Qiou87

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.

Thanks for your explanations and the time you took to answer me. I have no idea how complex it can be to create something like this in the ME - to be honest I have 1-2 hours every evening to play, so I fly instead of creating missions. I have tremendous respect for those who do what you do and I am happy to support that and buy compaign DLC. I can only imagine how complex it is to make the AI do what you want it to. I agree with you, more assets and modules are needed to flesh out the 60's and 70's to make more credible scenarios. This is a good period for aviation, fast jets are already there but the systems are still quite easy/rudimentary: it doesn't take hours to learn MFD pages and TPOD operation when there is none of those.

I am also enjoying this campaign a lot. Thanks @SorelRo, there isn't much quality DLC for the F-5E and this is a shame: it is a simple, yet rewarding aircraft to fly. I am having a really good time in this plane thanks to you, the missions have great variety and require different skills. I can recommend this campaign to anyone who owns this great little plane. If I may offer some suggestion for future improvement in your next campaign: I feel like Krymsk is a bit empty and generally, the first few missions (I have done up to M07 so far) give me the feeling that I am mostly fighting alone (with my stupid AI wingman, lol). Outside of the second ship escort mission, there hasn't been a lot of AI flights to accompany me and make me feel like I am part of a war, even regional. The airport itself is always empty when I taxi back to the parking after landing. For example in the last mission I flew, attacking the SA-3, it is written in the brief that F-4s will attack the SA-6 after me. It would have been cool, on the way home, to see them pass in the sky above me, and to hear them engage the SA-6 on the radio - just a couple of lines, but I would have known that they were there and that it was a coordinated attack. I know it would have a small impact on performance but I think modern PCs can handle it, and some ground traffic / other AI flights would bring a lot of immersion. I want to thank you for the custom kneeboard cards, they are very helpful to navigate. Do you know if there is any way to put them in a different order though? When I go "next page", I have to go through all airport charts - not practical. If I go "previous page", I have to go through all the auto-generated cards of the waypoints before, finally, I reach your kneeboard cards. I am just curious if it would be possible to have yours, as I use them for every flight (the ones showing a detailed map with direction and distance to next waypoint).

Forums aren't for everyone. If we follow you logic of "if you do one, why not the other" to the extreme, then why not twitch, instagram, facebook and twitter? And then they spend hours and hours on it. If they only have time for Discord, better that they stick with that and dedicate at least some time for it. If they start to split their time between life stuff, actual module development, and multiple social platforms, it will start to be unmanageable. I get that some people do not like to move to other platforms. I fly with some people who are over 70 and they had a rough time when we moved our squadron to Discord - but in the end with some patience they managed just fine. Not saying this is anyone's case here, just saying I understand feeling comfortable with what you know. But in the end we have no control over the guys at PC, and just because they don't take time to show up on this forum, doesn't mean they don't care about the community, stopped the development of the KW or any of that.

Hi, Your question is not very clear. However I think I understand it: you own the Channel, you fly only jets, and you wonder if buying the Normandy map is a good move. I would say no. Actually, I would also say the Channel map was not for you: way too small for jets, most airfields have unpaved runways, the period is not correct, no one is going to make a campaign for jets on this map or run it for MP with jets due to the small size... So it is almost useless for jets. Both Normandy and the Channel are really targeted at warbirds and can be used for helicopters as well. If both are not your thing, I don't think you should bother purchasing them.

Played it last night a bit differently that instructed : heading 180 at Mach 0.9 because of the drop tanks (gotta drop them when you hit the bandits, so they might as well be empty), I saw them head on based on AWACS calls (my own radar seems blind, like yours). The 21s split and headed for me so I knew what the bombers were, I went straight for them at full burner dropping the tanks (around Mach 1.2-1.3). I dropped flares as the 21s past me, asked my wingmen to attack them. Since I was so fast the 21s couldn't catch me. I caught the bombers, 2 IRs and 2 guns kills and mission was a success. The enemy planes were just over the cloud layer for me, and in VR they were OK to spot (black dots on white clouds). I also kept the AWACS calls to maintain some SA.

Persian Gulf is finished as far as ED said. The only changes now will be bug fixes. Syria is a work in progress. Ugra Media is still working to add airfields, the island of Cyprus and the south coast of Turkey. They are working hard and fast but I would not think it will be "feature complete" until the end of the year, optimistically. If you are worried that your work would be changed or destroyed by map changes, 100% go for PG. It is the more mature environment. Nevertheless, each map has different strengths. PG has skyscrapers, two very clearly defined sides and a nice chunk of water with small islands in between. Syria has a bit of water to the west but is mostly about a ground war between small neighboring nations (small compared to the size of the PG map, this is not a judgment about the real-life countries represented), as most countries on Syria map do not have 100% of their country represented - only Lebanon AFAIK. For carrier ops (Hornet ou Harrier) the PG map offers much more possibilities for now (until Cyprus arrives). For helicopters and low-level aircraft, the Syria map has an unprecedented level of ground detail and terrain variety (mountains, hills, desert, flats, plateau...) that make it a lot more enjoyable to fly than the - mostly - boring PG map. As for your comment regarding NTTR: it is an older map (doesn't look as good as PG or Syria), it doesn't have a sea for carrier ops, and this is only a training ground for simulated battles - no real life air war occurred in Nevada. Considering the carrier-based Hornet is the most popular module in DCS, no wonder this map is the least favorite of all. It is also extremely unbalanced with most of the interesting landmarks and cities down south and only desert and hills up north.

I meant as a FC3 module, sorry, that wasn't clear. Many people especially in SP like to take their time learning the systems. FC3-level is mostly about combat performance, like having a powerful radar and missiles, so is more targeted at PVP customers. If there is ever a full fidelity Su-30 I would be all over that.

FC3 level module = 15$ Full fidelity module = 80$ (based on current prices on ED's shop) Considering the amount of work a "simple" FC3 level aircraft represents, I am not sure it is a very profitable project for a developer. Of course systems are easier but you still need most things to actually work, you still have to make a full external and internal 3D model, texturing etc. and the flight model is probably not that much easier as well. Considering Su-30 is a 2-seater, you also still have that issue to deal with as well, being multicrew support and Jester-type AI for single players. This is speculation on my part but I would guess that at this point, any third party that does not have enough access to material for a full fidelity module is better off doing something else, instead of spending a lot of time just to sell a 15$ module. (Edit: if it were only FC3) Being the best redfor module, it would sell relatively well especially for online PVP enthousiasts, but I am not sure single-player only customers would find it so appealing.

Hi, As I think this campaign doesn't get enough praise I thought I would just give a short feedback here. I hope it can help someone who is undecided about purchasing it. This is not a heavily scripted, story-driven campaign. The goal here is to put you in the shoes of a WW2 pilot after the Normandy landings. You take off and land always from the same airfield near Caen. Some missions are repetitive, like in real life ; there are many "armed recce" where you chose what you do based on a simple briefing (follow that route, engage convoys...). There is not a lot of hand-holding and this is a positive I think. You need to make decisions to engage or not, to RTB or to push ahead... There is a lot of flexibility to progress. As long as you survive a certain amount of time, the mission is considered a success. You can replay the mission or progress if you are not happy, but you will not get "stuck" on a mission just because you forgot to kill one unit or you landed in a field near allied troops after taking damage. But if you eject over enemy territory, it is up to you to say "I failed" and try again - the campaign doesn't force you to do it. There are usually some surprises thrown in there, flak you didn't expect in an area, enemy fighters showing up, etc. This is all great and helps to give this a more authentic vibe. Same for bombardments and bomber raids on Caen happening sometimes. Despite this, performance was very smooth for me, and I never experienced any issue. Great job on the technical side. I also enjoyed the 2.7 new clouds/new lighting to give a more atmospheric feel to the campaign, and to also force me to fly into danger sometimes (3000ft ceiling when you are doing navigation based on visual cues means you cannot climb out of AAA range). My only point for improvement would be that I do not like the PDF briefings. I play in VR, so launching the mission, alt-tab to my desktop to check out the PDF file somewhere in a sub-sub-sub folder, with the headset over my head... I much prefer to have the briefing in the game. The PDFs are high quality, no question, but they are not as convenient and I would prefer to have the option for in-game briefing as well. Thank you @Bunyap for this campaign, you did a great job. The 2.7 magnifies the Normandy landscape and amplifies the atmosphere of the war, which you recreated so nicely. I had a lot of fun.

Might be my own misunderstanding of your post, but the one you seem to be eager to get is the F1BE (B is for "Biplace", or Two-Seater - the E in all versions done by Aerges is probably for "Espagne", or Spain in French). The F1EE is a more advanced CE, able to air refuel for example, and more advanced air-ground capabilities. I totally agree with what you are saying: I hope we can get the BE version soon after the CE, so that we can use the jet in a multiplayer training role (one teacher, one new pilot) and get people up to speed quicker. It is definitely more fun to learn with other people, and not everyone learns in the same way - for those that are "book-smart", reading manuals works probably, but what about those who learn by doing? The two-seater is perfect for that. And it is much easier when done from the same airframe. Trainer aircraft teach you how to fly, how to navigate... but how to fight with the aircraft cannot really be done from a different type with different radar, weapon suite etc. The addition of the BE to the F1 module is really, really great and one of its standout features. I also hope that it will come soon.

The Channel map is not big enough for jets anyway. The Normandy map is OK, still quite small, but it depends what you like to do I guess. It has a nice ground detail compared to Caucasus. For older, slower jets like Mig15, F-5E and such you can probably have some fun. Newer supersonic jets still are more suited for large maps like PG or Syria. The Channel is almost there as far as content go. I can also say that I was very hard about its performance in VR (it was unflyable for me in 2.5.6), and now it seems to be actually better and enjoyable in 2.7 (open beta). Definitely one of the more GPU-intensive maps for my system, but it is also the best looking from low altitude. At least now I get min 30fps, not 5fps like before. Normandy is very enjoyable with WWII warbirds, and if you haven't, I encourage you to try the TF-51 (free) to see how they feel. The new clouds, propeller technology, damage model and visual explosion/fire effects all come together in 2.7 to give a great warbird experience. Many great DLC campaigns use the Normandy map as well.

Another workaround I use: I move my jet out of the way so at least one AI aircraft can taxi to the cat (cat1 in my case). Once they are getting hooked I stay put on cat2 and wait around the blast deflector. Once the AI is taking off, the guys on cat2 will motion for me to move and I can get launched normally. This is irrespective of other AI flights on the deck (sometimes others have spawned, sometimes they spawn after I start moving...). In Liberation I am launching the E-2C first, so a lone plane. Once that E-2C gets launched everyone else, including me, can launch normally. It is still not normal behavior but you only lose a minute or two until that first AI aircraft takes off.

I mean I am all for expanding what we can do in DCS ; some people enjoy playing the ATC, so why not the LSO? But like you, I am a virtual pilot, and I bought the SC to launch my Hornet in the most immersive way possible. I don't care about the rest so much. The ready room will depend on compatibility for adoption ; I fly with ~20-30 guys, half of them own the SC, so if the Ready room is accessible to all maybe we will use it - if we can easily integrate a couple of pictures as briefing material, if it takes 30min to set it up each time forget about it. If everyone has to own the SC, its use will be limited to Hornet/Tomcat squadrons, and more relaxed/multiplane groups won't use it. I respect that some do care about the new features like hangars and airboss and such, and I respect that ED is trying to add variety and depth to air-naval operations - this is great. But this should absolutely not come at the cost of basic functionality ; bugs are one thing, frustrating but fixable, but I am 100% with you: glow sticks, taxi & other "on the deck" features should absolutely come first.

Hangars and stuff like that are all on the roadmap. So is ground crew taxiing you to the cat, which seems like a must-have if you want to spawn 16 or more Hornets in multiplayer. With AI as well, I already see AIs stuck together with 3-4 planes on the deck, so 16 launching properly seems like a dream at the moment. Let's be optimistic for today's announced OB patch: it will fix the launching problems and we will be able to enjoy the SC again! Yeah! *I hope*

How many modules are actually in release state though? Multiplayer servers run on Open Beta. Probably half the modules, and almost all modern ones, are in Early Access (even 4-year-old Viggen). So waiting for a released module is not really in the DCS culture, and I don't think that's what ED wants from their customers (hello pre-order 6 months before early access release). I don't think ranting solves anything. However I do agree with some points in the OP ; progress has been dead-slow on the SC, and to find it bugged in 2.7OB when it was fine in 2.5.6 and still bugged after a month is quite baffling. I would also like to add that night shots are still a pain because the deck crew still isn't using glowsticks. You have to do the shooting sequence from memory because the shooter is invisible at night. It was reported and asked for since the initial release, we are one year later, still no glow stick. I find this to be a higher priority than a ready room or a hangar, which are "nice to have". Being able to use the Supercarrier 24/7 to take off is kind of the basic thing, yet after a year...nothing changed.

You are mixing up confirmed information with supposition. PS said they were trying to get the KW out in 2020, they didn't commit to a release date. Later they said "sorry, not going to happen". They never said it was pushed to Q4 2021, again this is speculation on your part. It's funny: when a dev doesn't give an estimated date, they get flamed, when they give one and miss it because stuff happens in software development (especially something as complex as flight sim), they get flamed again. Finally ED is not planning the release of the KW based on their own modules (AH-64 and Mi24) coming out this year. PS is a third-party, when the module is done from their side (which includes validation from Bell as far as they told us), only then do they send it to ED for approval & testing. Once that phase is completed the module can be released based on the general DCS patch schedule (meaning if the module is ready but the ED team is busy ironing out bugs in open beta to push it into stable, the release can be delayed 1-2 months), but before that point ED does not have a lot of influence over the release schedule. The work has to be done by PS, sometimes in conjuncture with ED when they need to use certain toolkits provided by ED as part of the DCS core.

There is already a fair few topics about the new water rendering. It is not specific to WWII. It is normal not to see waves from high altitude, unless there is a very strong wind (8 or higher). The color is indeed darker ; some don't like it, others defend it. Many things influence the color of the sea in real life, the light & the sky are major elements, the temperature, the depth, the sea floor, sediments in the water... I am glad the water isn't this "happy blue" anymore. I'm sure it can and will be refined further though.

Thanks for your confirmation. Great feature indeed, as far as I knew water landing was not possible in DCS. Only possible in WWII planes for now due to the new damage model?

Hi, In 2.7 OB, I saw the AI (Ju-88) ditch into the sea and survive for the first time yesterday. In the Channel map quick mission (something about escorting merchant ships in a P-51D Mustang), I spawned 3x Bf-109 and 3x Ju-88. One of the Ju-88 was damaged, went down low over the water and ditched. There was a nice splash effect (I was circling to make sure he died). The plane was not dead (visible in F10 view + when cycling F2). He went low and slow to make a smooth touchdown, as if the ditching was intentional. Later in the same mission, a Bf-109 damaged by flak went over the coast and crash landed into a field/forest. Same thing: the plane was not dead, only damaged. I actually took a couple of straffing runs at him just to make sure, and yes, it could be damaged further. I don't remember this being a feature, did I just miss it? Granted I haven't played thousands of hours in WWII, but in my experience damaged AI planes either RTB, eject or simply crash. Ditching and crash-landing is news to me (and kind of awesome). PS: sorry for the lack of a track file, I forgot to save it and it was 30min long, didn't think it was necessary as I wasn't sure if it was a feature or bug).

I tested last night with a friend flying formation through a cloud. Density seems to be gradual, so on the outer layer of the cloud I was progressively losing visual on him. I spotted him only through his blinking position light from 100m away once we were in the thicker part of the cloud. He lit the burner and I could see it as well. I haven’t tried shooting IR missiles at someone entering a cloud but it should lose track. Big exception if the burner is on, which will force pilots to be really disciplined... entering a cloud without turning off the burner is not enough in many instances, either for visual as well as - probably - IR engagement.

Change presets. I tried "Broken 7" yesterday, and whilst the bottom is mostly flat, the top is definitely not - and there is a second, much more broken, layer on top around 30,000ft. Around 15,000ft you get to weave you way through different heights of clouds with the bottom layer underneath. No cumulonimbus yet, but it is not as flat as you describe. The quality question seems to be in 2D as well ; a friend who is in the closed beta and plays with them for a few weeks already told me he keeps the clouds on low as he cannot see the difference. The jittering/wobbling is the most annoying at the moment. I cannot say I am complaining too much about any kind of detail/sharpness of the clouds, to me they are already miles ahead of anything we had before in DCS. I am there for the gameplay they will allow, hiding in clouds, sync in MP, having to stay above a specific "hole" in the clouds to lase a target, sensors blocked...

IR will be blocked by dense clouds, so unless you fly burner on in a small cloud the seeker should lose you. However radar can see through most clouds, depending on their density as well. Storm clouds will block radar, but we won't have those for now. There are a lot of factors like humidity & temperature which can have an effect on sensors and detection ranges... All of which is to say that it makes air-to-air warfare immensely more interesting for us simmers. Something to look forward to once they implement it later on.

That's great news! Thanks a lot, I look forward to continue this campaign amongst new clouds.

Did you try to increase your GAMMA setting for this mission? It can easily turn things from very dark to very bright, and help a lot if your current setting is too dark.