Leaderboard

Chichowalker is totally right, it's internally fixed in both pitch and yaw channels and it will committed with next ED's update. Please note that the behaviour present in current Open Beta is going to change significantly in the next update. We also have an internal fix for the bug with "extreme speed" at low altitude.

DCS F-100D FAQ: Subject to Change: The content of this FAQ is subject to change as a result of experience, new information, changes in process requirements and the availability of resources. General Questions: What version of the F-100 are you developing? We are developing a “Project High Wire” F-100D Super Sabre. What did “Project High Wire” add to the F-100s? The major “Project High Wire” upgrades include; instrument modifications and relocations, the addition of RHAW (Radar Homing and Warning) equipment and combat documentation cameras, upgraded IFF, TACAN and ADF systems along with upgraded weapons control and release panels. Will the infamous “Sabre Dance” be implemented? Yes, the F-100D was fitted with a larger wing and taller tail fin that eased the “Sabre Dance” handling characteristics but did not completely eliminate the issue. Any possibility for an earlier F-100D to be made after the current variant? While it’s not off the table, an earlier version isn’t currently a part of our plan. However, it is something to circle back to when we get further into development, and can gauge the community’s interest in it. Are you planning on doing other variants of the F-100? At this time we are completely focused on delivering the “High Wire” F-100D. Due to major differences between the F-100 variants, development of an F model for example would be an entirely new project, including changes in art, code, and systems. How in depth will the damage model be? The damage model will feature levels of destruction as well as system failures. We can speak more on individual systems as we progress further into development. Will there be an option to remove the refueling probe? Yes, we will provide an option in the mission editor to remove the refueling probe. Will there be an option to remove the RHAW gear? Yes, we will provide an option in the mission editor to remove the radar homing and warning equipment. Are you planning on modeling the tail hook for the F-100D? Yes, the F-100D did indeed have a tail hook and it will be modeled. Do you plan on recording the engine sounds from an airworthy F-100? Yes, we are working on getting access to a civilian owned F-100F. Weapon Questions: Can you provide a list of planned weapons for the F-100D? Any new weapons added to DCS World must either be created by Eagle Dynamics or reviewed by them to ensure quality and weapon consistency across DCS World. Until this is accomplished, it is too early to discuss new weapons. Will the AGM-12 Bullpup be available? No, unfortunately only 65 F-100’s were outfitted to fire the Bullpup. “Project High Wire” upgrades also removed the AGM-12 control panel to make room for the upgraded armament panel. Hun pilots also reported it was very difficult and dangerous to use, limiting its use in the field. We need to gather more data on the weapon before implementation can be considered. Was the F-100D equipped with the AGM-45 Shrike? No, our documents show the AGM-45 was only used on the F-100F models. Will you model any limitations like pylon g limits? Yes, all stores will have accurate airspeed limits. How advanced are the avionics in terms of bombing? The F-100D is equipped with the same A-4 Gunsight used in the F-86 Sabre. The sight features radar ranging and manual modes to implement bombs, rockets, missiles and guns. Any plans to include an AN/ALQ-71 or ECM pod? At this time no, however some F-100D’s were equipped with QRC-160 electronic countermeasure pods. We will have to work with Eagle Dynamics to see if an ECM pod feature can be implemented. Aspirational Item Questions: Are you planning on including the Zero Length Launch System? While we would love to include it as a feature, currently we do not have enough data on the rocket motors, launch platform and internal cockpit implementation at this time. Do we have any chance to get an AI KC-97 with F-100D module? It was not planned at this time. Having said that, it is a valid request, something to consider in the future. What are the chances of implementing Buddy Refueling? A buddy refueling feature would not be unique to the F-100 but rather a global feature added to DCS that all 3rd parties and Eagle Dynamics would have to work together to implement. All we can say is we will do our best to make this a reality for everyone one day. Release Questions: What year do you expect to release the module? At this time of development it is impossible to speculate on a release date. We are working hard every day to bring the Super Saber to DCS World as soon as possible, and will provide updates, and possibly estimates, when we are closer to launch. Will it be early access or do you intend to release the module feature complete? The plan is to release the module as complete as possible. Aspirational items such as the zero length launch that are not guaranteed will not delay the release of the module. source

Wow, so you're so concerned about a group that wants to do a map of their homeland, and likely wouldn't have any interest (currently) in doing any other map, and you're dumping on them for wanting to do it. Maybe it won't sell. Honestly I'm guessing they probably aren't looking to get rich on it. I'll ask the question again: in what way is it hurting you or DCS that they are doing what may be a niche map? In my books it's fair for people to point out they'd like islands to the north added etc, or even say "meh, not interested", but the negative attacks on a potential new developer sure aren't going make other thinking about getting into the game want to step up. And I say all that as someone who isn't super excited by this map and likely won't be a day one purchaser.

Список изменений на русском готов. Доделывал уже в выходные, был в отпуске. Изучайте ) https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/ru/news/changelog/openbeta/2.7.17.29140/ Да, русский список выходит позже. Могу сказать, что английский вариант верстается и постоянно модифицируется при сборке вплоть до момента выкладывания обновления на серверы. Поэтому задержка между английской версией и её переводом исключительно объективный фактор; хотя... для небольших списков вполне бывает получается уложиться к позднему вечеру тех же суток. Ну а так, я согласен, что изучение списков позволяет получить много дополнительной информации об игре вообще, отдельном модуле, его содержании, возможностях, степени внимания разработчиков к деталям и особенностям модулей, да много чего... Тем более на родном языке. Да так и есть. Поэтому стараюсь их делать по возможности максимально понятными для вас. Надеюсь это получается. )

MIG-23 MLA

With all these maps coming out I hope that they consider the server side of things, I admin a couple of servers and its getting to the point now I want to be able to pick the maps the server downloads just like the client can to save disk space, we just dont have the server diskspace to holed 6x 40-60gig maps that won't get used, and i know for sure we don't host any missions on SA, PG, NTTR and Marianas so would like the option to be able to opt out of that download put into the server client update.

However if they were not working on this map, that doesn't mean that they would be working on the map you want (it's not really about what people want, there are people that want this map, and developers don't have to or sometimes can't just pick things based on popularity). There isn't anything to complain about here. An independent developer chose to make a given map. The alternative is that we get nothing. They aren't taking resources away from other projects. There are people saying that about literally every map. I've even seen people say the Kola map is not relevant to military simulation, some how. The map won't be bought by everyone, but that's hardly a problem. The same is probably even more true for aircraft modules. What's worthy of DCS is entirely subjective. This map features a country with an airforce that uses DCS modules, or close variants, in a region with historical conflict and tension, and many military exercises. Not that any of that is a requirement. You can easily create mission and campaigns on random land masses that no one has ever heard of. I can only see the Australia map as a good thing. It means we have more map developers, which in turn should mean more maps in the future, and that's pretty much the best way of getting your preferred area included in the sim.

Will be fixed in all axes.Working on it... Enviado desde mi SM-G981B mediante Tapatalk

+1 fully agree … some users forget that a prime ingredient for any DCS module, be it aircraft, terrain or campaign, is a developer passion for it .. if a developer is not passionate about Vietnam or corea, why want to force him into it? … It is indeed selfishness, not having any care for the developer’s passion.

I’d like to see some of the islands to the north, but otherwise, it’s an interestingly different choice, and if it brings onboard more players, then great stuff. I’ve never understood the negativity regarding new modules, 3rd party or not. We as the customers are not obliged to buy them. If it doesn’t float your boat, don’t buy it, but I it does come across as rather selfish to try to deny someone else’s map desire.

When you are in the mission, open the F10 Map. Look at airports for the blue circle with a while line through it and the airport name. Click on this and you'll see the TACAN (if the airport has it), the VOR (again, if present) and the ILS frequencies if available. However, just it easy, here are a few common TACAN stations on DCS map's I happen to know off the top of my head. Batumi is 16X Tblisi 25X (not directly on airfield, about 600 meters west.) Senaik I want to say is 31X, but I could be wrong. I know 31X and 44X are present on the map and around the same area. If you're looking for a VOR, look on the F10 map or your kneeboard. the symbol for a VOR is a square with a polygon (?) in it, and a frequency. On South Atlantic Map, Mt. Pleasant is 59X. on NTTR, Nellis is 12X Ramat David is 84X, Incirlik is 21X AL Dhafra is 96X (Persian Gulf map, there are many more) But you don't need a TACAN or VOR at every airport. The F1 has a neat feature that's pretty simple to use, TACAN offset. On you HSI I put the source on "VT" (VOR/ TACAN) and I tune to a tacan station. Next, the white selector knob above with switch between a tacan, and a tacan offset. A TACAN offset is a simple distance and bearing from the tacan station you've tuned too. (The Mirage 2000 has the same thing, but a more in-depth version.) Tune the knobs for your distance and bearing from the tacan station, say 320 degrees 18 Nautical miles from 16X. Now your navigation instruments will take you to the offset, not the tacan station. (You can select the station by switching the white knob back to direct tacan) The TACAN station on the F1 when using an offset will get you in the general area of an offset up to 300 Nautical miles (in practice I've only gotten about 250 miles due to mountains and such) Now, on VOR's. Okay steam gauge navigation isn't perfect. there are... problems. While i was in the army I always carried a compass. I had GPS, but more is better. Today when hiking/ hunting/ canoeing/ etc, I still have a compass with me. My jeep has like 4 compasses in it, plus my GPS, plus maps. if the error of your single nav system is say 1 nautical mile, well, having 3-4 different way's to navigate can, if done properly, lower your error. (or compound it if you screw up...) Is VOR navigation important? Yes. Back when I was a kid I was often in the front copilot's seat of my dad's airplane. I held the maps and the E6b. To get an exact location we would tune to an VOR or NDB/ ADF. Get a bearing from the station. Then tune a different one, get a bearing and distance if possible. If I can get a bearing to 3 stations, I can know my exact location within a very small margin. So, with a VOR tuned in the F1, and a TACAN tuned, and a TACAN offset, and a map. You can get pretty damn close to wherever you want to be. I've gotten in the habit of always tuning into a TACAN station, and a VOR, and an offset if possible. Even in the newer jets like the Hornet or Viper, I tune a tacan. The little bit of prep work means I'm not looking at the F10 map constantly, meaning I can spend more time flying and fighting the jet because I know where I need to go after or before a run to a target. When possible, I give up one radio in the TOMCAT and tune an ADF or VOR just to give me that little bit more locational awareness. Now it's your jet, so fly DCS how you want. But for me at least a part of the fun is using and tuning all the radio navigation systems in the aircraft. Finnaly, here is an image I found of the different symbols used by NAV aids. (RSBN's aren't on here, sorry.) Hope this helps you out. FYI there are TACAN stations and VOR and ADF/ NDB's on every map in DCS. Not every airport, but they're around.

Su-30MK_SFM v2.1.10b_ADVANCED.rar 1. Изменены внешний вид МФД на два варианта (см. скриншоты) 2. Доработан файл, содержащий информацию об угрозах. 3. При запуске режимов: А-А; А-Г; Нав.; используется сочетание страниц на экранах МФД с наиболее необходимой ситуационной информацией. 4. Устранена графическая ошибка экрана УФСП для МКА и МКИ 5. Изменены программы выброса ловушек и дипольных отражателей Уважаемые Вирпилы, если понравился мой вариант доработки и некоторых исправлений Су-30, то распакуйте архив. Далее найдите директорию мода "Su-30MK_SFM v2.1.10b", а в нём папку "Cockpit_v.1". В этой папке открываем папку "Scripts" и последовательно из каждой находящейся в ней папки берем файлы и, соответственно, заменяем одноимённые от разработчика. В каждой паке я создал папку "BackUp" , в которой на всякий случай разместил дефолтные файлы. Приятных полётов! 1. Changed the appearance of the MFD to two options (see screenshots) 2. The file containing information about threats has been improved. 3. Starting modes: A-A; A-G; Nav.; a combination of pages on the MFD screens with the most necessary situational information is used. 4. Fixed a graphic error of the UFCP screen for MKA and MKI. 5. Changed programs for ejection of flashes and chaffs. Dear Pilots, if you liked my version of the revision and some corrections to the Su-30, then unpack the archive. Next, find the directory of the mod "Su-30MK_SFM v2.1.10b", and go to the folder "Cockpit_v.1". In this folder, open the "Scripts" folder and sequentially take files from each folder in it and replace the files with the same names from the developer. In every pack I created folder "BackUp" just in case, which contains the default files. Have a nice flights!

Further testing shows that "at altitude" appears to be 50,000 feet. That seems to be the sweet spot for peak performance regarding maximum Mach number. Updated thrust table for corrected wing area. Mach 1.209 @ 80 feet max speed. Mach 1.032 @ 80 feet super cruise. Mach 2.272 @ 50k feet max speed. Mach 1.870 @ 50k feet super cruise. (In line with publicly reported figures.) Resolved issue with SYS page on Left and Right MFD's when switching from the SMS or RWR page and the previous page doesn't clear. Adjusted "Cruise Mode" MFD override command to set LMFD to SYS, RMFD to Fuel, CMFD to VVI and PMFD to HSI. Updated both Single and Multi-Player versions with these fixes and changes as appropriate.

Yes its a shame. VKB certainly got put back with staffing loss and I feel sorry for them (and anyone in the same state) for that. I suspect they genuinely were gearing up for a terrific product and its release...but their plans have gone awry. But VKB, (like others in this industry, and even some in the supporting YT community), do themselves zero favours with their sharp, condescending and plain smart arse replies to genuine enquiries. A bit of candid, and polite, explanatory communication would go a long way and probably garner better support and understanding.

If you think that there's regions more deserving, knock yourself out, bring your design team together and produce it. As for numbers, you've quoted yourself and the 20 or so in this thread. The developers must be quaking in their boots. Seriously, let them dream their dream and stop trying to p1ss on it, it's just not cool. We get that you don't want it, but you don't have to keep repeating it.

and there’s the issue. you’re assuming that people don’t want this map? Which people exactly? Chances are that it’ll sell well to any Aussie and a good number of other people too. I get that you wish to have a Vietnam map, me too. Doesn’t mean that another group can’t do a Vietnam map whilst these chaps deliver what they want. Suggesting this is bad is like saying that no one can have a soft top car, just because you don’t want one.

1. Real world is not simulated here. Real world combat is a lot tougher than in whatever sim! 2. yes there are hick ups, it is a super complicated system, remember they are living off this product, they try their hardest to make it work. Bluntly: good work makes for food on the table. 3. It is now moving at a pace where us "we want it all" And we can not keep up anymore. It took DCS a lot longer that we hoped for but we are getting damn close. 4. I'll never forget the p-51 launch, all called for realism and once we got it, damn it is too tough to fly etc. Well they had real world data and their own friggin plane. We got what we asked for and we still bitch.... 5. Think twice before just running off with a thing. BUT if something is not right, yeah give em the beans but in a nice constructive way. We build together. Just be nicer overall.

RWS Scan Centering is has been added internally and should be included in the October OB. This will be done with a short TDC depress. Kind regards, Wags

Нет. Он в плане на осень.

AIM-7 носили только F-16C block 15 служившие в ПВО США. Block 50 их никогда не носили. R-27R is inferior to AIM-7M in everything.

That't only part of the picture, however. In a business, one has to have people willing to do the job first. Thinking that these guys would surely make a different (often voted for) map if they didn't make Australian one is a logical fallacy. They're locals who specifically want to spend ther time on making this terrain to fly over, not some other, so they're doing it, end of story. It's not a slave labour camp, devs are free to create whatever they fancy (examples: I-16 and CE-II modules), and you of course, are free to have a different taste and not buy it. It's not "white knighting", it's the reality. After listening a bunch of podcasts with 3rd party devs for DCS or for Il-2 platforms, I can see most of these guys have regular jobs outside of DCS and making modules/DLCs is their part-time activity, a hobby even, with making money here being a nice extra bouns rather than primary goal. I'd hazard a guess this new team works on the same principle.

It is not new API rather it is a new model generation based on the missile components. In the plan already.

I don't get it. You appear to mean "If it's an option" for the server admin, but not the player, correct? Because using Auto Start currently is an option for any player. Realism should remain an individual player's choice. Why would I care how the player next to me starts their engine? Why would I, as a server admin care about how the individual player has fun starting their engine when it does not impact any other player?

поджигаем regedit и вбиваем в поиске название папки где лежит мир далее по F3 перебираем все найденое и офигеваем от количества этого найденого. когда полезут необъяснимые глюки, не забывайте в мессаге про "все сломалось и глючит" указывать, что папку с игрой тупо скопировали.

Well, if you want RAZBAM to realize how important that is to MP players, the best way is to post on their own subforum.

Added the Volvo to the first page.

1. More capable weaponry for 27/29 2. Current 73 is 19 years older than 9X, RMD-2 adds greater cm resistance giving new life to Flanker/29 as we can't receive newer 27/29 variants. Obviously, this is not your fault. 3. With modules like the F-15E/Eurofighter (w meteor) on the horizon the current models of 27S/29S will be decimated in about every way which is accurate, however since in a real life scenario they would be fighting Flankers with R-77-1/PL-12 (J-11) and you guys can't do a 27SM, 30SM, MiG-29M/K/35 yet the least I think can be done is for the 27S/29S (incl Su-33) to get the best of what their generation carried in real life e.g., 73 RMD-2 so at least they remain somewhat playable, otherwise there is only JF-17 as capable gen 4 red. Some features are already present such as R-300E motor on 27ER as you said. 4. Choice is cool and as rudimentary as FC3 is, the 27/29 are iconic aircraft and should not be left out to dry. Obviously, a full 27/29S would be 1000% better but I think we can work with what we have with smaller additions like RMD-2 etc until complex modules can be made or something wild and crazy like FC3 type 27SM/30SM/J-11B happens. I want that as little as you do to be honest but I'd rather that than nothing long term. There are mods of course but these are inaccurate and being primarily a multiplayer server guy, I'm interested in stuff that can be used in this capacity.

For my part I will probably get it, because I'm a map slut and I find something enjoyable in all maps, but I'm also part of the "why?" crowd. The map in question would not be on my Top 10 list, or even Top 50 probably, but someone is making it, I assume it will be well made, and it's a map and I like maps. To each their own. I mean I would rather have the Ka-50 and the NTTR map than the Apache and the Syria map. That has to put me in some kind of twisted minority. So maybe there are a few who will freak on the Ozzy map and more power to them. If you want someone who shares your views, listen to Deephack's podcast from this afternoon. Chuckles goes on a full blown rant about the map and it's pretty funny.

20 or so in this thread, versus one white knighting for them. If this reflects the numbers in the overall community, good luck getting all that effort to make money. It's a business. Unless you're a monopoly, you have to make products people want to buy, not necessarily the ones you want to sell. It's a map literally nobody has been asking for.

the only wobble problem i realy have is when you are flying forward compleatly stable and exeed about 110 knots and with no input it starts to roll left/right back and forth. as for now, i dont like doing long flights mostly since i dont wanna do a 30nm flight at 100 knots but otherwhise the FM isnt compleatly horrible if you get used to it however, just like everyone else here, i cant wait for the day we get a FM update that acualy makes the ah64 a joy to fly

Забанен

Dear all, We hear your concerns, and I’ll try to help explain. Check Six Simulations is an Australian group of DCS enthusiasts that want nothing more than an Australia map in DCS to fly over. Because Check Six Simulations is a first-time map developer, this map is an ideal choice to learn the Terrain Development Kit (TDK) and the quite complex process of creating a map. As with any 3rd party that has first demonstrated to us the required skillset, we will not forbid them from creating a map of their dreams if it does not conflict with existing map plans. Creating this map in no way impacts the creation of other maps. Will this map be your cup of tea? Perhaps not, but it may be for some and will not impact your enjoyment of DCS. Eagle Dynamics wishes the Check Six Simulations every success. Kind regards, Wags

Что слышно про многопоточность и повышения производительности? Прошлым летом ещё обещали. Говорили, что приоритетом будет vr, нас ждут серьезные изменения, год прошел и тишина

Bug: UFCP and AAP panel missing button press animations (both in Performance and Visual Quality cockpit variants) Can I reproduce it 100%: Yes How to reproduce/description: Step 1: Press a button on the AAP panel and/or UFC panel Step 2: Observe Result: The buttons on the AAP panel and the UFCP no longer have an animations when they are pressed in the current DCS Open Beta patch. This can be compared to DCS OB 2.7.6.13436 (just an older version I had laying around). DCS Version: Open Beta 2.7.17.29140 Mods: No mods are used that change the cockpit of the JF-17. Videos: DCS OB 2.7.17.29140 UFCP and AAP panel missing button animations DCS OB 2.7.6.13436 UFCP and AAP panel with button animations

I wonder if this dev will get a part of the forum just for discussions about the Top End Australia map? I'm pretty sure the first 100 questions will be "Why?" Followed by some answers, followed by another 100, "Yeah, but why?"

Косяк )). Thanks. Ключевое - Pump! А в логе на английском у РАЗБАМОВ это слово отсутствует. Осел кивающий - как статик. Поэтому и подумал, что реально добавили осла с анимацией... коровы же есть уже, да и тема про "оживление" территорий животными периодически поднимается... В общем, уже исправил. Еще раз спасибо. Это еще раз показывает проблемы которые могут возникать при переводе. И без того, в английском варианте почти постоянно такие импликации встречаются, что приходится связываться с автором текста и выяснять, о чем именно идет речь.. А в случае с Партнёрами, как здесь, можно жать их реакции сутки, а то и несколько дней.

I stand corrected - thank you!

Even our old AM/BM's with the AFLCC moves the stabs/flightcontrols way faster than they currently do in DCS, and the RNoAF AM/BM's were never updated to DFLCC. Also, from what I remember from my days on the flightline, even the old OCU-birds were quite violent in moving the FLCS during BIT. Glad to see it sped up in the next patch, though.

Not sure why all the CAPS and "c'mon" is needed in this discussion, but I'll assume that's just frustration and love for DCS talking First of all, let's agree that we're all eager to see improvements. The sooner the better, as indeed we're not getting any younger. Definitely no offense meant, but some are perhaps just a bit more patient and less vocal than others about it. Also, and now I'm not attacking you in person here , the elements you listed as essential, might be the highest of priorities for you, but it's still a very personal list. I for one would prefer performance optimization over anything else. Everyone has their own list of priorities and although most of these lists will be more or less the same with probably a different priority order, I still expect ED to know best at what (and when) to spend their resources on. All these "why is it taking so long" threads, despite all good intentions, are kinda pointless... It's not like ED will read it and think: "Hey, this random guy is asking for the dynamic campaign (or ATC, or Vulkan, ...). Why didn't we think of that? Let's start working on that now". Again, not my intention to offend you or anyone else here, just continuing the conversation

Very diplomatic response this is the normal from community, and I am not attacking you the person but rather that, first... the essential elements of the sim ATC AND ADDITIONAL SYSTEMS WEATHER - LIVE AND DYNAMIC A.I DYNAMIC CAMPAIGN ENGINE GLOBAL MAP AND AIRBASES + TRAINING RANGES BLUE VS RED AIRCRAFT + COMPLETION OF SYSTEMS AND FLIGHT MODEL A.I AND FLIGHT MODELING COMBINED ARMS REFINEMENT AND COMPLETION COMMERCIAL AVIATION IN THAT ORDER HAVE BEEN LONG OVERDUE! Now the above statement all well and good but hey over 15 years for the above, c'mon now...... c'mon THERE ARE SO MANY MODULES NOT NEEDED NEITHER DID WE NEED TO IMPLEMENT WW1 AND WW2 STUFF WHEN PRIORITY IS SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOR THE ABOVE..... SORRY NOT SHOUTING JUST NEEDED TO BE CLEAR. People are done waiting can't you see community has down sized, c'mon now I personally want one sim with everything in it, I think that's the direction sims should take, simply because of how long everything takes and its not like the 80's-90's where sims were thriving with many companies doing their own thing, times have changed........... AND THE COSTS HAVE ALSO! Cant get this stuff on CD ROM AND WITH A BOX OF GOODIES ANYMORE RIGHT!

Experiment done: Observations: Rain drops can merge. They do not drift away when the plane is moving. However, they magically diminish as time goes by. I am not sure I can change the parameter to make the rain drop flows on the glass. One more:

Меня лично на ржач пробивает каждый раз как я его слышу вспоминаю Шварценеггера с его фразой - "Хулиганы!" на русском с диким акцентом. Полагаю носители английского слышат Петровича примерно так же как мы русские слышим того якобы русского копа которого играл Арнольд.

Agreed. But it almost scares me to imagine that this kind of dedication, passion and commitment should not be enough. I got your point though.

нет никакого заговора против русских. И стёба нет. И пренебрежения нет. Ничего нет против русскоязычных пользователей (как и против китайских, французских...). Русский записан вместе с английским одновременно. И уже обработан одновременно с английским... ждет)) Английская озвучка можно сказать включается "автоматом", а другой язык нужно выбирать (будет). Т.е. пока что не сделано в меню переключение на другую локаль озвучки. Мы решили для первого "включения" сосредоточится на отладке озвучки (как системы отслеживания событий и включения/отключения озвучки), а не на расширении возможностей переключения/выбора языка. Поэтому не успели сделать /протестировать этот новый функционал выбора языка. Уж простите. Должно получиться к сентябрьскому апдейту.

Deka has already stated that if they upgrade the "Block I" with a HMD they would add it, hence why I am asking. the WS-13E supposedly has 6% more thrust wet, 13% more thrust dry, a higher bypass ratio, and slightly lower TWR. I don't believe it would make it a different block, considering we have some weird hybrid of a Block I and Block II to begin with.

That was a statement from ED itself. Of course, this is to be taken with a grain of salt, but I think it is more or less reliable and not totally unrealistic. HB will always have to keep ED up to date, I think.

The day when 2TB is not enough for DCS will come very soon, say 2-week.

"DCS-мир изменился, я чувствую это в воде, я чувствую это в земле, вот и в воздухе запахло терабайтными SSD"

It's pretty much a somewhat clueless translation of Russian phraseology, which AFAIK is more or less correct. Back in LOMAC days, the ATC was good enough, at least as far as Russian planes went. The problem is, well, it's not LOMAC days anymore, and it hasn't been for a while. We need a new system made from scratch, and it's a big task.