TheGuardian

Question, do you run a full bit test every time you start the jet? Do you run through your warning light tests, bleed air tests? I've already stated my thoughts on cold vs hot, but man if you need to flip those 6-10 switches and wait for INS alignment to feel as though you are getting your moneys worth out of the module, by all means. I tend to see my return value in the TGP, A/G Radar, D/L systems, TWS Radar or RWS Radar. At the end of the day man, you do you, but the Doom and Gloom aspect your throwing is pretty weak and unwarranted.

Must have missed that poll. Anyways, I thought DCS was about having fun in a "relatively" realistic manner. Dumb dumb me I guess. Just wondering where the "realism" stops? F10 map? External Views? Random mechanical problems? Full blackout in excessive g situations? Still leaves the statement......be the change you seek. Just saying.

Doomed because people like hot starts more then cold starts????? Because people want to enjoy modules they purchased the way they want? DLC creators doom DCS by making Hot start campaigns??? But Raven 1 and the F-18 Aggressors campaign are both cold starts. YouTube the first mission, you can see it for yourself. ED is dooming DCS by making that Hornet Task for campaign hot start????? Yea, that dog just ain't gonna hunt bud. Maybe you should be the change you seek and start pumping out some campaigns for those of us dooming DCS.

I know your talking about campaigns, my bad thought I put that after everything. Again you're not wrong, just think a better push would be having this choice OUTSIDE of the ME.

Well I use the auto-pilot features mainly so I can set my plane up with things I couldn't/didn't do on the ground i.e setting up weapons, Radio Freqs, Tanker/Carrier TACAN, ICLS and various other things. So it's not quite as boring for me, might be for others but not me. Then again maybe those "sim seeker nuts" should also be barred from external views, F10 maps and might as well remove unlimited fuel, Immortality, and unlimited weapons. I joke, I joke. Let everyone play the way they prefer. Since there is no right or wrong on this topic and it is ultimately left to what we each enjoy, the best solution is add that feature outside of the ME and let the pilot chose before he sits in the pit. Random thought here, it's odd that instead of asking for an external ME selection for hot/cold starts, OP wants everything cold start and those that don't like it can use Auto-Start and fast forward. So dictating how others should be made to fly. Interesting approach. Deuces :pilotfly:

Considering I was taking into account MP missions and you were referencing DLC Campaigns for the Hornet, just scratch that part of my post.

Happens to the best of us.

I think you're missing the point of what I'm saying, but it's all good. I hope you get the change your asking for. Hope to see you in the sky sometime, after you get your plane started that is.:pilotfly:

True, but you also can't do anything else while you are accelerating the time IIRC, so then you have to wait until startup is finished. Look, there are excuses both ways of why it can/would or can't/won't. You are not wrong in what you are saying, but you are also only worried about yourself in the grand scale, as we all are really. Nothing wrong with that at all, we have all spent our own money and would prefer to play this thing our way. They should simply figure out a way to reach both sides equally. Removing the Hot/Cold start option from the ME and placing it in the mission itself when you sit in the pit would be a great way to make both sides happy I think. But then again, what does that do for mission/campaign creators trying to run accurate timed sections of missions?

I know the A-10C ones I have done were cold start, same with the Viggen ones. I have not purchased a new campaign in a bit though.

Me personally, there isn't a problem, I do it for some aircraft I'm not super familiar with. I would think it boils back to time. 8-15 minutes for a Auto-Start is the exact same as as cold start so it defeats the purpose of saving time (minus the people that can do it super fast, but you still have INS alignment that it the same length of time no matter what). Let me preface that statement with this though, I am only referring to cold start vs hot start, auto-start is still a cold start when it comes to time. Again, it's all personal preference, there is nothing wrong with what you guys are saying in the grand scheme of things. I think ED should try to add a selection before you sit in the plane to have it cold or hot.

So let me see if I got this right. You want ED and 3rd Party campaign makers to make EVERYTHING cold start by default. You clearly understand the process of changing a cold start to a hot start or vice versa. You want those that wanna have a plane ready, started at the ramp, and prepped for takeoff to then go into the mission editor and change the cold starts to hot starts. But you don't wanna have to do the same thing to change the hot starts to cold starts?? I missing something here? You say they should cater to the "simulation" crowd over the gamer crowd, but then say DCS is entertaining i.e. a game not a simulation. ?????????? I understand the want to have cold starts and hot starts depending on missions, timing, group size and all that, but it seems like you're saying one side is more important than the other, however, I would like to think we each make DCS what we want it. All that being said, I do mostly cold starts cause like jasonbinder said earlier it is better to setup on the ground.

There is nothing wrong with adding anything to the sim that creates a more realistic aviation world, but I don't think empathy would be the best approach get the point across. A better approach, I think would be the community coming together to create the mods and sound files to better fill out the world, not because a black man HAS to fly as a black character in a simulator to make it feel immersive. A great example that I can give from personal xp was one of the groups I used to fly with used custom ATC voicing in for our training servers. They used a female voice with an accent more in line with that region. Gave it a nice different feel, but it was work the mission makers put in to make it more realistic, not ED. When we did carrier work in the PG we used filler audio/general ATC comms to fill the void between radio calls, they had plenty of female voices and people of color. The option is there for those will to put in the work to make it. If ATC voicing and skin color/male-female body features are what is keeping people from learning and getting better in this sim, I'm not sure any of us are going to be of help fixing their issues. But it still boils back to effort on the individual. Logbooks can have custom images for the pilot, you can edit the pilots of most planes just like creating liveries (male-female not sure much I think, someone correct me if I'm wrong). Hell, I made one with Deadpool flying a Viggen, trust me it's do-able.

Which population? Which country? DCS isn't about just one nation, it represents most of the world in terms of military air power. I curious about where you expect to see these pilots, most of the planes (not all but most) in DCS have pilots with helmets w/ visors so you can't see the face anyway. If you turn the pilot body on, you're wearing a flight suit with gloves. It's supposed to be a first person point of view anyway. If you're just asking for the option, cool I get it, but I think their are bigger fish to fry in DCS before this issue. Learn to do skins, most of the pilots are able to be edited. You want a black pilot, go make one. You want female voices, add them to your missions. Personally I find the training mission in the A-10C and the P-51 be be an awesome switch, as I believe they use a person of color for that voice. The beauty of DCS is it can be anything you want it to be, if you're willing to put the effort in.

That is a pretty cool vid. Thanks for sharing that

At least HB tried to do something out the box. Everyone else has just said multi-crew will come when it comes, or suck it up buttercup. At least they made the effort. Jester isn't perfect, didn't say it was, pretty sure nobody says it is. And no, Jester can't use the TPOD at the moment, but I'm sure that will suck too when it's released.

Again, I get it. It's personal preference, nothing wrong with that. I don't have issues with Jester most of the time. Again, personal XP. Would have liked to see them try is all. I'll end up getting the thing just not a release. Agreed on the community aspect though.

Yea I get it, just wishing they would have went a different path. It would be nice to have a little bit of realism in a SP arena. I get everything can be done from the front but that isn't very realistic. Whole point of a two seater is to have someone in the back and front. Just feels like they don't want to put in the effort to do something AI wise.

It sucks they said no AI for the plane. No AI will make me skip this module for the time being. Maybe when they flush out the 764 other products they are currently working on they can revisit this.

So in other words, "Stop asking. We will let you know when we feel you need to know!". Sounds like a winner to me. Would rather they keep fixing bugs anyway. Been doing fairly well in that regard. No need at add new ones with unproven, untested add-ons at this point.

Cool. Learning curve is gonna be sharp with this one i feel.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Hind more of a maneuvering fighting platform, as in it isn't really design to fight while hovering? It could of course, but just not where it's strength lies. If that is the case, I wonder how difficult it will be to fight and fly at the same time. I guess it wouldn't really matter as long as you're multi-crew. I'm a little worried about how this will work in SP while trying to learn this beast.

@flameoutme, I too enjoy the Sabre, even though I don't fly her that much at the moment. Enjoyed your write up though. Oddly enough I use almost the exact same setup, except I'm a TrackIR user. She just feels good to fly, can get you both in and out of sticky situations if you don't handle her right. Totally agree with the comments on the MR campaign, Apache600 did a bang up job on that.

Hopefully I don't get 1.15 for this...... I should have been a little more clear with that statement. I didn't mean actual DLC, as that would be really unheard of given different releases. I was trying to say games move on to different iterations all the time, EA (Electronic Arts) and 2K Sports are prime examples of this. Each year you get a new upgraded title nothing really changes, nothing you previously purchased is transferable and usually after 3-4 years they game can't even be played online as they take the servers down. Now these are horrible examples to compare to DCS because they just don't work the same way, but it kinda relates what my line of thinking was. I'm going to bring up KSP (Kerbal) simply because they have kinda the same community mindset we do here. There are thousands of mods for KSP, but with each update certain ones become unusable until the creators updates them to work. DCS and KSP are pretty much just open sandboxes that we, as a community, fill 90% of the void. It sucks, I hear what you're saying about the stuff you paid for, I'm right there with you. Ultimately though, I believe it will fall on the creators to fix/update, not ED. Since ED has not said that "content" will disappear or become unusable with the release of Mk.II, that leaves me to think we must put pressure on the creators to update their products to work with DCS, not the other way around.

Man, I'm just showing an option, trying to be glass half full here. I purchased it back in October 2019, so i understand what you're saying. Sorry man, but this kinda stuff happens in modern games. I guess now we know how the Hawk users feel. But back to what I said, there is nothing ED has said that would make me believe they would not allow those creators to upgrade there campaigns to make them work with the Mk.II and still work with the original A-10C.