Air Combat Sim with NineLine - post your questions here

baltic_dragon · March 6, 2021

Hey guys,

We'll soon be recording next episode of the Air Combat Sim podcast, and this time we're inviting NineLine to talk about You - the DCS community. Please post any questions you might have below by Friday, 12 March. And if you haven't done so already, check out the show on your usual podcast provider (or here). You can also join our Discord channel. Looking forward to hearing from you!

IkarusC42B Pilot · March 7, 2021

What happened with the plans about m1a2 sep since Matt posted that thread in 2014 asking about info?

StevanJ · March 7, 2021

Can we have some kind of feedback in regards to VR touch control- and flying with them in the game, im aware the FA18, F16, among others are enabled, but I fly with 9 other people that use them, instead of a HOTAS (as we play on laptops when working away).
And we dont really know what the plans are for them towards the future, epecially 3rd party modules.

Theres also no validation for us, when buying new ED modules wether or not, they have the VR touch controls enabled, and that prevents us from buying them until 'Free to play' events are on and we can see for ourselves.
Their seems to be a big demand, and yet we've not really got any direction towards them with DCS.

3WA · March 7, 2021

How's it going with the Russian Government and their new "law"?

Worg · March 9, 2021

Hello.

-How do you see ED and DCS in 5 years?

-How do you choose the future modules?

-Have you already tested the 2.7 ? When you first tried it, what was your first word ?

-Do you think a Rafale version F2 will be part of DCS one day ?

-Otherwise people sending you messages in the middle of the night, how do you live it ?

Thanks for the answers, have a good weekend to all the drivers.

Stratos · March 9, 2021

- Which map ED or third party will be the next Payware ED?

Worrazen · March 12, 2021

So I spent 2 hours writing about it yesterday, then I accidentially closed the tab without backing the text up, and the forum which does have a save function did not restore this reply unfortunately, perhaps I kept the tab open too long (several days, session expire?) or because I "reopened closed tab", which does work in general but it didn't in this case.

So I guess I'm going to see if I can restore it from process dump, otherwise I hope I can rewrite it in time, if I'm not too late already. I will edit this post.

EDIT 1:

Okay I think I have all or most of it, there's 2-4 main short questions, it's just my eagerness to speculate and thinker that is long which isn't that important I guess anyway in this case.

Spoiler

ur.elgae.smurof.:https:443ur.elgae.smurof.:https:443editorSave.reply-forums/forums-264369["\n\tFIRST QUESTION:\n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\tPOINT 1:  Military supply and cargo relationship with civilian infrastructure!\n\n\n\n\tHave there been or will there be any talks for consider adding, in the sooner-rather-than-very-late term, in addition to the already disclosed functions of base management in the upcoming dynamic campaign (<a href=\"https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/245412-technically-correct-namedesc-propositions-for-dynamic-campaign/\">that kinda should get a proper label to give it better credit for DCS's version IMO</a>), to also have the ability to capture and take control of certain civilian infrastructure and utility units and structures to support military operations; for these neutral map objects like warehouses, factories, railway stations, TV/Radio/Cell Towers to actually have functionality implemented that affects gameplay.\n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\tFor example:\n\n\n<ul>\n\t<li>\n\t\tCapturable antenna towers for enhancing (relaying) or providing backup communications (detailed thoughts below after Point 2)\n\t</li>\n\t<li>\n\t\tOccupiable (rooftop only I guess) high-story structures for enhancing infantry weapon and detection range\n\t</li>\n\t<li>\n\t\tCapturable Railway Stations and Trains for transporting military supplies and cargo supplies, the ones other captured (salvaged) civilian transport vehicles or military units such as helis or transport trucks have delivered to the station, and perhaps direct transfer without having to first unload to terrain, and further perhaps an ability for helicopter cargo if one chooses to be able to be directly droppable onto a captured civilian transport train, lowered onto the suitable empty railcar, without putting it on the ground and then whatever loading DCS implements, (no idea how the depth of these animations (if any) and procedure will go to)\n\t</li>\n\t<li>\n\t\tFactories, Workshop could provide repair capabilities to vehicles\n\t</li>\n\t<li>\n\t\tRefineries and large oil silos could work as fuel stations (if it's oil not gas), and implement the DCS warehouse system, with all the stats and ofcourse finite amount of resource when full realism applied. In a war situation we can assume the field engineers will surely figure out how to knock the fuel silo with a hose and start pumping, they shouldn't need an official fuel station, right?\n\t</li>\n\t<li>\n\t\tWarehouses, as in storage facilities, could offer space to store military supplies and cargo more securely, somewhat damage resistant and also camouflaged, until an A-10C spots that cargo truck going into the storage facility ... so yeah, great gameplay opportunities!\n\t</li>\n</ul>\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\tPOINT 2: If yes, Detail and depth of the implementation practical for DCS?\n\n\n\n\tHow far should the depth in DCS go, how far is it worthwhile, and realistic at all, so could there first be a realism establishing discussion with Subject Matter Experts combined with research on how much room is there for improvisation and salvaging in reality anyway? \n\t \n\tThis is delicate because the easy answer is "to just ship whatever we need from HQ" ... but we're talking about when you're cut off from HQ, where you can't transport just about anything, where resources are limited, there may be no radio tower ready to put on a C-130 for a paradrop delivery. After that, it's up to the team to determine how far would that be implemented into DCS World. The use of such improvisations may become more and more benefitial as the mission progresses in certain scenarios and I think this may add great gameplay opportunities!\n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\tSubject matter experts such as military engineers and radio men (amateur radio enthusiasts may offer some basic insights because they operate with low budget and the big boys have good experience with improvisation in terms of signal quality and the stuff around it) with the deepest intricate knowledge should be asked how realistic it is for, not expecting ordinary soldiers, but military field engineers and support crews, to, in reality, to take advantage of and existing TV/Radio Tower for enhancing military communications?\n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\tThere's several key questions in terms of how unrealistic direct capturing may be, for example a Cell Tower, I may not be able to list them all ofcourse:\n\n\n<ul>\n\t<li>\n\t\tIn case of a Cell Phone Tower, usually has an array of smaller antennas that have a directed 20-30 degree radiation pattern and are pointed around 3-5 or 10 degrees downward and they're ofcourse physically designed (tuned) for those ~800/900/1800/1900/2500 Cell Phone frequencies, not exactly the ones military comms usually use such as 200-500 MHz at least in DCS that I know of.\n\t</li>\n\t<li>\n\t\tWould military engineers be able to even make the connection in terms of cabling, interfacing, would that be feasible on field and in what time, expertise and extra supplies required. Wouldn't they have to cut a bunch of potentially very thick wires and mess with the Cell Tower's powering equipment and electronics for god knows how long to find the correct antenna signal transmit lead so it can be hooked up with the output of their portable field radio, not the handheld personal walke-talkie type, but more realistically the one the radio-man carries is a bigger more advanced one with perhaps a portable small deployable antenna.\n\t</li>\n\t<li>\n\t\tWould the small radio even be able to output any more power to feed the bigger captured Cell Tower and take it's benefit? Most likely they wouldn't be able to interface their radio with the Cell Tower in such a way that it would instead of transmitting Cell signal switch to their portable radio, which means the Military Portable Radio wouldn't need to power the signal it self, it would be powered from the Cell Tower's own Grid Power (if it's not interrupted ofcourse), unless all Cell Towers are designed with such a purpose in mind and have a connector port and an override functionality built in (well it's not impossible, probably isn't a thing or a secret for exactly this purpose)\n\t</li>\n</ul>\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\tAny antenna can be used for any frequency, but depending on the frequency used it may not perform at all (practically), so for example if someone would do this in reality, with such a portable Military Radio, or some more advanced one that's meant for makeshift forward command posts, the ones that you usually see sitting on desks in movies,\n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\tThe point of this capturing is to get some boost over these portable antennas, handhelds and even the ones , if you were to  you would certainly get a boost versus using the\n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\tOR\n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\tWould it more realistically be all about the tower construction, the MAST it self, rather than any existing antennas?\n\n\n\n\tWould the military engineers simply disregard the existing equipment, perhaps just salvage the existing cabling, and extend their own military antennas and install them ontop of the mast, which would improve signal quality and range automatically in certain scenarios simply due to avoiding obstructions such as structures, trees and terrain.\n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\tOR\n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\tIs any of this redundant, is it easier for military to simply set up their own makeshift forward command posts which if they don't have a deployed radio station aren't much of a command anyway, and the connections would work as good ... they wouldn't deploy this in the middle of a city and rather somewhere with better line of sight right. Dynamic Campaign might actually be a lot about base building and perhaps this kind of "command post" may not be so of a special thing.\n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\tThe easiest way I can see now, in DCS, simply ordering your forces (should need prerequisites such as appropriate support units,engineer personeel should be introducted, supply trucks, utility truck, etc) constructing a makeshift forward command posts near a TV/Radio/Cell tower would take the advantage of that tower's heigh and the antenna element would be installed there and that would give a gameplay advantage, with the radio tower remaining a neutral map object, and this whole thing doesn't need elaborate animations, ofcourse no need for any engineer tower climbing, but it should indicate, once constructed, an actual extra military antenna attached on that civilian tower that is visible by everyone so enemy could see too they are using that tower for enhancing communications, preferrably with a cable that leads to the nearby command post. And maximum distance around such a tower you would need to build the forward command post, 50 or 100 meters ? We probably, for DCS, don't have to simulate where the engineers got a 50-100 meter cable right? So not that deep, right?\n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\tOR\n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\tSame as above, but does it have to be TV/Radio/Cell towers at all? Couldn't this idea apply to various kind of high civilian objects, which would make good sense for WW2 maps where such towers are more rare, Smoke Stacks, Skyscrapers, Windmills.\n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\tOfcourse you would, if this would be a feature, simply construct forward command post on higher terrain, but most hills have trees on top so it wouldn't necessairly be that simply, and I dobut DCS will go into lumberjack simulation?\n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\tSECOND QUESTION:\n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\tPOINT 1: Have there been or would there be any talks in enhancing radio signal simulation in DCS, in terms of radiation propagation for communications and datalink and making radios in general function more realistically, in terms of damage, interference, signal quality.\n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n<ul>\n\t<li>\n\t\tObstacles affecting radiation pattern (blocking line of sight)\n\t</li>\n\t<li>\n\t\tTerrain and obstacle Signal Attenuation Properties for different frequencies, how much does that kind of terrain, mountain rock in Caucasus block the 250 MHz freq, to keep things simple in DCS this doesn't have to be a complicated chart, there could be ... 5 different terrain types for this thing, 2-3 for buildings, 1 for trees, 1 for rivers/lakes, 1 for ocean, no need to cover hundreds of different rock types, and a simple curve function for each of them. This is important for submarines, those frequencies penetrate any kind of ground much more easily including water. And ofcourse as a signal goes out, it will pass throguh many of these layers of different zones with different Signal Attentuation Property and so it will lose its power differently.\n\t</li>\n\t<li>\n\t\tWeather related interference and noise\n\t</li>\n\t<li>\n\t\tInterfering signals, stepped-on (ATC)\n\t</li>\n\t<li>\n\t\tKnife-edge effect (diffraction) Where ground stations on either side of mountain could hear each other due to sharp mountain top re-transmitting the radio waves\n\t</li>\n\t<li>\n\t\tgroundwork for when the ground vehicles and their interlinks could be simulated and their max-range separation being dependant on good signal quality (mobile command post - units,  launcher-radar, etc) \n\t</li>\n\t<li>\n\t\tDirectional antennas attached to moving units would have realistic behavior depending on their parent unit's orientation in 3D space\n\t</li>\n</ul>\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\tPOINT 2: If yes, were any more possible general radio functionality improvements  given to the new ATC and how that would tie in with the radio signal and general radio improvements? \n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\tIn terms of radio communication simulation for the new ATC, this part is actually in general to all radios, but the radio comm simulation update could come during the ATC upgrade together ...\n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\tAnd one of the key things I think, the way ALL radios in general need to work, is that when they're tuned to a particular frequency, they would listen-in on that frequency's audio channel which existed all along but is muted unless tuned to by the radio, and all the radios does is unmutes it.\n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\tSo all of the AI ATC/Unit and Real-Player DCS Voice sounds could be dynamically mixed, along with the layers and factors of signal quality, weather interference, jamming (more later on) and ofcourse more than one person talking ... mixed into this internal always-present audio channel, for EACH frequency, down to the 0.05 or what is the lowest finesse, unfortunately.\n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\tSo that radios would actually feel like they're analog is my point here, and not just what I think is currently the case, plain engine logic triggering a static pre-recorded audio clip to be played in your player's instance that (I think) keeps playing when it shouldn't and/or prevents dynamically applying real-time effects ontop of that and mixing other sound sources, if another like when you tune out of the frequency in the middle of an ATC reply, or the radio could be damaged, or affected any other way. So when multiple players contact ATC, they would ALL hear the same reply that ATC broadcast, (and for MP it ofcourse needs to be synced) to woever ATC directed that message may not be the player or AI that first contacted it tho, depending on priorities, etc.\n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\tThis kind of better radio-function simulation in terms of audio channels that other audio sources could be mixed would probably open a lot of other possibilities other with applying noise, interference and whatever's needed, including static, electronic noise and low signal quality artefacts and may not be necessary to BAKE these noises diretly into the sound clip recording, infact it may be more practical to start recording (probably already, but finalized with applied noise) or finalizing CLEAR ATC/AI AUDIO and then with this radio system use various layers of such factors to apply very realistic combination of audio effects on top in real-time, and something which can be adjsted in real-time and would be unique to almost every session and scenario. Sometimes the ATC would sound 95% clear, sometimes not, however there should be various standard default-noise layers applied, because all transmission have to sound like they're over a microphone, but this gives us more flexibility where you could adjust this for different types of microphones depending on UNIT / ATC to make the AI sounds more uniqe, so yeah you shouldn't suppose to ever hear studio-clarity even on 100% signal quality and no interference.\n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\tSo, once you tune out of that frequency, that audio channel would be muted and you would immediately stop hearing anything.\n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\tAlso, this or a different and better approach would properly simulate realism, and enable you to hear AI ATC/Unit voices starting from any point, if you happened to tune into that frequency in the middle of a sentence, because they were infact playing/streaming that voice already (and all the time) that internal audio channel which was simply muted to you.\n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\tIf it really has to be technically an audio layer in terms of the audio engine or Windows Audio API or whater, I'm not sure ... I'm using terms like this to explain, not exactly literally.  Perhaps this can be abstracted, because that is a lot of channels for each frequency, for every 0.05 or what is the finnese of most radios in DCS? If that seems like a lot of work but is the only solution then I guess there's no way around it.\n\n\n\n\tIf the current system is inferior and actually doesn't work like that already ... if the current system already works better in a different fashion then great but as far as I know currently there's no streaming of the actual audio internally like this, once you're tuned to the same freq with your ATCS, it probably passes the conditions and enters a while loop to play that sound  in your player's ears. I wanted to write about this in detail but couldn't find the time so I'm doing a hurry one right now without tottally double-checking the existing part, I do have a draft written in much more detail months ago, but can't include that right now it would take too much time for 12th deadline.\n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\t \n\n\n\n\t \n\n",1615165813]‰‘\
AAM ur.elgae.smurof.:https:443ur.elgae.smurof.:https:443notifications.//forums.eagle.ru/{"timestamp":1615537707699,"messages":"0","notifications":"0"}

I'll spend some time cleaning this firefox memory dump text out hopefully, but here it is just in case.

---------------------------------------------------

EDIT2: I have also reworded and shortened things a bit on the second run-through, it should in principle be the same.

I may have more than just one, because some of it is just so connected and branches out, these are sort of drafts I kept mulling for months which I wanted to post to Wishlist and I will after the fact so I'll just keep going as I have to write this stuff out anyway for later use, keep refreshing this post. So just pick what you can and what makes sense for the episode, and ofcourse it can be modified to make it shorter and more to the point, I'm notorious for taking a lot of words to say something.

------------------------------------------------

FIRST QUESTION:

Would the so called Dynamic Campaign have a different (proper) name/description after it is released for public testing for the first time to better distinguish it from other products and various perceptions that the community has constructed over the years as part of the anticipation of it's release?

I have made a thread throwing various terms out here:

------------------------------------------------

SECOND QUESTION:

How approximately deep is or would the supply and cargo cross-functionality with civilian infrastructure go at launch of the Dynamic Campaign or in the near term, or is this planned for later?

Lengthier explanation of the idea and thinking behind the question:

Spoiler

To also have the ability to capture and take control of certain civilian infrastructure and utility units and structures to support military operations; for these neutral map objects like warehouses, factories, railway stations, TV/Radio/Cell Towers to actually have functionality implemented that affects gameplay.

Capturable antenna towers for enhancing (relaying) or providing backup communications
Occupiable (rooftop only I guess) high-story structures for enhancing infantry weapon and detection range
Capturable Railway Stations and Trains for transporting military supplies and cargo supplies, the ones other captured (salvaged) civilian transport vehicles or military units such as helis or transport trucks have delivered to the station, and perhaps direct transfer without having to first unload to terrain, and further perhaps an ability for helicopter cargo if one chooses to be able to be directly droppable onto a captured civilian transport train, lowered onto the suitable empty railcar, without putting it on the ground and then whatever loading DCS implements, (no idea how the depth of these animations (if any) and procedure will go to)
Factories, Workshop could provide repair capabilities to vehicles
Refineries and large oil silos could work as fuel stations (if it's oil not gas), and implement the DCS warehouse system, with all the stats and ofcourse finite amount of resource when full realism applied. In a war situation we can assume the field engineers will surely figure out how to knock the fuel silo with a hose and start pumping, they shouldn't need an official fuel station, right?
Warehouses, as in storage facilities, could offer space to store military supplies and cargo more securely, somewhat damage resistant and also camouflaged, until an A-10C spots that cargo truck going into the storage facility ... so yeah, great gameplay opportunities!

------------------------------------------------

THIRD QUESTION:

Can any rough comments be shared regarding general radio functionality and radio signal propagation simulation enhancements for communications in DCS, if there are at least plans, which is I think is an important underbelly of a lot of very interesting topics such as the New ATC, DCS Voice In-game Radio Integration, Unit Group Comm/Data Link Simulation (Launcher-Radar, HQ-CommandPost, etc), my cup of tea the Combat Search and Rescue someday, which would rely on signal sniffing where such improvements would be welcome to have.

Lengthier explanation of my idea and the thinking behind the question:

Spoiler

Radio Signal (Electromagnetic Radiation) Propagation Simulation Enhancements:

Different signal attenuation profiles for variout types of materials depending on frequency (sea, rivers, lakes, mountains, trees, buildings, atmosphere, objects ) So when a radio signal at a certain frequency is affected (attenuated) differently depending on the zone(material) it's currently passing through. Hopefully this method might be roughly achieveable without the full blown Ray-Traced Radio Signal Simulation, which isn't an option I would assume, so some shortcuts would need to be made, hopefully some rough approximation with fraction of computing cost.
Simulation of the Knife-Edge Effect (Diffraction), where ground stations on either side of a mountain could hear each other due to the sharp mountain top re-transmitting the radio waves.
Environmental, weather related interference and noise affecting the signals. (if applicable to common voice comms frequencies?)
Directional antennas attached to moving units would have realistic behavior depending on their parent unit's orientation in 3D space.
Among other things I can't think of right now and other proper experts would definitely know a lot more than me, and what is then possible in DCS and PC hardware.

While Radio Signal Propagation Simulation upgrade perhaps isn't necessairly blocking any of these practical improvements, it may come in very handy and it may not be the same experience without it.

Practical uses:

Launcher-Radar-CommandPost maximum separation on the map could be dependant on good signal quality of the comm/datalink, instead of some arbitrary fixed value (I'm actually not sure how it works right now, sorry for not double checking)

Radios in general, if currently not, should work and behave very much the same way the real analog radios would in terms of how you tune into a frequency, again sorry for not double checking how exactly it works currently under the hood, if that's even possible, but I think it probably does not work like the idea I have in mind here.

One of the methods that I see right now, is could in DCS, when a radio is tuned to a particular frequency simply listen-in on that frequency's audio channel which existed in the background (engine) all along but was muted and your tuning to that frequency simply unmutes that audio channel specific to that frequency.

Additionally that frequency specific audio channel, that you would be listening to, would be a final output mix of many different sources that would get sort of "streamed" in there in real-time and dynamic in the gameplay.

Those sources would ofcourse be things like your wingmen, allies, ATC, AI and other player's voice, however it could also have modifiers or adjustment layers that would, if active and depending on their properties, modify the audio in real-time and dynamically according to signal quality and environmental noise and interference, this would be so flexible and perhaps it may no longer be needed to have such radio jam, interference and other glitches pre-recorded in sound files which are fixed and can't be modifed, (not saying it is so right now, a lot of DCS audio is generated in real-time already)

The big point that got me thinking about this is that the audio should never interrupt, it would only interrupt for you, and it keeps going under the hood, regardless of you listening or not, and wouldn't be based on some logic "if (you are tuned to this freq) then (play this fixed sound file in your cockpit)" which is what I think could be going on right now. This I think is a prerequisite to the new ATC and without this I don't know how the new ATC could function in a proper way. Because you cannot allow the audio to keep playing in your cockpit the milisecond you tune your radio to another frequency, or the radio get's damaged or you lose power, as soon as that happes, that audio channel gets muted and you must not hear anything, same thing for vice versa, you would be able to also hear the ATC and others in mid-sentence, something I never heard in DCS (excuse me if in +6 years I missed this being so)

This will also allow for all the other radio comm peculiarities, and all the stuff that happens in reality, especially frequency blocking when 2 persons talk at the same time, one of them or both get muffled or stepped-on. Plus this all has to be synced for Multiplayer, so new ATC is not a small deal.

Edited March 13, 2021 by Worrazen

Pikey · March 12, 2021

I think it could be a good opportunity to explain the end to end bug resolution process, why tracks are so important, how reporting bugs in a good way helps them be understood by the developers. People mostly don't get that and it can cause a lot of wasted time, circling and assumption loops that cause frustration.

Cedaway · March 12, 2021

What is your main purpose as Community Manager and how can you manage to survey all posts in all chatrooms?

Is it a full-time job?

How do you manage the disputes?

What do you think about the 'ED censorship kinda scandal' that pops quite often? Did that changed the course on how a moderator manage the posts?

EDIT: @Baltic_Dragon : Will you make the interview available on youtube?

Edited March 12, 2021 by Cedaway

Grievo · March 12, 2021

Are there plans to re-issue the older helicopter modules, namely Huey and Mi-8 with updated cockpits and external models or similar, as has been done with Black Shark and A-10C?

Glide · March 12, 2021

How do you keep such an incredibly diverse community happy?

How important is a happy multiplayer community to a healthy community in general?

How do you balance the desire to push the limits of today's hardware with the needs of the community to get their money's worth from their current hardware?

Jafergon · March 12, 2021

How are the multiplayer ingame voice comms coming along? Any chance we might see this year a new iteration with radio sound effects, frequencies, etc...

Thanks!

SmirkingGerbil · March 12, 2021

Damage model, is it nearing "completion" in WWII modules? Once completed in WWII modules, will the focus be to bring it to modern modules? If so, is there a module in particular that this effort will start with, like the P-47 and Anton in War Birds?

SFAL · March 12, 2021

When is the dynamic campagin coming to us on a dedicated ED server that can host a large ammount of players?

When can couple and de -couple units in a group? Will we be able to move units seperate from each other that forms a group? i.e mobile SAM systems so they can used as they real life counter parts

When are we getting the updated AI radio communication like ATC, AWACS, JSTAR, wingman.....

Snappy · March 12, 2021

When is the abyssmal AI, as well as the announced new FM for the AI aircraft planned for release? This is a huge , not to say gigantic weakness of the sim that existed for years

with near-zero improvement. For a sim that has a supposedly extensive single player majority user base this is lacking big.

Also it detracts from employing tactics , because the AI aircraft do not feature their real world weaknesses and strenghts which you would normally exploit /adapt to. On the contrary, some have superpowers. And don't get my started on my AI wingmen..

Regards,

Snappy

Edited March 12, 2021 by Snappy

notproplayer3 · March 12, 2021

How's the progress going with the mig 29A ?

bart · March 12, 2021

1. It has been announced in todays Newsletter that the F18 Hornet will be coming out of early access with the release of 2.7, and was mentioned in another thread by Wags that more resources will be directed towards the F16 Viper development once the F18 is completed. Taking this into account can we expect updates to the Viper to step up in pace following the 2.7 release? and could you possibly give us an estimate on how long before the Viper is expected to also reach release status?

2. Any news to share on the up and coming Mosquito FB Mk VI? Should we now expect the Mosquito to be released after 2.7 drops?

Many thanks.

iFoxRomeo · March 12, 2021

Poor Nineline. I can imagine this is a tough job.

Anything about the Me 262? After so many years it's really sad to not hear anything relevant about it. Would make an interesting SP aircraft.

(And a Gloster Meteor F.3 would then be a good competitor for "what if they met" scenarios)

Any plans to update old modules? UH-1H, Mi-8, F-86, MiG-15

Is the damage model for the Forgotten War-Birds...forgotten? The 8th January Newsletter that accompanied the DM release for the WW2 Warbirds mentioned that the modern aircraft are next, not the F-86 and MiG-15, which would really need it as they are guns only fighters.

Fox

erniedaoage · March 12, 2021

What is the secret behind your overly calm responses to a lot of nonsense going on in the forums for years?

baltic_dragon · March 12, 2021

8 hours ago, Cedaway said:

What is your main purpose as Community Manager and how can you manage to survey all posts in all chatrooms?

Is it a full-time job?

How do you manage the disputes?

What do you think about the 'ED censorship kinda scandal' that pops quite often? Did that changed the course on how a moderator manage the posts?

EDIT: @Baltic_Dragon : Will you make the interview available on youtube?

Yes, of course - all of our episodes are on YouTube, although - naturally for a podcast - it is not the main channel.

Wow, so many questions, thanks guys! We'll have to group them somehow, this plus Discord topics - we'd need three episodes to cover them all

Enduro14 · March 13, 2021

Blackshark 3?

Also any idea when Nick will answer the P47 Questions?

VirusAM · March 13, 2021

We all knows that it is impossible to have modern fighters simulated at dcs level.
Have you never considered a simplified, but still believable, level of aircraft simulation?
I mean a sort of fc3 level but with clickable cockpits (as an example what happened in janes f18 where the cockpit was clickable but not all systems were simulated and to start up the jet it was similar to fc3. Also many mfds pages and systems were simulated in a realistic way).
This could let the possibility to have modern jets (f22, raphale, sukhoys) in the game with an acceptable realism level without breaking any law.
I know there is Mac in development, but that is much more arcade that i mean.

Furiz · March 13, 2021

Hi all, my questions

Possibility of upgrade, like the one done on A10C to A10CII, for our F-16 and FA-18?

Dassault Rafale, early version of the plane?

Is it possible to se Balkans map in the future?

Any modern Russian jet on the horizon?

Will there be Helicopter low fidelity module in FC3?

Thanks

Edited March 13, 2021 by Furiz

TaxDollarsAtWork · March 13, 2021

Will the Flankers receive peer to peer data link in MP like they do in SP some time in DCS 2.7?

Will the Eagle Fulcrum and Flankers also get their radar detection ranges fixed by the time MAC releases?

Edited March 14, 2021 by TaxDollarsAtWork

baltic_dragon · March 16, 2021

Thanks guys! We've had a great recording session with Nineline, which lasted around 2 hours. We will relelase it in two upcoming ACS episodes. This time we managed to ask almost all of the questions you posted!

Air Combat Sim with NineLine - post your questions here

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Recently Browsing 0 members