Qiou87

I can attest that my group has seen this same problem with SA/ Link-16 for the past 3 weeks. Each time on a different mission, created recently on 2.7 (not an old mission converted from 2.5 or prior). Viper and Hornet, same issue. I had TACAN 5X for the A/A tanker the previous week. I changed yesterday to 40X which is in the "white" range. Other active TACANs were T/R 54X (for Andersen AFB) and T/R 75X for the CVN-75 carrier. So everything should have been OK. We had an AWACS and Vipers & Hornets, no one had Link-16 contacts in their SA. Our AWACS was working properly (we had a human AWACS with LotATC directing all CAP flights). Any ideas how to investigate this further?

3D models are just a small part of a DCS module. Even the cockpit and texturing, while time-consuming, are just a part of it. It seems that the coding is often underrated in terms of time, be it the flight model, but also all systems and weapons (and the research to get access to all the data so that all systems actually work as intended). Behind every gauge and button in the cockpit, there is a lot of code. So you can see Razbam posting nice pictures of 3D models on their FB and think "wow, that thing is almost finished", but if they haven't started on the coding yet, it could be years before we see it ingame. Not to mention that there is now a pretty solid precedent with the F-16: the community does not want a half-baked early access. F-14 and JF-17 are the targets in terms of content at EA release, I would say, which means you can't just have a pretty 3D model and cockpit, a decent flight model and half the systems working in some capacity to call it "ready for EA". I am French, of course I would like to see the Mirage III and the SuperE that Razbam has in their drawers somewhere. But I try to be realistic, they have so many projects and if they manage to release one per year, maybe we can see the Mirage in 5yrs? Here's hoping...

There seems to be a big overestimation of the link between Razbam and Dassault here. Did you ever wonder why the module is called "M-2000C", not "Mirage 2000C"? And why Dassault is not named one time on the product page? Doesn't look like Razbam has a licence for it, or any kind of positive relationship with Dassault, from there. Dassault to be fair is very secretive and hasn't really shown interest in providing data or licences for flight sims. I remember how they pressured one team of modders of the Rafale to shut down their project... Razbam do have some relationship to the French air force, which uses DCS/M-2000C for some simulator training. The 2000-5 was thrown on the table as a possibility but by the time Razbam would be finished with it, the -5 wouldn't be in active service anymore, so there wouldn't be a big advantage for the French air force there. A 2000D would make more sense since it will be kept in active service much longer, but that would be a lot of work for RB. My understanding is that they received external help to finish the M-2000C and that the recent updates are a result of that. I am not sure they are in any place to start a Mirage III: their resources are already spread thin, they have more advanced projects in the works... Not to mention you also need excellent access to SMEs and data for a full module. Honestly they are better off focusing 100% on finishing Harrier/M2000, then pushing for Tucano/F15E (probably the biggest cash cow for them) and then Mig23, and forget about the rest for a few years.

There is also a video out there (HUD tape) of a Rafale killing a F-22 Raptor during an exercise. So if JF-17 is better than Rafale, and Rafale is better than F-22, does it mean the JF-17 is miles ahead of a 5th gen fighter like the F-22? Exercises are not a demonstration of the aircraft capabilities and should absolutely not be extrapolated as anything meaningful.

IMHO helicopters and low-level flight are the worst at first. Try simple flying, using a jet or prop plane, get high in the clouds, focus on the instruments, turn your head around... as soon as you feel a bit of nausea, stop. Try again the next day, you will be able to handle a little longer, and so on. It took me a week to go from 20min to 2h. Everybody is different, some actually never really get 100% fine for 2-3h of flying, some are fine almost right away. Keep helicopters and low-level flying for the second week. VR makes a few things, like helicopter flying or landing very very easy. Even a CASE1 on the carrier is not hard with VR (a good solid pass is hard, but landing and catching a wire without bolter is not hard). Like others have said, once you get through the initial motion sickness period (which depends on each individual), I don't think there is any going back. It is just such a game-changer for flight sim... But yes, it adds up quickly. I upgraded GPU 1x per year since getting VR, before then it was every 3 years. I used to be happy with a 300€ GPU, now I have a 720€ GPU. It does take from your wallet, but it is just so amazing... I used to tell my wife "I'll play on the computer". Now I tell her "I'm flying my plane/helicopter". This is really the feeling I get.

This is a point where I can honestly say the G2 improved my experience immensely. Before (with Rift S) I had to use labels 100% of the time, otherwise I would shoot a friendly half the time. Now with the G2, due to the higher clarity/resolution, I am able to ID aircraft at engagement distances. Of course, it could still be better, but it is not impossible anymore. So IMHO it is not a VR problem, it depends on the headset resolution. Some problems (like spotting against the ground) are DCS core problems, not VR specific. Future technology will make it even easier still.

I seriously don't know how you can say that. I respect your opinion, and you have a right to think that ; I tried flat screen a few times, especially for some tests in mission building, and flying is just plain horrible in flatscreen. So I personally have a completely opposite opinion to yours - funny how mileage may vary from one person to the next! I used to play with a Rift S and thought spotting was difficult. With a G2 (100% SteamVR resolution, PD 1.0, high settings) I find spotting actually quite easy. From a distance you can usually see a group against a clear sky. It is harder against the ground, but that seems like a DCS limitation and not exclusive to VR. The identification is indeed not ideal, but much easier with a G2. As for WWII specifically, although VR forces you to flex your neck in a dogfight, it also provides a huge advantage I find: the capacity to gauge the fight in 3D, where your enemy is in space including gauging the distance to them, "feel" your aircraft more... all of which provide a solid advantage in a fight.

On that note, there is a slight possibility for improvement. I don't know the mission #, it is quite late in the campaign: night CAP on Alert5, taking off in Krymsk for an Su-24 attack and landing in Krasnodar. First: that mission is now very difficult due to the lighting system upgrade in 2.7, you can barely fly below the clouds (some bombers arrive very low). Without labels it would be totally unfeasible, I could barely spot the enemy planes. Considering the huge flash from the guns when firing and the lack of distance perception at night, it is quite tricky... Once returning to Krasnodar (TACAN + RWY heading on kneeboard chart did the trick to find the RWY threshold) I couldn't find the ATC frequency for Krasnodar. So the runway remained unlit, and I only found it in the dim landing light of the F-5 by luck (seriously, not your fault, but this landing light is crap!). For this specific mission, it would be good to have Krasnodar on the same frequency as all the rest (like Krymsk in all other missions). Or at least on a preset so it can be selected quickly. I tried presets 1 & 2, no joy. This way one could contact it and get the runway lights turned ON. Don't get me wrong, this mission was epic, I was very pleased to get 100 after the second try (apparently the first time it was not happy that I landed a burning jet in Krymsk ). Just thought I would offer some improvement ideas.

That is truly amazing news. Small islands seem to fit a slow helo like the UH-1H quite well. Looking forward to playing that campaign!

Viper all the way. CBU-97 x10, ripple 500ft apart. This thing brings the fear of the almighty to anything breathing on the ground. Well, anything that used to breathe anyway. The Hornet is capable, but slow as hell. When you’re in burner for over 2min and still cannot push past Mach 1,0 at altitude (with A/A ordinance, I’m no demo pilot), I’m sorry but you’ve lost me. I suspect many prefer the Hornet simply because the module itself is in much better shape content-wise…

I have had this issue repeatedly ; admittedly the problem was due to the fact that I trimmed the aircraft for a certain cruise speed, but once you dive the speed increases and I forget to re-trim for the higher speed. So indeed I need to have some pitch input on the stick, and easily it can be a little bit nose-down when aiming. Those snakeyes are extremely sensitive though... But I can only blame myself. A technique I can recommend when diving and rippling snakeyes is to aim carefully before the target, start a small pull on the stick then start the release in ripple, this way I am already putting nose-up inputs when I start the release and I don't have issues. If I aim straight at the target and start to release, there is always a chance I will command a very small nose-down input and impact a bomb.

I really appreciate the work done on those WWII assets. It is sorely missed in the base game. The 3D models I tested are also stunning and very high quality. Bug report: the Gneisenau & Scharnhorst are not attacked by AI planes when those planes are set to "attack group", the group consisting of the battleship + Schnellboats. They will attack all escorts then RTB once the escorts are sunk. Not a single bullet/rocket/bomb was fired by 3 AI squadrons at the battleships during multiple tries ; they don't actually see it as a target. Tried with AI P51 and Spitfires.

I don’t own it. I am competent in a Viper, Hornet, Huey, TigerII and Viggen, as well as P51. I own a few others but these are the ones I fly regularly. Wow! I think this kind of randomness is actually welcome. Real life doesn’t tell you how everything is going to pan out and you have to improvise.

I guess it is like trying to train a very old, deaf and stupid dog. Whatever you do, it is going to do what it wants in the end. Don't worry, in my opinion this kind of "variability" is welcome. When you are tasked with CAP, you are not necessarily going to engage fighters. Here I needed to protect the KW, and I did it, they are all fine and RTB. 2 idiot MiGs got shot down by our SAMs, doesn't matter ; the other enemy fighters turned around because they saw that they had opposition. I never chased them due to SAM-coverage. This is all very realistic. Even in a war, not every plane comes back to base with clean racks. As I said: nice change of pace. PS: if you ever need some help with beta testing some changes on a mission or two, don't hesitate to ask. I think many of us here understand the difficulty to create such complex missions, and it can help to have extra people testing and "breaking" the mission logic to see what happens.

I had to skip this mission, honestly after 8 tries. No issue so far in the campaign, but this one is difficult. The F4s are a bit late to attack, I find ; from the FAC saying turn 130 into the valley, I need to make a detour otherwise no missiles are incoming to the SAMs once I fly over the ridge. I have the same problem as others: ZSU + Iglas always manage to get me and even with rockets I never manage to take them all out. I tried different tactics, starting with bombs then focusing on long range lucky rocket shots... Never managed to make the required 2 runs and survive. AI wingmen are hopelessly useless in this scenario, they attract SAM fire, not AAA/Igla fire. They also jettison weapons as soon as they are engaged so they have no ordinance left for the targets. I really like what you tried to do with this mission, some of it is definitely not up to you. But in the end I find this mission very, very hard. I am not sure anything as suicidal as this would ever be attempted IRL. I know and understand that difficulty balance is extremely difficult in DCS due to the nature of the AI, I am just giving my honest opinion here. No judgement, and I appreciate to have the option to skip it. The next mission is a lot more chilled: the Hawk shoots down 2 MiGs before I reach my CAP station, then I flew at altitude listening to the AWACS, all enemy planes turned around and RTB after a while. I stayed on station for a while until I was bingo fuel, then RTB. Mission complete without firing a shot, just taking in the scenery. Now that's a change of pace, though I am curious if this is intended. I heard 2 calls from my wingmen that "the Mig is down!", but it was the Hawk that shot them, I was still circling WP1 waiting for all my wingmen at that point.

It's not though. If the Discord is maintained properly, you have a channel called #Announcements at the top, in there only the dev can post and they put their updates here. As a subscriber to the Discord server, you disable all notifications for all channels except for the one called #Announcements. That's it, done: no more memes and long discussions to sift through. Not saying there shouldn't be any news posted here ; there should be. But some of the assertions here about Discord seem to stem from inexperience or refusal to learn the platform, and they are not based in fact.

Thanks for the suggestion! First I saw "released 1964" when I googled it, so that explains why I haven't seen it. Then I saw some clips of the movie with actual Mosquitos in flight, which sounded like something I would enjoy watching. Now I just got to find it someplace, Netflix and Prime don't have it... For us French, the P-38 Lightning is so iconic because that is the plane French writer Antoine de Saint-Exupery died in (in 44 off the coast of Marseille).

We are each entitled to our opinion on this, but the Mosquito is not featured in a lot of WWII movies I have seen, or games I've played, in any prominent way (like the CFS series from MS back in the day). I am not particularly knowledgeable in WWII airplanes, and I had never heard of the Mosquito prior to ED saying they were making it. I have heard about the Spitfire, the Hurricane, the Typhoon and the Tempest, all of which I would rate as more "iconic" for British WW2 aircraft based on my own, personal, knowledge and experience. This is just my personal opinion based on my own limited knowledge of WWII, I just wanted to point out that, for someone who isn't british or especially a fan of everything WW2, the Mosquito might fly under the radar - pun intended. I know this can be surprising given it was around for a while and was produced in large numbers, and honestly I am surprised I hadn't heard about it sooner. Not to say I won't buy it, it's the first twin engine prop in the sim, I'll probably give it a go, it looks like fun. But everyone knows the P-38 Lightning, it has a unique shape, it flew all over the world and for a long time. Though I don't see why we cannot have one and the other, once the Mossie is out, ED will need a new project and seeing as they are looking at the Pacific Theater, it would also make a lot of sense.

You are right, of course. I guess I am used to ED's communication enough that I don't get my hopes up when they show us new toys (Gimme that Intruder! Gimme that Marianas map! Gimme gimme! ), but I also understand that this way of communicating does generate hype and anticipation, sometimes too much.

I don't understand the anticipation for a pre-purchase. What do you gain from buying the AH-64 now, or in june, or july? As was pointed out, the interesting date is the release of the module ; whether you paid for it 3 or 6 months prior doesn't really matter and shouldn't be anticipated so much that you actually create a topic for it. As we might see the AH-64 by the end of the year based on its announcement, but also maybe not because delays happen all the time, there is no hurry to pay for it now. Also, I think ED might focus on releasing the Mi-24, and not stealing its spotlight with a pre-purchase of AH-64. First get the Mi-24 out the door, get people flying in it... then start talking about AH-64 and pre-purchase. It would feel weird to have 2 pre-purchase of attack helicopters going on at the same time, when neither of them is available...

2.7 improved the Channel a lot for me. In 2.5.6 I could not use it in VR (2070 S + Reverb G2). It was way worse than Syria. I don't think it is the terrain, but mostly the detail density on the ground, as the worse FPS was over towns and cities. Going to 2.7 my FPS finally reached 35-45 fps at lower altitude, compared to 10-15 sometimes, without changing any setting. It is still the most demanding map in DCS for me, Syria still runs better, but it is at least playable and enjoyable. I am not sure how much ED can optimize it, vs. simply waiting for faster hardware. Now that I upgraded to a 3080 for example, I can fly on the Channel just fine on very high settings in VR. I do agree that the Channel is a bit too demanding, but the level of detail is also crazy-high. It might be a little bit ahead of the curve, as in calibrated to run well on 2022 hardware but released in 2020. But I want to highlight again that it had a huge step forward for me on 2.7, before changing my gfx card (as in: on the same hardware, it was running smoother on 2.7 without adjusting settings). Might be the game engine, might be the map being optimized, but I gotta give credit to ED there, as I was a disappointed customer of this map before, but not anymore. It is superb, and huge fun to fly in VR with warbirds.

Hi, I play with a Reverb G2. I fly the F-5E quite a lot recently, playing the great DLC campaign '79 black sea resolve from @SorelRo. I did notice that front visibility is not optimal in the HUD glass area, however I would not say it is too dark. It is simply dirty/prone to reflection, so depending on lighting conditions it can be a bit tricky to see from there. It seems actually quite realistic to me given the geometry of that area. I actually turn off the gun sight if I am not attacking, I find that it improves visibility. As you say, moving your head to the side of the HUD is also a solution. Maybe you are using a too-low gamma setting? I think mine is around 1.7-1.8. This is not specific to F-5E. I remember flying at night in the F-16C especially low to the ground, I had to move my head to the side (to avoid seing through the HUD) to see what was coming in front. The HUD usually is darker that looking straight out of the canopy: it is an additional piece of glass after all.

ED hasn't done an "II" trick for WW2 yet. The P51 is very cheap on sale, it flies great and it has multiple great DLC campaigns. It doesn't look as good as the P47 for sure, but not as bad as a Huey or F-5E either (at least to my eyes and in VR with a G2). Once you start flying it you quickly forget about graphic details tbh.

The newsletter is just a communication tool, doesn't mean the Stable release is around the corner. Between crashes (simply loading a second mission after the first one for example), certain issues like radar/missile performance (Amraams are particularly useless atm, but others as well), wobbly clouds (in 2D and VR, but worse in VR as far as I can tell)... There are a lot of things that have nothing to do in a stable release. I am confident they will get there, but I would be disappointed if they tried to rush the current build into stable with so many issues.

DCS is the base, yes, but not the forums. Forums are just one way that ED set up for them to communicate with their customers (ED is also present on Instagram, and maybe elsewhere as well). I do not know about third-party agreements they have with Razbam, Heatblur etc. but I doubt there is a requirement for the third party to also be present on the forums. It also depends on team size, RB has a dedicated community manager for example, something maybe Polychop cannot afford. Forums are an old way of communicating on the internet. There are many alternatives, most of which are preferred by younger generations ; I find it very reductive to consider that only forums are an acceptable way to communicate. I get it: it is the wish of some people here, this is fine, you are totally right to ask for what you want. But in the end PC is also totally in their right to do what they want and communicate how they want to. My issue is with those that claim that PC is not communicating at all, when in fact they are just not communicating the way you would want them to. There is a massive difference.