despite having quite good hardware (while singleplayer works just fine) - rockets do near nil damage to trucks when not directly hitting them. sure they don't explode in a nuclear blast in the real world, but the shrapnel would kill the crew, puncture the engine, the fuel tanks, blow the tires. it's a complete mission kill, yet nothing of the sort is seen. And while the damage model is not implemented at that point, then the trucks might as well blow them up in a nuclear blast as they do now when hit with an atgm. it's still more realistic than decreasing some health bar by 5% and having them unaffected otherwise - rockets do near nil damage to infantry when hitting near them, where they should be torn apart from 0-2m, and being punctured with fragments way farther out. now, I don't expect to see mobility kills with broken legs on infantry, but surely even nineline can see that damage model is not an issue here. if your liver is torn apart by a fragment you're not fighting. whether you die or not is of no concern to the simulation, the infantry might as well be dead at this point, and certainly not running on and shooting a weapon. To quote wikipedia here: Which certainly does seem a bit more than the (feels like) 3ft lethal radius we get in game. - I get locked up in an f18 in the hangar by an ai mig 29 from 140nmi away those are all issues that have been there for several updates now, if not for months or years. and those are the issues only I encounter daily. (as in others may encounter different sets of issues doing different things in different situations) And those are not even feature issues such as WoW programming of countermeasure programs in the f18 not being possible despite the issue being acknowledged months ago. Maybe people should just stop 'whining' about those trivial things and accept dcs for the flawless masterpiece that it is? Get real. They're game breaking, immersion breaking and fun killing and certainly not modeled after the real world. And when they are acknowledged the generic answer is: "we do things, we're working on it. Look at the changelogs." Yes there are bugfixes in the changelogs, and that's good. But more often than not it's the bugs they introduced in the last update instead of long standing issues. But as it is, more issues are introduced than are fixed with each update, and several issues that are years old and have been brought up multiple times have not. I understand 9line, they are doing things. But at the same time, I hope he understands me and many others in that it's simply frustrating at times that such a great game is lacking in performance and having such bugs or are claiming to be realistic while weapon effects are clearly underwhelming where the real counterparts are better. Even if they're estimated on guesses without those 'cold hard facts', I'd say those guesses are farther off the mark than one can reasonably assume they are. But of course that's just an opinion. All that said, I appreciate the answers and hope DCS will become better, more realistic, more performant and less buggy, even if that means introducing new aircraft and features at a slower pace. I don't mean to needlessly whine and complain, but it just feels like nothing is moving forward even while new things are introduced. How else am I supposed to say this? And that is what I wanted to say from the very beginning: Less new things, less new bugs, more bug fixing.