Eldur

So here we go again. Pay up front for bug fixes. Microsoft had us all do that already multiple times in the past and we literally ended up in having an eternal pre-alpha early access with forced updates that wreck our systems everytime they happen including long standing issues as old as over a decade still not being fixed, especially with the file manager that's known as Explorer. No thanks. What's next? Subscription model for the core to base the whole thing on and premium price tags for getting support? Oh, wait, I forgot the copy protection dongle that wouldn't work on like half of the systems without issues...

If only I was that rich to be able to say that even on a DCS module in a 50% sale... Devs of that thing: What's a... manual...? And, to be fair, it's an utter stutter fest, literally the worst I've ever seen. DCS Buno 43453 was a charming dream compared to that. And yeah, that was the one which took like over half an owa to load up, only to run at like 3-4 10s freezes a minute. "They did a really good job on this logo though. Really, super bang up job!" ~CW Lemoine

I guess there will always be something weird. And I totally support the call for the pilot body, but I'd also love to see the whole thing revisited together with the VR controller thing. Imagine having the virtual pilot body, with every parts casting shadows, with a physics engine behind it like Boneworks has (they determine arm and body position and attitude based on HMD and controler position and even as it has its quirks, it's working quite well making the game an awesome VR experience; I mean, even VTOL VR has that to a light extent and that's been coded by a single guy), with your virtual hands usually on HOTAS, but as soon as you take the RH controller, the right one goes off the stick and repositions according to your controller while the left one takes over the stick (which is what you'd naturally do if taking the RH off the stick and probably also will do on your own physical HOTAS). That way you could just lift your arm or pull it back to see the knobs and switches, just like IRL and manipulate them (either the current way or as done in VTOL VR, both should be possible at the same time without switching some options!). In case you now grab over to the throttle to pull it back for instance, the virtual left hand should just do that, maybe even with a slight delay (which should be optional in case it could get cumbersome or create some conflict with certain hardware) and go back to the stick afterwards. Then as soon as you drop the RH controller after having done the switchology (that gets determined by Oculus software, Virtual Desktop and others already, the hands either fade out completely or turn into 3d models of the controller after like 2 seconds if the controllers don't move anymore), the hand should go back to the stick and the other back to the throttle. The only things that could end up being weird there would be some arm angles and possibly the stick moving around in certain conditions without the virtual hand on it, like when hitting the real one with the elbow while trying to hit an OSB on the left MFD with the right hand. That would be OK for me though... On top of that, there still should be the option to switch off the body as we have it now, plus an option to fade it away, maybe even just partially (same with the stick and the throttle grip) as you try to manipulate things hidden behind.

That's the Matra JL-100 which is French and IIRC those have been on Mirages as well back in the day. Anyway with 2 of those (I think I've seen images with those on a dual rack as well, so it would be 4) plus 4 of the more common Matra 155 pod and those Microcells (the British used them only on F.1 and F.1A IIRC) that thing would be a flying rocket launcher, and a very fast one, at least after dumping the pods. Just what I need I'd love to see the F.53 - more options and especially more versatility.

To be frank, I never did. Is kinda weird to have 4 hands or the switches manipulating themselves by some sort of telekinesis...

This thread makes me happy about the upcoming release of the upgrade. I wish I could see the video explaining all the things mentioned, but well, I guess I'll have to live with hopefully seeing the results on my rig in the end Maybe I should get back into the Hog prior as I never had that much time on it since DCS literally stopped running a few months after the module release on my end as the effect updates were just too heavy on AMD/ATi hardware back in the day and their driver support was lacking, to say the least. I've leant not to buy hardware from those anymore if I want to be on the DCS boat anywhere in the future...

Hoping the new render engine will provide for that and allow acutal reflecting surfaces to get this right without having to look at a render frame within the cockpit that seems to run at 320x200 on the highest screen res setting.

That's definately a rumour. But I agree its much worse than IRL in the sim. Just give us option so everyone can set it to their liking and all is good. Exactly. Same goes for TIR or any other headtracking, yet even just translating the head position via keys.

I made the sentence both of you guys apparently didn't read, even while being in bold fonts already, a litte bigger so you won't miss it That's my POV as well. I don't mind them posting things on other channels, but I definately want to see those things here. And if they don't want to have discussions for whatever reason (as in control on the comments), they simply could lock those threads and ignore others which would inevitable pop up anyway. On a positive note, VEAO had like thrice the amount of planes on their roadmap, without having shown a single shot even of any of those except for the Hawk and some very early shots of the EF. One of the main reasons I never bought their stuff, they told they'd do the world but were able to show absolutely nothing. I take the WIP screenshots of 3D models, especially in such early states (incomplete and untextured) as something that might be coming from them since they're interesting in bringing those. My wild and uneducated guess is they didn't sign a contract yet with ED for all of those. AFAIK that's only the case with the F-15E and MiG-23MLA so far (plus them helping Miltech5 out on the Bo), all the others are still out in the open. So, it's better to take all that with a grain of salt until there's a real announcement. One thing that we'd probably all agree with though is that RAZBAM definately needs more proficient coders to get the work done in time. The things they're going to bring to DCS or already have, but not completed yet are complex which needs more manpower, simply put.

+102/106! Well, Lockheed would have ceased to exist if it weren't for those sales practices as they've literally been on the brink of bankruptcy back then. The Convair Deltas are simply more interesting though, with internal weapons bays, more missiles and even unguided rockets in foldable launcher racks (102). But I wouldn't mind getting a 104 at all...

Not gonna be cool without proper and worthy opponents... Funnily, this actually became an official thing recently

Yup, one of the things that first attracted me to DCS, all those pages Back in the day, when those actually existed. But well, it's hard having a proper, printed manual on something that's still in development. That's what I'd call a rumour. Not directed at anyone here, just my own experience - guess there's a nice quote on that topic: "Here we go. Don't suck. Or suck with confidence if you're going to suck." ~C. W. Lemoine The second part of that sencence is true though, and the ones being able to admit are the strong ones. On top of that, it's the first step towards improving there. This should be printed on high quality document paper in an extraordinarily fashionable and elegant font, seal stamped, put into a golden frame and sent to RAZBAM as a certificate for what has been achieved to date, as a nice and firm reminder there's still some work to do And even though I have stated having had fun with the module, I'd very much prefer the in-depth logics working properly, as that'd literally double the fun! Made me laugh really hard there Haven't seen a community as toxic as in FS20 in a while to be frank. They'd jump on you when you state that it simply has severe performance issues, acting like preschool children with totally entitled arguments like "You shouldn't even be trying this with your cheap i5 and 1080, go back and play your DCS arcade game from a decade ago. FS doesn't run on your utterly outdated low end rig because it is an actual sim optimized for future hardware that doesn't even exist yet!" (not kidding, I've seen such comments) If anyone's even daring to remotely criticize on their beloved holy grail, they instantly go full rampage over there... RAZBAM really would be better off staying here. And IIRC in the latest interview they said they have no plans for making stuff for the new FS. Heatblur: Am I a joke to you? Asobo "not even a pdf" Studios entered the chat Great to see progress. I guess that's not just happening because of what's been going on lately. Nice to know there'd be an update planned for next week since TBH I was expecting it in 2 weeks as in 4 weeks after the last one. Even though I do have an account there and am following RAZBAM, I hardly ever see those update messages unless I actually visit their page directly, and TBH I'm not MiG28ing any page there to stay up to date. But well, that's the kind of triage based on some weird and sekrit wiccan black magic algorithms which they'd then call "relevance" you'd get when using such services as fb, twidder, the tyoube or any other social media platform. And that'd be reason enough not to use those as news channels as someone who likes to get things out to be known of. Well, though I'm missing the days when RAZBAM would have their monthly video updates. They really should get back on track doing that (they aren't even quarterly anymore as the last one was somewhere in 2019), since that was quite the transparency we're asking for right now.

Can't help, but you just reminded me of (be wary of language), almost spat my coffee across the screen there Really looking forward to the updates, sounds great. Oh, and by the way: TOMCATS!

To be fair, my statement was made with the fact in mind that RAZBAM stated on their discord they couldn't even tell which BUNO they provide for because of classification, which on the contrary indeed is given on the store page. Not about any systems that might be off limits to the public as there'S always some that are, as in EW. Honestly, you're literally the last to blame, if at all. You've been doing an outstanding job there and I really enjoyed the tutorials of the Mirage and wasn't even aware of the Harrier's being in there already. Also, I never heard any bad word on any of your campaigns, those are literally setting the bar. If things need more time in the oven, because of whatever, which you did tell us right there, they shall have it. Things get delayed, especially these days. The thing is that while this delay is happening, the module still got taken the EA label off of it while clearly not meeting the requirements therefor. I am aware that the things are still being worked on, but the removal of the EA tag simply wasn't the right step to take.

Cries in ~5k in a development country that produces the Eurofighter Well that happens if you're literally a bad luck magnet and when trying to "make them tell you no", you end up being like... So yes, 70 bucks is a ton here. Like 3 times that, and I'm Winchester for a whole month. So when I do shell that out, I do it with utter passion and I'm glad to do so. I guess I dropped like 20% less though as I got the module early on, and even despite it lacking in in-depth systems features, I had a great time with it and I still do fly the thing and make other things go up and enjoy it. But it could be better. It definately should be the case that ED has to do a QA on this and decide if it's really ready for that step. That would guarantee the quality standards set by ED themselves across the board, which kinda is what the customers trusted in anyway. I mean, just remember the release of the MiG-19 which was pushed back by ED for another month. The same checks should happen when a 3rd party decides to leave early access. And to be fair - wha't the difference in essence? I could have understood it remotely if there was like a 20% off on the EA module, which wasn't the case though. It purely was based on the prior statement that RAZBAM wouldn't release another module into EA until the others were out. And I totally get they do need a new source of income - this is hard business after all and they've got to pay for their food and bog rolls as we all do. Personally I wouldn't have had issues with them releasing another EA module, even knowing how long it takes to complete the development of those. Others would have decided not to get another module which is perfectly fine. +1 on the FFB here. Even though the lack of devices on the market, I simply can't call any module without FFB support complete. We few need to push the FFB thing and if the hardware market is lacking, at least the software side shouldn't be. Thanks for taking that step. On that behalf, ED should also consider setting more strict guidelines for the product description - after all the typical DCS customer expects a module to be full fledged, what we'd call "DCS grade", with all the systems depth, features, quirks and issues the real thing comes with, literally as "what's in the real thing's manual works here as expected". And regardless of the features list, that's what most of us expect from any module. Ambiguous feature lists don't help with that exactly, that just leads to the discussions you guys now have to deal with. TBH I'm perfectly fine with them waiting for ED's implementation, I mean, why invent the wheel again? They also do that for the planned AV-8B+ rendition, based on the Hornet's radar, which is OK in my book. I also wish they'd add the APKWS eventually as they said in the beginning they'd like to do just that and now with the A-10C II coming with that system, it should be doable and I'd be very grateful to get that system on the AV-8B one day. The real pain here is that the community is often able to create those keybinds and posts on how to add these exist for literally every module, including ED's. Some devs do check those out and add them to their modules after verification which is awesome and exactly that should be done by every team which would solve the issue in very little time with the help of the community. Exactly. They shouldn't have made that promise in the first place because that's the reason the whole "razdram" here now exists. They always could have been honest with saying they'd need another boost of income to go on and therefor they'd have to release another module into early access without having the old ones out yet. That certainly would also have put people off, but it would never have lead to what is happening right now. The fun thing is they say "it's a sekrit", yet the store page clearly states, and it already did that back in 2017, that the AV-8B NA is based on BUNO 163853. Sources: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/av8bna/ https://web.archive.org/web/20171108014830/https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/av8bna/ So we should clearly be able to have information on what the thing should be capable of and what not and therefor could determine if it's complete or not.

So we're about to get the A-10C II upgrade this month? Didn't expect that, but I'm thrilled for the BRRRRRRRT! And even more so for the HMCS and those APKWS toys Just hope that I can get that for my collected miles as I'm quite low on funds this month...

I generally have the impression as if the visibility distance was hard set to low on this map. It looks great, but just up close.

And it can do even more (Hope it works for you, as the vid won't play on my end)

AFC doesn't stabilize the plane in jet-borne flight. Should bank to wings level with stick centered as long as it's not too far off and also keep the pitch within a certain range to ease workload in hover flight. Stick input still possible to move the things around, but only small amounts. If it's getting too much input, the AFC would switch itself off. Legend has it this is as per p. 2-53ff of a document that shall not be mentioned.

I think that tracker is a great addition and done by the community as a whole to make things better. IMHO every module should have such one pinned at the top as it collates all the reports that are properly reported (read: as you described, one by one, with tracks, screenshots if possible, logs etc) on the forums. The point is that saves you guys a lot of work as you don't have to skim the posts each to get a digest of what's being reported. Just take the community tracker, check the items listet there as they're all nicely linked to the single-post reports that have been made on the forums and forward that to your internal tracker after checking and acknowledging. On top of that you could check the items off if you've done so so we can see you have seen it. I mean, this really shows the community's dedication to help getting the ducks in a row here which should be appreciated and taken into account improving the process of improving the software itself.

To be fair with them, I was under the impression they'd not do it at all since that was their reasoning a few years ago when we were asking for it - as with the current DCS IR implementation it would definately show targets, but no false positives at all, literally making it something like an arcade cheat radar. Given that, they said they won't model it at all. Just now I read they'd be going to do it after ED will have done their new IR implementation, which is a great thing to hear. I literally wasn't expecting to get that at all. I think it's literally just a comms issue. As I've taken the example of the Hornet roadmap already, displaying it will come out of EA without actually being feature complete, but the missing features to be added afterwards anyway. That felt a bit weird as per the definition of EA, Alpha and Beta versioning, but was clearly communicated how it's going to be. Now the difference is, RAZBAM took the step the Hornet is going to take at the end of '20 (as planned, subject to change), without talking at all, and without a serious bunch of improvements on the module while they did it. It just happened and some guys here noticed and were like "WT*? Have I missed something?". RAZBAM should have went ahead, go tell us a nice fix list for the upcoming update and their intentions to exit EA with that, for any given reason, of course explained. And if it's literally just for the sake of meeting that "We won't release any modules while the others are still in EA" thing they put themselves on the plate. That would at least have been honest. I mean, I can perfectly understand if they need to get another revenue to continue working, and as the Mirage has shown, they do quite some stuff still late on. I always was under the impression that they're waiting for some things coming from ED's side to implement into the Harrier as the Hornet, Harrier and also the Strike Eagle literally share a lot of avionics. That being said, I wouldn't mind having to wait for some pages until they add them to the SE and also the Harrier at the same time. It's kind of a situation we've had and still have with the Hornet and the Viper. Shared tech, being used for both modules. It's literally very much similar in case of the Harrier and the SE, so with the development of the latter, they can take things back to the Harrier and get two birds with one stone. If they had told us so, it probably would be perfectly fine for most of us. Now without them having done so, we can just assume the best and many tend to expect the worst, which is totally understandable, but could have been prevented with clear comms by the devs in the first place.

But it does mean feature complete, doesn't it? As it's not, so it's clearly still an Alpha. There will always be some bugs. Even the Ka-50 still has a few (laser dead after 30 shots, SAI totally off after like half a minute worth of straight and level flying, just to name the most obvious), and that probably also goes for the A-10 and many other modules. And if circumstances allow for, they might geht fixed or not, depending on their gravitational impact on the overall experience. And that's the part where in the Harrier things are quite heavy still.

Made me interested there and I had a check: https://web.archive.org/web/20171108014830/https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/av8bna/ Can't see the mention of a campaign there. Maybe that slipped in there in between, but at least that archive tells they didn't run a preorder sale with a campaign advertised.

quote-unquote considered complete and actually being complete are apples and Orang-Utans. For example the FCS is incomplete as the AFC doesn't even remotely work as described in a "Legend has it" type piece of documentation that shall not be mentioned, especially in jet-borne flight. Just on of many examples. Another would be the FLIR hotspot tracker which is completely missing and pretty much a vital sensoring feature of the AV-8B. Actually I wonder what's wrong there now... only thing that I know of, but where I don't have any evidential hard data on is that the gun seems to be slanted up quite a lot compared to where the bird goes, which basically is totally not practical for an A class aircraft. What happened to Decoy? RAZBAM also stopped bringing their quarterly news update after they made it quarterly from initially monthly. And they were going to update us on progress in July which never happened. I think we're allowed to know what's going on there. And I guess they're somehow hard at work for the SE they want to release into EA this year still... Well, to be fair, they're doing the exact thing themselves. But at least they tell us in advance. After all it comes down to the question of what "early access" actually is. I guess, many think of it as some kind of alpha version, while it actually is some kind of alpha & beta mishmash in one instance. But maybe the stuff I learnt about 10 years ago (= alpha is unfinished in development, beta is feature complete, but needs polishing) is severely outdated by now and I just don't know the industry standards any better - I mean, a big company that once removed their four colours from their logos a few years ago, who also released a flight simulator product that shall not be named (I guess I failed that one already, doh!) as of recently, are the world masters of releasing and selling prealpha software and pretty much as soon as that might evolve into actual alpha state, they'll force update the software on your rig to the next prealpha version, if you want it or not. That is the industry standard apparently. Even RAZBAM modules look like a certain well-approved, but already outdated and unsupported software's SP3 version compared to that.

Same here. Have placed my F-16 in one of the shelters right next to the runway that goes NW, when being down at the base, I got like 22fps. As soon as I left the base it's 45 and I seem to have that even on takeoff already, definately so on landing. Can't check my frames there, have to see other things