Scrape

The online copies of the NATOPS manual have the relevant RIO pages removed. We will have to rely on Heatblur to describe how to use the AWG-9 to the fidelity it is modeled to. I do wonder if it will be like how the Ka-50 turned out where the manual didn't cover everything that could be done with the helicopter. Would be cool if the F-14 RIO position was the same. It would allow those who spend a little more time understanding HOW the system works to outpace the Jester AI. While I know many are looking forward to Jester and how it works, I have no use for him. I am not buying the Tomcat to fly it solo. Can't really love the bird if you dream of flying it on your own imo.

The B model engines are easier to code because its a robust engine. The A model engine had many performance quirks that will require more attention to recreate faithfully. They were prone to flame-outs and compressor stalls when outside of their envelope and the temperamental nature of the original engines is probably more challenging to code accurately.

+1

@Cobra847. That post showed a lot of respect to your customers, and it was a relief to read a post that didn't address the audience as six year old's. It wasn't a perfect development year and you owned that, and you trusted us to be right there with you in understanding and continued anticipation for future carrier traps and conversations with a mate in the other seat. That's not a post everyone would have written, but I'm happy you wrote it. I look forward to seeing the finished product. I'm still, like many others, am going to buy the F-14 day one. ...and that's Picard with a capital P. ;)

I don't know about the sidearm specifically. The function of cage and uncage is the difference between a locked seeker head looking forward (caged) and one that is allowed to look around (uncaged).

The LSO position has been around a long time on the Russian carrier. Looks like its getting more attention. With so many carrier capable aircraft it makes sense to upgrade the carrier environment.

A lot of aircraft need the updated radar tech to be viable sims. I think once 2.5 and the new radar tech is all worked out we will see more aircraft. If you notice they have been cleverly avoiding aircraft with advanced radar for a long time now. You can see that expectation with the development pipeline of aircraft we have now.

The hydro system that controls the nose wheel doesn't auto-center the way you might be expecting. IRL the pilots depress and release the button with the pedals centered. If you taxi and takeoff/land properly then this does not cause any issues or troubles.

Documentation isn't the challenge its permission. Documentation is one thing, but there are legal end and outs to tie up before DCS can do its full fidelity recreation. That's the hold up on the Red side. I hope that they can find a solution to that sooner rather than later. A modern red fighter would sell like hotcakes and breathe fire into the MP servers. Blue team is going to be stacked by 2019. In multiplayer it always comes down to Red vs Blue.

A compelling observation.

If it's complete I will be satisfied with the A and B.

I believe so as well. Things are falling into place more quickly perhaps than ever before. Not perfect, but this is the best sim on the market hands down.

I agree. It's like buying a car. It's performance is never as important as how it makes you feel when you get in it. Games of the 90s focused that feeling more than current ones.

Oh there is room for improvement in the game overall. From my perspective I think that DCS is a poor representation to the newcomer when it comes to MP, and even to the experienced pilot. I like the idea of a mission planner slot, but that should be integrated into the commander/AWACS position. A server option could be included to allow for either commander slot, flight lead, or player control directly to set their own waypoints, or none at all. The waypoints might already be what they need to be from the mission designer and that's okay too, but it would be nice to see where the waypoints are taking you on the map. Everything should be clear to the player. Information should be easy to find and easy to understand. The mission brief screen is more placeholder than professional presentation that should have a player excited to fly and take part in their role in war. Having an in house VOIP inside DCS is the first step, and the most crucial one. Leaving it up to third party software just adds to the layers of confusion. I feel they think that because there is SRS that ED doesn't have to implement these features, but that is short sighted thinking. These small tangible and intangible oversights are why games like this are so niche. They don't welcome new players, and just being a part of the game can breed frustration that only a love for military aviation can overcome. DCS is most alive when there is a larger player base, and that can be bolstered, but not through modules. That's not what will bring people in. What brings more people in is the experience when they get here. That's what they will run and tell their friends about. The coordination between the AWACS and the JTAC, and Echo Flight who buddy lased, and the fighters that scrambled to protect them. How everyone was a player, even the bad guys. How they changed their tactics and forced a change to counter. Lost territory, shifting front lines, destroyed objectives, awesome victories and spectacular defeats. There is no game that can match DCS in that level of war coordination and complexity. The air war can be a unique experience and a selling point. Shortly we will have a decent compliment of aircraft in DCS (I know the REDs are waiting for their next DCS model) but no way to play with them properly without a private guy somewhere writing his own code. ED is missing out on marketing one of their greatest assets coded into their game. A war simulator, not just a flying sim.

I think this is a fantastic idea. The 90s did it right this regard more often than not. Overlay and nice background mean little when the tiny hard to read can't make anything out of the target area window is all we get during the briefing while we have all this unused screen space, who cares about the background? My buddy and I were discussing this very thing the other day. I feel this would really enhance the feel of DCS. It lends a nod to the more disciplined pilot, but would make the expectations of the new comer more clear. If in the mission planning menu it was possible to view or alter the waypoints and mission loadout before the aircraft loads (server permission controlled) would be great. This would help mission designers and pilots alike. Objectives, and threats could be clearly defined and understood. How many times have we joined a mission looking for team fun and been a little lost to what we were supposed to be doing? We have an F10 map sure, but that's a crutch, not a driver of the immersion. This would also make it easier to pre-program flight waypoints and routes. Oh how the ideas are flowing. If I had it my way the next big focus for DCS would be the infrastructure of the interface. IMO the DCS's only weakness currently.

I am aware, I've used it many times in the Gazelle, but without having the specific ip or autojoin feature activated the other person won't be ready to just hop in and communicate. It is reasonable to say the program can integrate the SRS functionality into the framework of the game itself. My point isn't that we can't do it. My point is that it should be an intuitive feature for the end user. People like us.

As I'm sure you know. The Huey was made before multicrew, and last I heard the Huey would need to be remade from the ground up to allow for multiple players and switch logic. They would have to start to from scratch. The real question is when they began the rework.

I think I saw this is the roadmap, gotta check again, but at least I think someone thought of it.

High fidelity carriers for everybody!

+1

Module production is increasing and 2018 is looking to shape up to DCS's most exciting year. We are already ending 2017 with a positive note, and everyone can't wait to see what comes out next. With that said we will have a lot of modern aircraft and even more coming to the battlespace in the next couple of years. Yet we have a rudimentary way of managing a persistent MP campaign. I'd like to suggest an addition to or modification of the F-10 map. We see tactical commander slots or something similar, but it's not fleshed out to assist a commander with providing up to date information to players as it could be. Even as a 10 dollar add on Battle Commander module would be acceptable to have a greater inter-connectivity to friendly assets. Bandit tracking information. Something that allows these slots to be powerful tools in the hands of the right player. I'm not sure a revision like this is already in the works, but with complex carrier ops around the corner, and ever more complicated weapons systems being developed is there the thought of how does one manage these systems outside of the flight itself? A flight can be managed quite well. Buddy lasing works between certain aircraft, and I think datalink is in the pipeline. What about the General/Admiral? It can be done now via F-10, but I think it could be done better. Let's open up the full capability of the worlds best sim!

It seems its a coding think. It works the way it does keeps the cycles clear for other sim calculations. I think its an acceptable 'work'.

SRS works great, if I were ED I would integrate it into the framework of the game.

Are you kidding? You know how many "TOPGUN" servers will go up the weekend this jet releases? People already buzz the airfield with "look at me" passes. The only good servers without the craziness will be the password servers until people get it out of their system. Hopefully. The Forrestal has spawn points on the parking locations and not on the cat, or landing area like our other carriers. Otherwise pandemonium will ensue.

To implement the pilot/RIO relationship wouldn't we need an in game SRS type radio? Without an intercom that was built into the game it wouldn't really work they way it would need to.