Search the Community

It's been a few months. Please at least add it to the game.

I used the search function, but for some reason, there hasn't been a wishlist post about it already. Clouds need to impair or block AIs vision and sensors (where applicable) Clouds need to impair or block IR missile sensors (to a realistic extend) This is of course extremely important for dogfighting, but it's equally so when dealing with IR SAMs. Currently IR SAMs are "incompatible" with low visibility A-G missions, because they can just snipe aircraft through thick clouds, giving the pilot no chance to react. This is in dire need for improvements. It should be high on ED's priority list imho.

The new Marianas WW2 map is looking superb. Will this map be upgraded to match its WW2 counterpart, terrain mesh, cliff textures, trees and the new ground clutter? The difference between the maps is very obvious in the examples below. Marianas WW2 Marianas Modern Marianas WW2 Marianas WW2 Modern

My opening statement: As it currently stands the pitch control and stick force model employed in the DCS: Mosquito model needs review for FFB users, particularly those with Microsoft Sidewinder Force Feedback 2. They currently face an unhappy compromise; a) either they adopt a linear (1:1) control curves which renders their stick so sensitive to pitch input that it's nearly impossible to fly with any realistic precision for formation or gunnery, or, b) with even a moderate curve (say 20 to 25, which works nicely on, for example, the P-51) we are subjected to a "trim trap"; this is where we are obliged to trim artificially (i.e. beyond the aircraft operating manual values) so nose heavy to actually reach trimmed flight that it puts us unrealistically close to a virtual threshold that ramps up the virtual stick force. This causes a sudden nose down tendency - tucking - with slight airspeed increases, which, given the very low level cruising and attack profiles often employed by real-life Mosquito crews, can be the cause of loss of controlled flight into terrain; the operator is either obliged to hastily add some nose up trim or apply large elevator control displacement to correct this tendency. If the virtual pilot has succeeded in avoided collecting the ground, sea, tree or structure that the Mossie had suddenly decided was to be their perfect burial plot, they now find themselves porpoising heavily, their airspeed having now dropped in the climb to below that virtual threshold that ramps up the virtual stick force. So now they're trimmed too tail heavy and are fighting to keep the aircraft's nose down. Having generally ballooned during this process, they descend to their correct cruise altitude, pick up a bit of speed on the way down and... pass that virtual threshold that ramps up the virtual stick force again, recommencing the entire ordeal. Trying to fly formation or engage ground targets under these flight characteristics is again, rendered unrealistically difficult. In either case, flying the Mosquito is not a lot of fun, and it makes me wary of using it, and therefore it seems like a waste of money in some regards. It then colours my keenness of purchasing further modules in the future in case a similar issue arises. Let me be clear; I am not criticizing Yo-yo's work on the flight model; there are characteristics and restrictions that affected the real aeroplane here that must be transmitted to the player; my argument is that FFB users - and in particular Microsoft Sidewinder Force Feedback 2 users - are being artificially handicapped based on their gaming hardware due to a mismatch between physical and virtual ergonomics and a trim/stick force model that does not seem to account for the displaced datum inherent to FFB joystick operation. I would like to propose discussion with ED on how we could help them figure out a way adjusting the DCS: Mosquitos trim/stick force model that would not render the aircraft so uncharacteristically unpleasant to fly for FFB users, but still reflect authentic flight characteristics for all users. Question to Yo-yo; 1. Why as an FFB user is the inherent ability of an FFB stick to provide sufficient stick force to reflect those felt in the real aircraft not being leveraged? Why are FFB users subjected to the same artifice implemented to provide a spring tensioned joystick user with some controllability penalty when reaching the required threshold, when the FFB motors could be driven to provide the requisite force to restrict speed and amplitude of stick displacement? If you are an FFB user who has these issues please like or thank this post. If you are an FFB user who has NOT had these issues please provide further dialogue so that we might pin-down where and why some of us are having these issues. If you do not use FFB and are about to tell me to go buy a non-FFB product, please save your breath; there is a reason I hang on to a 20 year-old stick; having flown real aircraft I find the varying stick forces and increased AoA buffet that some aircraft give you a necessary part of my simming experience and you are not going to persuade me otherwise. If you are going to suggest I spend $1000+ dollars on a new FFB device, then again, save your breath. That is not an affordable option for me.

Let's get the hype train going: :thumbup:

Engine covers,RBF ribbons and parking position, disappearing the pilot

The following features were mentioned in September of 2022 in the Viper Mini-Updates thread as priority items: Digital Maneuvering Cue (DMC) Loft indications (AIM-120 loft solution cue) IAM Loft Cue Adjusting AIFF and ROE Tree logic As far as I understand, these have not been implemented thus far. I understand current F16 development is focused on the Sniper ATP (and perhaps the DTC). But since these items were mentioned so long ago, I would like to ask where along the roadmap these features are planned to be implemented? Air-to-air datalinks and PRF tones were also listed in the aforementioned thread. However, these are on the roadmap for implementation after Early Access. For the features listed above this is not so clear. So clarification would be appreciated. That being said. After reading back through mini updates thread, I appreciate the work that has gone into the Viper. A lot of what was mentioned in the mini updates and roadmap (and more) has been implemented. I trust development will continue steadily and perhaps hopefully accelerate after some large development items have been addressed. Thanks.

Inspired by a conversation in the ED official discord. Wouldn't it be such a nice QoL thing to have the "Ready Pre-contact" radio command bindable just like the "Hornet ball" and "Tomcat ball" radio commands are for use with Supercarrier? Personally, I've gotten to a point with AAR that fiddling with the radio comm menu is not an issue since I can quickly let go of my throttle to press F2 on my keyboard. However I can see this QoL feature could not only be more immersive but also make it easy for people in general. As is the case with the ball call bindings that allow you to bind on your hotas or whatever, all without needing to have the radio menu open. Also please, let's not flood the topic with desires to murder the tanker crew

Nothing too urgent or essential (it's "just" graphics), but I was just wondering; has anything been said/shared about plans to make the AI CPG pilot model less static? I know there's still much to do and most of it is more important, but I noticed in Wags videos that the gunner doesn't move his head at all The AI pilot and RIO movements in the Tomcat make them so very much "alive". It would be awesome to see something similar in the Apache. Any future plans for this?

Will the window wipers be functional in bad weather?

I noticed in the HDU video, that there were no options for left/right/both eye in VR. I am left eye dominant, and have degraded eyesight in my right eye. When I view stereoscopic images it's fine, as my left eye compensates. However if I'm only getting the image to the right eye it won't. Every other module has this and it works. Is this function just not done yet, or do you intent to release like that? Thanks dC

Is this still in the plans?

With the last update hopefully adding mark points. Will you be able to look down at the ground with the HMCS and drop a mark point? And will that point be synced with things like that Tpod so it can CZ to that new point? This way if we're fighting in an area without a predetermined waypoint, it's much easier to just look outside and drop it down. Similar to how the A10 can. Thanks team.

Greetings, can we please get the option to choose left/Right eye rendering of the monacle for VR users like recently added to the KA-50, i have terrible vision in my right eye and it would be impossible to use sadly. Cheers.

What are the four modes for?

Hello All, I have a 3 flights departing carrier, two of F-14A, and one of F-18C. None of the flights are following departure rules as laid down in SuperCarrier and NATOPS. Case I Departure - 500 MSL/300 KIAS to 7nm then turn to intercept course heading Plus when I have an AI Wingman and we depart the Wingman will try and rejoin once wheels are up rather than outside the 7nm range as required? Many Thanks

The location is well inside the current map boundary. The Mosquito is next aircraft to be released (beta), yet no mention of this very obvious target? Or waiting for winter season version of the map? New Unique Objects England: Leeds Castle The Parish Church of All Saints Birchington St Augustine's Abbey, Ramsgate Holy Trinity Church, Broadstairs St Laurence's Church, Ramsgate Deal Castle St Mary The Virgin Church, Ashford South Foreland Lighthouse St Mary's Church, Dover Dover Town Hall St Mary and St Eanswythe's Church, Folkestone St Leonard's Church, Hythe Hastings Pier St Leonards Church, Deal New Unique Objects France: Château de Boulogne-sur-Mer Belfry Of Dunkirk Church of Saint-Éloi, Dunkirk Hôtel de ville de Dunkerque Column of the Grande Armée Fort d'Ambleteuse Église Saint-Pierre, Calais Town Hall, Calais Lighthouse, Calais Eglise Notre-Dame de Calais Saint-Omer Cathedral Basilica of Notre-Dame de Boulogne

Hi I recently started to play on MP server and often planes are not in he same flight. I ould like to know if it's possible to change datalink configuration to be on same flight than friends, to see them in blue on HSD and see what they are targetting ? thanks a lot

Any ideas on when the very important CCRP Release Angle Scale is going to be implemented? Is it planned, very odd if it were not? Please see shot I've grabbed off YouTube to avoid posting docs. The elements are: Range Scale Range to Target Carrot Maximum Release Range Tic Predicted Climb Angle at Weapon Release Level Release Range Tic Predicted Altitude at Release (Hundreds of feet) It would be great if this pretty basic addition was made to CCRP. Thanks.

Displaying Air to Air target locator lines. Those AATLL will be either plain or dashed according to which sensor is locked on the air-to-air target. Either FCR or TGP. e.g FCR Toi with Uncaged Correlated AIM-9 one arrow point the target. TGP Tracking while SOI two head arrow point the target.

Don't tell anyone, but I do a lot of manual reading at work. Because that I use the "Documentation" section of the website a lot. The last English version of the Viper manual on the website is right around 8 months old. In that time we've gotten additions like Ground Radar, HTS, ECM, Data Link updates, and so on. I would really like to RTFM! Is there any ETA on when we could expect an update?

Can we exepect this to be implemented for each time you get an STT lock given the voice file is already implemented and is played while performing the respective system test?

Hello, Will we ever be able to control SAM batteries like the KUB, BUK etc. from first person? This option would be amazing to have. Thanks in advance.

I would love to see the ability to put airshow smoke on the viper, like on the hornet. I know there are mods for it, but AFAIK they break the IC.

As I am sure this is small potatoes, I have to point this out. The Flight Deck Directors (Yellow Shirts) currently have a big UI labeled on the back of their cranials (flight deck helmet). The UI stands for 'under instruction' or unqualified person which would require another director (qualified) standing next to them. I know that it is small beans in the grand scheme of things, but I took a look at the screenshots of the up-and-coming improvements for the SC and the UI is still there. I know that you guys at ED have a lot going on and I appreciate it. Just whenever you can, can these be removed in the future? Thank you for all that you do.