Qiou87

That's what our human GCI does in MP at least. Even better: BRA (to tell you the current picture for your SA) then intercept course to be in a position to employ armament. You don't actually care how long you need to fly to be where the bandit used to be when you got the call. You also don't need to be on top of the bandit, just within shooting range and in a position to do it. What matters is "where to fly to be in the best position to shoot him down". That's what I see as a possible improvement avenue for GCI.

I am definitely not hoping for the same quality as DLC ones, just a reason to pickup the plane and start flying with stuff to do. Campaigns motivate me somewhat because I like the feeling of accomplishment I get when it says I have finished it. :) Thanks aldox for your info. I cannot believe how hard it is to actually find what a module contains. If I were to make a product, I would like people to know exactly what they are buying. I am guessing making a campaign takes a lot of time for ED, so why not say "hey, we made a campaign with X missions for this plane, it is included".

Hi, Up until now I exclusively fly jets in DCS but was considering to jump into a WWII plane from time to time, in single player (my buddies and I fly jets only in MP). As sales are going on and the damage model update is finally coming, it seems like a good time to grab the Normandy map, the WW2 assets pack, and a new plane (Channel is out of the question atm as I fly VR and it seems poorly optimized for now). Here lies my problem: I don't want to create my own missions for lack of time. Based on DCS User files, there aren't many user-made campaigns for WW2 birds. So a deciding factor for me could be to know what campaigns are included with the plane modules themselves. There is no info about included campaigns, training missions etc. in the product page of the e-shop. I would kindly ask about your feedback about single player content included in the following modules: - P-51D - Spitfire IX - Bf-109 Those are the three I am considering right now. I also see that third-parties have made quality DLC campaigns for these planes, and I will definitely check them out, but having a campaign included with the module is usually a good way to get more proficient with it (an example of that is the main campaign in the M2000C module). Once I am confident in the plane and have already flown some missions, I can look towards those DLCs and also DCS Liberation (dynamic campaign engine). Thank you!

They do that a lot actually, in interviews. They also seem to do quite a lot of them between the different bosses at ED. For example I understood from the last one (S. Pearson) that the weather system was very high up in their priority list and that they were close to having something to show. But the newsletter is not their prefered format to share such long-term plans, or not on a regular basis maybe? They did share the dynamic campaign engine recently, even if it is probably 6-12 months away. In the end, we have to factor in the size of the company. Bigger devs have entire teams dedicated to speaking to their customers. I'd rather ED keep more people working on dev than on chatting about what they plan to do. It's like I tell my boss, I can either report to you what I'm doing every 5min, or I can focus and actually do the work. You won't know where I am at each passing minute but I'll be done a lot sooner.:pilotfly:

Once ED fleshes out the naval warfare and especially submarine warfare parts, I'd totally love an anti-sub helo like a Seahawk. As was said the UH-60 has potential for the sim as a whole, but the SH-60 could open up a brand new aspect of it and find/fight submarines. Also SAR. I don't especially want to call for yet another fighter, I'd rather see something new and help expend the types of missions that can be done.

Probably a CM can confirm, but my assumption is: if they communicate about it, people here are going to consider every word as a promise. And then when something happens and this feature or new thing gets pushed a few months or years because reasons, people will demand ED's head on a platter for "lying" and "betraying" etc. So instead, they chose to communicate on stuff that is certain and ready for release. That's the only way to prevent their image being damaged by the angry mob, most of whom have no idea what goes on in a simulator development like DCS and expect everything to be delivered as fast as their latest Amazon purchase. :joystick: I find it funny that last year people complained that ED was not concentrating enough on the game core and bug fixing, and now that they do, that they follow a more robust release schedule for updates, people complain that they are not seeing enough new shiny stuff.

Definitely! Cleared mission three last night on the first go, my luck seems to continue. Great fun so far and I'm enjoying to face off against the Snake again!:thumbup:

Simon Pearson (ED business dev. director) confirmed the Hind was a Q1 2021 release in a recent interview, based on latest info of course so subject to change. I also hope both come a separate intervals so I have time to learn one before the other comes...

I managed this by luck or chance yesterday. Flew it for the first time, ran out of bullets whilst the second one was only wounded (haven't touched the Hornet in a while so I am a bit rusty with the canon). He went for a frontal pass, I thought "what the hell" and went kamikaze. Actually he passed extremely close to me and crashed seconds later - don't know how, just received the notification he had crashed. Could it be wake turbulence as we passed maybe 1-2m away at the max? In any case, mission success, looking forward to the next one.

Yet I don't know how to fly with it (in VR) because it always hides switches on the consoles. Same for the stick actually, I have both of them off in VR. To each his own. I would actually welcome such an option. Especially for startup procedure, since for the rest of the flight I mostly use MFDs and HOTAS controls. But since I turn it off for the startup, I never actually bother to turn it back on. Always makes me sad when I see how much work goes into the making of such a detailed model. Please find a way to make it more user friendly and stop blocking the consoles from view...

There is no control over plane performance from third parties in XP or FS. Nothing stops you from making a plane go Mach 2 at sea level without AB. They probably guess the performance of that one based on adverts and articles about it, which is basically unverifiable. ED requires third parties to have significant documentation about a plane before making it a module. This cannot happen for a new plane that is highly classified. But if all you care about is flying something that looks like it is an F35, go to this XP module or find a mod. There’s probably one with F15 avionics so you can even shoot missiles and play pretend. But it will fly nothing like the real deal.

Completely agree, let PC work and make this as polished as possible before release. I am happy to wait if it means a quality product is coming out from the start. Not every team is huge and has dedicated CMs ; I’d rather they concentrate on making the best possible product if they have to chose between that and engaging with people here on a daily basis. besides we do get a sweet pic every week...

Oh, it's that time of the month again. Just fly F-16 then F-5 in the same mission. Simple math (16+5) tells you that makes an F-21, which is very close to an F-22. :lol: Also, a pure air superiority fighter like the F-22 would be pretty boring in DCS World. Especially since current AI adversaries are already totally outgunned against the F-16/F-18. At least the F-35 is a multirole jet...

The fact it is vendor specific is definitely a problem to make it more widespread. But after seeing it first-hand in Control (which doesn't even have the last version of DLSS), I couldn't tell my game wasn't running at the native 1440p and it made RTX gameplay actually smooth. It is not just dumb upscaling, the way they are upscaling is more efficient somehow. Between the marketing BS from nVidia and the people who "know everything" but actually never even tried DLSS, it is difficult to find neutral opinions about it. I do find the tech interesting, because as long as you cannot see your game is running at lower resolution why wouldn't you want higher framerate? If it would make running the game at 90fps locked in VR at high detail levels, even in high-def headsets, I would be all for it. This goes further than my understanding of game engines but I read in multiple places (and for multiple games, not only DCS) that DCS is using a deferred rendering engine and DLSS is only compatible with forward rendering. @Sharpe: not sure it is always limited by the CPU, my GPU consistenly reads 100% in DCS (RTX2070S & Rift S). But yes, once you start using DLSS and reducing GPU load for a given framerate, you will definitely run into more CPU bottlenecks.

Although I do agree that AI opponents of the same generation to our high-fidelity NATO planes are needed and would be a great addition, I reject the fact that current assets cannot make for a challenging single-player experience to a F-16 or F/A-18. As an example: I am currently playing a DCS Liberation campaign in the Golan Heights. Israel vs. Syria, I picked modern assets. Liberation spawns a huge ADS for Syria with 3 S-300s, and multiple SA-6, SA-8 and SA-11 protecting their bases. Add a multitude of Mig-29s, Mig-25s and Mig-23s and its no walk in the park, even after 8 sorties my CAS is still unable to reliably operate over the battlefield. Of course, one single SAM system is easy to defeat, but what if the systems are close together? In my case it has been a huge challenge to take down those SA-10s, especially since they shoot down HARMs easily. And a great sense of accomplishment when I successfully took them down in different sorties, each time coming low and fast to drop CBU-97 on them. So yeah, modern assets are needed from a single-player perspective, even if we cannot have them to play with ourselves. It takes time, and AI assets are free so ED cannot dedicate 20 people to work on them exclusively. But in the meantime, just build your missions in a more challenging way with what we have...

Sorry to burst your bubble (or maybe it will help!) but both work fine on mine. Make sure you assign them as axis. I use the paddle as rudder axis, and the stick as target designator. Actually I kept my TCWS and only upgraded my stick (from T16000 to VKB Gunfighter), because this has the paddle axis which is nice since I wasn't sure I could afford the space required by pedals. It works well, I have big hands so I find it fits quite nicely (I think some with small to medium-sized hands would find they have trouble accessing the buttons on the front). All buttons are easy to find "blind" (by feel and not looking). No issue to use different brands, each plugged in USB is recognized separately in DCS, same like you probably used your keyboard and stick in parallel. Mini-stick is a bit "sticky" for me, after 9 months of use. Probably just needs a clean... Overall I find it quite nice for the price. It is not a fancy replica but it seems quite similar to the Hornet throttle. I'll probably hang on to mine until it dies, as I don't really see a reason to upgrade it.

I think they didn't release the OB into stable because of some bugs still there. There was 3 patchs of OB in a single week, highly unusual recently. So until they fix these urgent issues definitely, I don't think you will see a Stable update. But on the other hand, they are also probably eager to push the OB to stable for those customers waiting on the A10C II as well. I was like you (flying stable, frustrated), so I used command prompts to switch to OB. It is easy, quite fast (with a good connection), and I can fly in Syria. Once they update stable I might stay on it, but I just couldn't bear the wait. I don't think OB or Stable have to be a religious choice, you can use one or the other depending on available updates, modules, or game-breaking bugs.

I know they killed a "passion project" mod of Rafale, but they also killed a real, actual 3rd party developer project as well? Or they just refuse to give the licence? I think similar to other modules like 2000C, a good motivation for a 3rd party to do the Rafale would be an agreement with an air force operating it and wanting to use DCS to train their pilots in some way (like the AdA is doing for cooperative, large-scale missions AFAIK). They give access to the jet but don't actually pay for the full development, instead it becomes a public module. In any case, I also don't get my hopes up. It is quite nice to get the EF as a substitute though, it is not another american jet at least.

JI had this problem (switch of airplane after a while, get horrible stutter). So I "only" have 8GB Vram on my RTX2070S, 32GB system ram, but that's enough for my Rift S and I get smooth framerates when I start the game. Actually after a lot of trial-and-error I found that the problem dissappeared when I increased my pagefile size. For some reason Win10 had set mine to 2GB or something. I increased it to 16-32GB (flexible), and now the stutterfest is gone if I decide to switch airplanes on a server. Similarly I can do two missions without restarting the game in between. It seems the game likes to use the pagefile for some reason... Just wanted to share since this "fix" didn't require me to use bots to buy a 1500$ graphics card. :)

As an F-16 virtual pilot, I can confirm you seem to be too low on the glidepath based on velocity vector and AoA. I landed on RW27 in Ramat David yesterday in the Viper, did not notice those buildings as being "too close". Also the runway is quite long there (especially compared to Haifa :music_whistling:) there is no need to aim for the first 10cm of the runway. :smilewink:

To be honest if we get Cyprus for free, it is already a pretty large expansion right? I am all for "more more more" but the map as it is today is quite nice, the terrain is not small and the level of details is miles ahead of Caucasus or Persian gulf. Throw in Cyprus later (if they actually do it, they didn't promise anything) and it makes for an awesome map as is.

You cannot begin to pretend to have valid results in a poll when the question is difficult to understand correctly. That is also something they also teach in business school (market analysis/market survey). A good question would be "Given the history of DCS Gazelle, do you plan to buy the Kiowa Warrior?" and then maybe leave a choice like "Yes upon release", "Yes but probably later, after I am convinced it is the real deal" or "No way Jose". And in any case, do not hope that a poll in a sub-forum will represent a representative portion of PC's potential clients. Many don't come here at all, others don't understand English, etc.

Just curious, is the F/A-18 implementation realistic? That's the only module I own that can change codes inflight. Super practical, I am just wondering if that is the case IRL. The kneeboard thing is a real hassle for me in VR (when I fly the Viper). This new idea is really good, I support it wholeheartedly.

Great way to differenciate it from its siblings! Nice find. :)

He managed it with the Raven One campaign, where SuperCarrier is included eventhough it was released shortly before. Same for some functions of the Hornet, still in development. So I don't see how it is not possible to start work on the campaign, although release will probably wait until the plane is more complete. Really looking forward to this content! Great plane + great map + great campaign-builder, you can count me in. :)