Qiou87

I don't think anyone was complaining about damage to non-protected ships. Ships with CWIS and anti-aircraft missiles, like AEGIS cruisers and destroyers or their russian counterparts, are impossible to get close to for gun runs. If you throw a nice coordinated attack with long-range missiles from multiple azimuts, you can overwhelm their defences. The complaint is that, if you do that, and somehow one or two missiles get through, they barely make a dent into the ship rendering the whole thing pretty pointless. Same for bombs: either you are on top of a defenseless ship to be able to lase continously, or the ship has to be stationary for a JSOW to make the hit. Works on cargos and subs, but not on destroyers and cruisers (or worse, carriers).

Fair point, but is there a possibility to consider this a "temporary" fix until the DM for ships arrives? I know the work you are doing on the DM is taking time and I respect that. I think ED did a fantastic job on the WW2 DM and I enjoy it immensely. But let's be fair: DM for ships is probably quite a ways off. If I remember well, the next big milestone for the new DM is jets, and there is a fair few of them to go through... In the meantime, the Viggen can do actual anti-ship missions without feeling like you are throwing rotten fruits at a brick wall. For sure, the missile damage output is probably "cheated", but at least they work for now. Is there a chance to have a similar "quick fix" by increasing the damage output of the Harpoon, until such a time when the DM is finished? I also want to point out that the next major map release from ED is the Marianas, according to the newsletters, which has nice little islands but a huge ocean as well. Considering ships will play a huge role on that map, ED should consider to make anti-ship warfare at least feasible. Even if that means giving the Harpoon a too high damage output that, later, needs to be reverted back once the ship DM is upgraded.

Yes, basically. You can have both at the same time (if you have enough disk space), or you can switch between release and open beta. Two ways to do it: command prompt or this handy piece of software. Using release or OB is not a choice, you don't have to be on one side or the other. If OB is not buggy and provides updates that you don't want to wait for (like, hmm, I don't know... clouds? ), you can use it, if a new OB-update introduces game-breaking bugs you can revert to release... No reason to be anxious about it. @cfrag: that's an excellent point. I think the only problem is going to be the new cloud preset system, probably any mission created before 2.7 will get the same preset like "clear sky" and if you wish to have something else, you might have to make a manual edit. But this deserves official clarification, for certain ; so many user-made missions out there...

No, complete silence. I also did not get any reply from the ATC on channel D when coming in to land. Basically, I was in a bubble. This is the first mission where this happens to me, I play 5x per week, SP/MP, different missions... never had this before. I triple-checked that the radio was on, also checked my bindings, but I just had no communication ability. I could hear messages on each channel, but not transmit (I could select a message like "Engage bandits" and I would hear it ingame, but no answer). Could be something weird with DCS code, as long as it doesn't happen in every mission I'm fine. As I said, I still had a memorable time in that mission and enjoyed myself.

Now that's a very sexy idea! Looking forward to it!

Hi @Reflected, I played this mission twice (first time I got scorched by the Bf109's) and both times my team mates are not responding. I am using real coms. I tried all 4 com channels, asking to rejoin then to engage bandits, never received the response on any channels A to D (I tried each channel in sequence, waiting 20sec for a response before trying the next channel). On channel A I could hear some automatic coms (like "Springfield 32 visual on AAA, 168 at 4"). However never got a response. The AI team mates were not engaging, they were flying behind me (approx. 1km behind). The 2 other squads are behaving normally, keeping formation with the B-17s then engaging the 109's later. Everything else in the mission worked as intended, and I had a great time especially rejoining on the massive fleet of B-17s and flying among them into le Havre (managed to down a couple 109's on my second playthrough, which made me super proud considering my poor airmanship in the P-51). Just this minor problem of AI team mates not responding and not engaging.

I agree with some of that, sure. However most modules in DCS are in early access, even the 4-year-old Viggen, and they still have campaigns included. An "early" early access, something like Hornet or Viper at launch? Sure, too many things will change. However a "late" early access, where what is added is secondary, i.e. it does not add major capabilities to the airframe and just expands or corrects existing one? At that point in time, there is no reason NOT to make a campaign for the module. The Hornet campaign was probably made too early in the module's development. I hope they also wait a little bit for the Hind before making the campaign, at least until most of the armament and systems are in working order. @Jumbik for sure the Afghan map will help our Hind shine, but given we haven't seen anything about it in a while, when can it be released? And then someone would have to make the campaign on the new map, which takes at least 6 months optimistically... It seems Ugra is pretty busy with Syria. No matter, I think our existing map pool (Syria especially) can provide excellent fun in the Hind. I think realistic scenarios, even if not totally historical (more like "what if") are possible with what we already have, meaning we can play them without waiting for hypothetical releases of further modules.

Not to mention: how many SME's are out there to provide actual feedback about the Comanche? Look at the Apache, despite having quite a lot of info (not as much as Mi-24 acc. to Wags, but still) ED asked for SME's to make sure they can provide a true-to-life replication of the Apache flight characteristics. How do you provide the same level of fidelity with a prototype helicopter that wasn't finalized in any way, and where only a handful of people flew it IRL?

It could be. However let us not fool ourselves: ED has not put any emphasis on single player campaigns so far on many of their modules, they seem to understand that it is a requirement to have at least one, but they don't really try to make it a benchmark in terms of storytelling, exploiting the capabilities of the module, etc. Compared to what some third parties (Heatblur and Razbam come to mind based on the modules I own), and of course to DLC campaigns, ED so far has not really pushed the envelope in terms of SP content for their modules. They also have some constraints (like only using one paid module per campaign, so no SC for a free Hornet campaign for example, and only on the free map(s) ) but I still feel like they could do a little bit more, just looking at the Viggen campaigns by Heatblur for example, or the M2000C Caucasus campaign, or Serpent's Head 2 - campaigns that are also only using one paid module but much more immersive in the story. And yes, I think this is a shame ; SP content is great when it is well made, even when one enjoys multiplayer (I do, at least PVE) on a regular basis, one can also enjoy a good story-driven campaign. I have limited hopes for the Hind campaign, I am grateful that it will exist, but given the fact it has to be on the Caucasus map (ugliest map of them all when flying low in a helo) and will probably not be very long as well... Let's just say I will also eagerly look at what the talented campaign creators can do with the Hind in Syria, even as DLC.

I think the joke is that a daytime-only land-based attack helicopter would be pretty pointless on a map with 99% ocean and a few small specks of land. Once you flew around those islands a couple of times there wouldn’t be much to do. It cannot do ASM, or anti ship, or any of that stuff you probably need to make interesting missions in the Marianas map.

Could be, but that would be a shame. A dynamic campaign is more of a strategy game ; flying the mission is only a fraction of the fun, for some it might not even be the most important part. In comparison, a SP campaign can teach you about the aircraft, and also tell you a story. Great examples of that are the campaign from BD for the M2000C (the first one in Georgia), or Raven One, etc. Some of these campaigns do not require you to know everything about the aircraft and its systems to have fun ; they will provide a practical way for you to learn, even if a manual and some prior training are usually helpful. None of that applies to a dynamic campaign where you are focused on advancing the strategic picture, and therefore you might want to be already a good performer in your aircraft before using it in this game mode. You might also select the aircraft you fly as a tool to accomplish an objective (like "destroy this SAM"), not because this is the aircraft that you really want to fly or the one that is the most fun. So yeah, both great fun ways to play in SP, but campaigns like we have and dynamic campaigns are totally different, and one should not eclipse the other. We still deserve a nice SP campaign for the Hind, even if it is 6-8 missions, as long as they are fun, engaging and the story is at least interesting to follow. I mean this helo has been in all kinds of conflicts, there is plenty of history to draw from.

The "official" Hornet campaign is a complete joke, compared to even free user-made campaigns... and the jet is out of EA with 2.7 in a couple of weeks - I am not sure a new campaign is coming. Luckily now we have plenty of great DLC choices, but compared to third-party modules with 1, 2 or 3 quality campaigns included, ED modules are very poor in the single-player department. So I am happy to see that they will include a campaign for the Hind, I just hope it is better than that of the Hornet...

Agreed about the difference in visibility, might make some fights totally unfair against AI. Clouds will be synced in MP from the start, that was announced a while back. So at least in MP there won’t be any cheating, if your in the clouds nobody can visually see you.

Ah ok, didn't know that. Based on Wags' video I thought it was a similar process, acquire the target with the radar then lock it in the pod to have a secondary optical track. In that case if the radar track is lost (or radar turned off) the pod is still locked onto the target, I was curious if it was still possible to fire Fox3 in that instance.

I don't see how this cannot be tested right now with Litening. For the Fox2 you are right, same principle as when shooting with HMCS over the shoulder where your radar cannot see. But for Fox3, that is an interesting question. Again, can be tested right now, no need to wait for ATFLIR since you can already lock targets with the Litening pod.

YouTube is full of these videos, most of them are totally useless and pointless, they are mostly made so people comment "yeah my country buys this one so it's the best". Until you start to consider the military doctrine, how the jets are going to be used, what the country can dedicate to train its pilots and manage at least 180 hours of flight per year, what other aircraft this jet has to operate with, what the missions are... any comparison based on public spec sheets are totally useless imho. Most people agree that official spec sheets are bogus anyway, yet suddenly they are enough to say that one jet is "better" than another? Give me a break. Considering it's been over a century since humanity started to make combat planes, I certainly hope we know how to make a plane "fly extremely good". What's really interesting, what makes them 5th gen, we have only partial and sometimes voluntarily misleading information about.

You find terrain/ground boring even at 500m, or 5m altitude? And in helicopters? Even Caucasus, once in the mountains, is fun to fly. And the cities of PG, and the hills of Syria, all of this is a lot more fun than the sea. Tomcat and Flanker in blue water ops don't just need to fly in a straight line, they need to return and have fuel for multiple trap attempts and emergency refueling because there is no divert airfield. You cannot consider only straight-line endurance. I am not here to argue about exact numbers, I just know that airplane endurance is always a big issue for blue water ops. I respectfully disagree with you on ship defence: if you are speaking about ship fleets fighting each other, and given the fact we are in DCS, you are using at least one carrier on each side with their battlegroup. I don't think any ship-born plane (again, since you want a map without land, you cannot get land-based planes to help) can come in sufficient numbers to defeat a supercarrier + 1 Ticonderoga + 4 or 5 Burke destroyers, as it is the typical battlegroup, in battle formation. And even if one missile is coming through, which is possible in a great planned saturation attack, the current damage model will give 2% damage per missile to the carrier and nothing will happen. I don't consider this to be "enough to start missions between fleets". I don't really understand why the Marianas map is not satisfactory for you though ; it is coming out soon, it will have a very large water area... The only thing it has, that this idea doesn't have, is a few specks of land just so land-based aircraft and helos can join, making this a much more usable map (in terms of the quantity of scenarios you can run on it). But nothing prevents you from only using the sea portion if you want that for your scenario.

Stop flying at Angels 30 and suddenly it's not boring. Last night I spent 2h under 100m altitude in a Viggen with 4 mates, just to shoot a couple Mavs each time before RTB, it was not boring at all. But who flies just above the waves when there is no land for hundreds of miles? No terrain to hide you and fuel consumption is a huge issue in blue water ops. If your map doesn't have islands, only carrier planes can be used. Right now in DCS that means Tomcat, Hornet, Harrier and Su-33, all of which will prefer to fly high - above any nice-looking clouds - if you want to fly more than 30min. All those beautiful pictures apply if you are below the cloud layer, as soon as you are over it it is a much more boring sight. And don't get me started on the current state of anti-ship warfare in DCS, with the "health bar" damage model it is very depressing to go hunting for ships with harpoons. Sure, we have SEA radars and all, but when you need 50 harpoons to destroy a ship it is just not fun. The only plane that can really damage ships now is the Viggen because HB "cheated" with its missile damage but it couldn't be used on a blue map. I think the reality is, DCS is no where near where it needs to be to make such a map fun to play for more than a very limited number of people. We need more carriers, more boats that can also be controlled by humans, more carrier planes and helicopters with more varied capabilities... Since Marianas is basically going to be that (a large chunk of water + a few small islands), it can be a transition. It doesn't restrict the map to carrier planes, yet it has so much water that carrier ops are basically a must for any scenario. It should give DCS time to grow and add a lot of what is currently missing (damage modeling of ships, assets & flyable modules) to make a blue water map viable.

They do have a legal entity there, that's what's on the website under "legal info": Eagle Dynamics SA Route de la Glâne 107 Villars-sur-Glâne, 1752 Switzerland Seems to be just an office in some office complex, so watch out for civilian casualties. Devs are located in Russia and Belarus AFAIK. In the end though, between the lack of historical conflict (mountains are natural barriers, there usually isn't any huge conflict in a mountain range), the huge population centers and the size of this map, I don't think it would ever get made. I'd love to fly through Switzerland in DCS, but for now it has to be in some other civilian sim.

For those here that are a bit restless, PC seems to be a bit more active on FB. Maybe they don't like to use the forums here, but there seem to be some screens and an occasional post on their official page. As they describe it on their page, they are just a team of 3 guys, and between this project and their lives, also given the pandemic, maybe there simply isn't time to also feed the community here?

One big improvement would be to see the same cloud in both eyes at the same time. Right now when you turn your head, some clouds pop in/out of existence in each eye, which makes small "cotton" clouds very displeasing to watch. I'll be happy with just that fixed.

Ok, that's it, Martin-Marietta X24A confirmed as the next full fidelity module from ED (a.k.a. "the Flying Potato"). Just joking of course. Great to see that ED is on track for those engine improvements and thanks for keeping us in the loop, even if it is to say that work continues as planned. And as a G2 user yourself @BIGNEWY I am sure you are as eager as the rest of us to feed those two hungry 2160x2160 panels with a lot of flying sim goodness @90Hz (yes, I am a dreamer).

You can only switch through the settings on standalone as you mention. I do agree that a way to switch before launching the game would be a big improvement when using the ME. For the Oculus, uninstall the software and go to services.msc to make sure that no oculus service is running in the background. You only need SteamVR and SteamVR for WMR to run your G2.

Not to mention real time hardware accelerated ray tracing is in its infancy, and the performance penalty is huge. RT is also just starting to be an open standard and not a vendor-specific feature... I think we are still a few years away from RT being a must-have feature. Right now it’s a nice-to-have eye-candy that’s mostly reserved for AAA big budget games, not for serious sims. Great to see those news about Mosquito and Hind there. I am genuinely excited about both those modules.

I think ED is refining their SDK to make maps further and further as time goes on ; you can clearly see it going from Caucasus to Persian Gulf for example (cities, lights, coastlines...). It goes a step further in Syria where ground/airport details go further still, or in the Channel where cities are incredibly detailed and coastlines too. The next one to showcase the best technology ED has to offer for terrain will be Marianas, albeit on a very small scale (these islands are tiny). I could not find a source but my understanding was that Syria and the Channel were already built using a more advanced version of their SDK. On the opposite, Caucasus was built using an older version and this is the reason we are not getting the same improvements to lighting that came with 2.5.6 on this map (or in Nevada), compared to PG or Syria.