Qiou87

DCS has a history of "touchy" maps. Maybe not PG, but Caucasus or the upcoming Syria map are full of contentious borders and areas. At the end of the day, this is a military sim, so we go where conflicts happen. I mean, look at Razbam doing the Falkland Islands map, I'm sure this could escalate between british and argentinian forum members...Kashmir is one of those areas ; as long as the map doesn't have clear drawn lines on it stating "this is India" or "this is Pakistan" or whatever, what's the harm in representing the region?

Even without a Su-30 (which could be replaced by the FC3 Su-27 for the purpose of creating campaigns), I see the point of such a map. It is definitely a hot, contested area, between 3 regional powers. Many opportunities for scenarii and campaigns. I am definitely no expert but looking at the terrain, it seems to be mostly mountains, and quite high as well - probably awesome to fly in, or setup ambushes by using the terrain. I mean it makes the Caucasus mountains look like small hills in comparison... Would be a nice change, although the lack of sea/ocean would not really fit with the latest ED products (SC, F/A-18C...).

Had this problem as well, I was taxiing all around the carrier to no avail, until I realized I was too early. I checked the mission briefing and I was not due to take off until 8min later. I waited, trying to call the tower to request startup every minute. Around 2min before my take-off time they reply "Cleared to startup". After that I could taxi and the ground crew hooked me up. Wingmen also aligned on catapults with me, which was not happening before.

Bought as well, happy to wait until it’s ready for prime time. Please make sure it’s also working well for VR, I bet sunset on Damascus is going to look awesome in the Rift S whilst flying my Huey... Hope they are clear about possible extensions to this map. ED stated somewhere that they could add Cyprus one day if sales are good. I’d like to know at some point if this has matched your expectations sales-wise and if that extension is going forward. I’m happy about the price and dimensions as is, but Cyprus means additional conflict areas and more opportunities for carrier ops (more Mediterranean)...

Indeed, in DCS you have to be satisfied with "close enough". Already to have a bit of your country and some of its fighters is not bad, even if the version is not correct. Same goes for PG for example, many countries on that map do not have their correct fighters in DCS, either wrong version or not at all! Let's enjoy what we have, and in this case it seems to be a beautifully made map that we will be able to enjoy in helos and fighters alike. I'm also loving the smooth framerate in the video despite what seems like very high settings, means there is hope for me in VR still... :thumbup:

I know Razbam has a lot on their plate, but. The 2000C was my entry into DCS, and I am French, so getting to fly the Mirage again but be on par with modern US jets in the game would be really great. Life without Fox3's and datalink is just not the same in multiplayer (even PvE). I know there is this collaboration with our Armee de l'Air, so maybe this would motivate them to make the -5 as well? One can only hope, and be patient.

Watching the latest video from GR (taking off from SC without catapults), I'd add that we *definitely* need collision with ground personnel to go with the gore (based on that video apparently you can drive "through" them for now). Let these yellow jackets fly over board when we hit them because we forgot to brake, let them run and scream while burning because we lit them on fire with our afterburner, like Denetor falling from the top of Minas Tirith. Yes, let's make GTA: Super Carrier. :lol: Or not. I'm sorry but for 99,5% of my kills I am too far to see the cockpit in detail (also, VR, so...). So even if ED spent time and energy for that, I would practically never see it, and I am sure the same would apply for most other players. So why waste their precious time?

That's a very good idea. I just hope they planned it some time ago already so we can have some at least on release of the map, as insurgent-type assets can be used for many scenarios really (in the Gulf as well). We don't need a lot of diversity to start with, some fighters, some light trucks with MGs and manpads should be enough to have a lot of fun. I just got chills thinking about helo ops in that region against such types of "soft targets" (in the Huey especially, since most armored targets are now impossible to destroy with it). And if it is just a few assets to make scenarios more interesting, it should be in the Core. Or if they want to make a bigger pack, just include it with the map. I think paid asset packs as modules are a bit pointless. You paid for this map? Thanks, now to enjoy it, pay for this pack again. Best way to split the community and discourage missions and campaigns creators to use your assets.

+1 as well. Flying low over Damascus in VR at sunset should be a gorgeous experience, just hope it can be at more than 20fps on a solid system. What are your qualms about the Hornet and Viper in VR? I find them quite alright in VR, I fly both all the time. In the Rift S the Viper especially is pleasing to use, most things are easy to read and the bubble canopy of course... Not sure what you are referring to? We need to balance our expectations between what an old game engine like what is used in DCS can do, what kind of visual improvements we expect (lighting, clouds, etc.), and then what kind of PC we use to run the game with. Until Vulkan shows up to have better CPU load balancing, I feel DCS in VR is still going to be only optimal on a high-end PC. But still, given the amount of details, I am not complaining (it runs smoother and with higher details on my PC than Dirt Rally 2.0 for example, which looks way worse in VR). Which is not to say that optimizing for VR should not be a priority for DCS imho. I just mean that we should first agree on what "optimize" mean and what our expectations should be. I've seen way too many cases where people were running too-high settings for their system specs and then complaining that it was the devs' fault.

Sure. However I am not sure if any word was given by the dev teams of each module about including a campaign in the module once it is "out of EA". I've checked the Hornet and there is nothing about solo content in their feature list for 2020. DCS is based on a strange model where modules can stay in EA for years, shouldn't mean that you can only enjoy them in multiplayer or by crafting your own missions. Again, I love the work done by others and shared for free on DCS files, but that (and additional paid DLC campaigns by third-parties) should only be a complement to quality campaigns from the devs themselves. Again referencing the Mirage module, it has undergone a lot of changes recently, one might say it is therefore not "finished". The devs still paid Baltic dragon to make the two campaigns for it, they didn't hide behind an excuse for the lack of solo content, and both are available (one since the release even AFAIK).

Couldn't agree more! Most modules come with a least one long campaign, or even two. The short "Challenger 1989" is very limited in scope given all the Hornet can do today and could surely do with a bigger brother once this goes out of EA by the end of the year. Maybe couple it with the release of Marianas if the schedules fit? A premium module worth 80$ cannot go out of EA without a proper campaign...

The Mirage 2000C is delivered with 2 campaigns, one full storyline that also serves as a tutorial (not everybody is booksmart, doesn't mean you are not allowed to learn by doing!) and a short one in the gulf. These are free, but high quality! It is one thing to read about a system, it is another to get to use it for real and see what effect it has. Some of us learn a lot quicker when we can actually try for ourselves instead of spend hours with our nose in a book. I understand the same goes for other modules. I clearly don't understand why "premium" modules with such high price tags cannot match third-party cheaper modules in terms of content and especially campaigns.

So I tried mission 4 tonight. Another challenge, I really like the variety! I failed it, I think I know why (when I was supposed to be 500ft above a target to photograph, an AI Mig23 was circling around and I had to engage him - I still flew over the intended area but probably failed that trigger). Back at the carrier, I followed the lead until he landed. The problem is that he doesn't leave! He stays static on the deck, so I get WO from the LSO. This is on the Washington (SC). I tried to wait for 5min then diverted to Kesh Intl as instructed in the brief. It was good practice of formation flying nonetheless, although I find it much harder with an AI since they don't call turns, speed or altitude and tend to change quite abruptly. Kept me on my toes the whole way! :)

Since I'm flying the Huey 40% of the time, and the Hornet the rest, I don't mind if we get 2 of Greg's quality campaigns in the next few months. :) Great! I look forward to it (patiently, take your time to make quality work, I think DCS needs more polished products and less rushed releases, so no stress from me - it's ready when you guys are sure it's ready ;) ).

Definitely an interesting proposition! I am curious how you will manage the flexibility of a dynamic campaign and the story aspects. I welcome any high-quality DLC F/A-18C campaign with open arms, I am always happy to support quality work!

I see you are still actively bringing out fixes and I appreciate it. I was able to clear mission 3 yesterday somehow (got the mission success after smashing a few of the targets, not all of them though, had to go for your beloved gun dive attack since I ran out bombs ;) ). AI teamates are so dumb, if I ask them to attack ground targets they go for the SA-2 with unguided bombs... Guess who gets blown up in the air? lol Anyway on mission 3 of SC version there is the same problem as mission 2 - TACAN works on 74X instead of 73X. Since I knew it could be this same problem it was really no issue, but maybe include this fix in the next upload and when you have time. Otherwise a cool mission and a lot of fun as always.

This is weird. For me I did the following: - Ask "Complete mission objective and return to formation" when on WP1 flying towards WP2 - the idiot guns it for WP3 with full burners at 500ft AGL but doesn't drop anything - When I saw him turn around with full ordinance, I asked him to "Engage ground targets" (the pilot says "Targets of opportunity") - he engaged the Silkworm sites but only hit 2, he was dropping them in pairs - He rejoined but of course with all his stupid low-level full-AB flying, he was out of gas so I sent him to the tanker It could be that the AI does not consider the targets at WP2 as mission targets, but I would refrain from comments as I am not familiar with the mission editor (and the creator already did an impressive job with the level of detail & complexity in each missions I've played so far). I will say this, it is definitely the hardest campaign I've played with the Hornet so far. Plenty of easier options out there if your skill level is not up to the challenge just yet. At least this left me with 6 targets instead of 8. I changed my loadout on the carrier because I don't find it particularly fun to dive-bomb in CCIP with a modern plane, instead I had a Litening pod and 8 GBU-12s. Since you can bomb from 30,000ft fuel consumption stays low, I managed all 6 targets and flew back to the carrier without AAR. Close call but manageable, I had 2000lbs left once on the deck. IMHO the loadout for mission 1 is adding to the difficulty ; could be on purpose though, but I find that dive-bombing and canon passes are more suited for A10s and Vietnam-era planes. Definitely if you go up, then dive, then up again and repeat for 8 targets, you will be out of gas very very quickly even with 3 drop-tanks.

Thanks, it actually makes sense. Never thought about it that way when #4 said he was out of gas in my last sortie and I wanted to send him to the tanker. Now I know, ask #3 and #4 will follow... :thumbup:

Yes, sorry. I use the SC version, mission 2. Don't know what was up but my HSI couldn't find the beacon when dialing 73X. The indicator was spinning all around the HSI, but even 5nm from the boat it couldn't find it. It was working in mission 1 just the day before.

I actually managed mission 1 with 8 GBU-12s and a TGP. Was very short on fuel (landed with 1500lbs) but all good. Mission 2 is a lot more manageable, and I just had a blast completing it! I just wanted to point out that TACAN for the boat doesn't seem to work properly in that mission (2) on 73X. I had no signal on the HSI, checked that it was properly turned on. I did not have this issue in mission 1. No big deal, just a remark. ;) Great work on this campaign, I am enjoying it a lot so far!

That part is clear, but do we need to destroy all missiles and radars (8 targets in total)? I destroyed only the radars and got mission failure - I took the same logic as for a SAM site, without a guidance system those missiles are useless. Destroying all would require my stupid AI wingman to actually do something right...:music_whistling:

My bad, SC was installed on OB but not Stable. Once installed the mission runs fine and is fun! From the SC I could actually change the loadout to my liking. One thing: even though I killed all 4 radars for the wormthings we have to kill but still got a mission failed after successfully landing. I guess we have to target the missile launchers instead? As an improvement suggestion, it would be helpful to indicate mission success requirements in the brief.

Hi, I tried the SC version last night ; is it supposed to start me in the air in Mission 1? I thought the whole point of that version was to start on the SC. Playing on stable (2.5.6), I own SC of course. Because of that I started way ahead of the SEAD flight so the rest of the mission is pretty difficult (or you have to wait on station at high altitude for them to destroy the SA-2). Also I am curious why the loadout in that mission is Mk-82s for such small targets, I'd have preferred AGM-65s for a precision strike, or some laser-guided GBUs.

I'm on mission 8, thoroughly enjoyed it so far. Great job, thank you for providing me with hours of fun!

The Mirage 2000C has that capability. It might have been broken by a recent patch, but there is a video from the Grim Reapers showing this (autopilot ILS approach). Basically you get the controls 50m from the ground so all you have to do is flare. As the plane doesn't have auto-throttle, though, you still need to keep your eye on the throttle. But other than that, the plane lands itself. It also has a nice "synthetic runway" feature, showing you the runway outline in the HUD. Great feature to complement ILS approach.