Leaderboard

The following development module note contains a brief report on the progress in the field of damage modeling for the La-7 virtual aircraft. It should be noted that there is a conventional wisdom that the La-7, unlike its wooden predecessor, the La-5FN, had an all-metal construction. This is a misconception. The next series aircraft, the La-9, was the one that had a metal exterior, while the seventh 'Lavochka' planes were still made of wood, with the exception of the metal elements in the internal power set. The distinctive nature of the destruction to the wooden structure is reflected in our module's damage model. The aircraft has a curious detail: actions were taken to counter the explosion caused by a projectile hitting the fuel tanks. The internal volumes of the tanks were filled with engine exhaust gases, eliminating the risk of vapor ignition from gasoline. Before the combat sortie, the system was activated using the gas filling valve handle. In addition to detailed visual damage modeling, the module, as is customary for each DCS module, will include a wide range of failures and operational limitations.

Brother...I'm not trying to argue with you. I appreciate everything you and the ED team do and I know you have a very difficult and often times thankless job. However, your response just doesn't make any sense. I wish you and the team could just acknowledge that the communication has been confusing at best and conflicting at worst. Starting with "imminent" in December 2022 and going downhill since then. Finally, RAZBAM teases a ridiculous (under the circumstances) July 2023 EA date in the official Cold Start video, followed by you coming here to say, in essence, "there is no date and when we feel comfortable with one, we'll tell you." Can't you see objectively how crazy, misleading, and as a result - frustrating that is? Seriously, by any objective standard it's a total goat rope. I make these points because I love DCS and I want to see ED improve. I'm not angry, I'm not shouting and I'm not pointing any fingers. I'm not demanding a refund and what else am I going to continue to do, but wait, like everyone else...except for all those youtubers. I just ask that you try to view the situation from outside the sandbox and see it from our perspective. I know that is sometimes difficult to do.

The following module development note contains a short report on the progress of the damage model of the virtual La-7 aircraft. It should be noted that there is a widespread opinion that the La-7, unlike its wooden predecessor the La-5FN, had an all-metal construction. This is a misconception. The plane of the next series, the La-9, was clad in metal, while the seventh "benches" were still made of wood, not counting the metal elements of the internal power set. Distinctive nature of the damage to the wooden structure is reflected in the damage model of our module. The aircraft has a curious detail: it used measures to counteract the explosion of a projectile in the fuel tanks - their internal volumes were filled with engine exhaust gases, eliminating the threat of ignition of gasoline vapors. Before a combat flight, the system was activated by using the handle of the gas filling valve. In addition to detailed elaboration of the visual part of the damage model, the module, as befits every module DCS, will contain a broad list of failures and operational constraints.

M3 F4U Corsair

The next picture DM of F4U.

Currenthill, thanks a lot for your GIANT work! I have a proposal too. I see you are more interested in combat assets, but may I ask you to add a non-combat tactical transport (or strategic like An-124 "Condor", if you wish) aircraft for the Russian side (I'm not asking for West because there is a Military Aicraft Mod for that and some other addons). DCS gives us only IL-76 and An-26 for transport purposes, but Russian military has much more quiet unique transport and military passenger aircraft, like An-72 "Coaler" for example (it has unique design with its engines and ultra short takeoff distance). Here are some photos. 1) An-12 "Cub" of the Naval Aviation of Russia (now being retired, but some planes remain in service; very old and smoky plane). 2) An-72 "Coaler" of the Naval Aviation of Russia (new dark grey Navy livery); 3) AN-72 "Coaler" of the Aerospace Forces (ASF) of Russia (standard ASF livery); 4) An-148 of the ASF of Russia (standard ASF livery; newest military passenger plane; joint Russian-Ukrainian design...) 5) Tu-134 "Crusty" of the ASF of Russia (standard ASF livery; one of the main military passenger planes along with An-148 and Tu-154; very loud during takeoff). I hope this might be interesting for you too along with combat assets.

Folks we have had a lot of feedback so thank you for that but angry off topic posting is not going to help here. I have hidden some posts that break our rules. Please do not derail this thread, keep it for discussing the work in progress for the F-15E Posts that do not will be hidden. Thank you

This was a consequence of their own doing. They had an announcement trailer for the blasted preorder (which they then delayed), for crying out loud. You don't see multiple threads in the Kiowa or Phantom sections stuffed to the gills with people lamenting the lack of communication or lack of a release date, and yet there's pages of the stuff here. It's all self-inflicted, at this point and for anyone who says to me 'people are just impatient', by all means, answer me why those other two yet-to-be-released modules don't suffer the same fate? Could it be that RB started this whole hype train with 'The year of the Strike Eagle!' for the past four months? A train we're being told that 'we're almost there!' at every turn, and yet all the track seems to extend out to the horizon. Ultimately, that's the crux of this whole mess, because this is the only place I've seen people this vitriolic about timelines and patience.

В следующей заметке о разработке модуля содержится небольшой отчёт о прогрессе в области модели повреждений виртуального самолёта Ла-7. Следует отметить, что существует расхожее мнение, будто Ла-7, в отличие от своего деревянного предшественника Ла-5ФН, обладал цельнометаллической конструкцией. Это заблуждение. В металл оделся самолёт следующей серии – Ла-9, а седьмые «лавки» по-прежнему изготавливались из древесины, не считая металлических элементов внутреннего силового набора. Отличительный характер разрушений деревянной конструкции отражён в модели повреждений нашего модуля. У самолёта имеется любопытная деталь: на нём применялись меры для противодействия взрыву от попадания снаряда в топливные баки - их внутренние объёмы заполнялись выхлопными газами мотора, что устраняло угрозу воспламенения паров бензина. Перед боевым вылетом система активировалась с помощью ручки крана газонаполнения. Помимо детальной проработки визуальной части модели повреждений, модуль, как и положено каждому модулю DCS, будет содержать широкий перечень отказов и эксплуатационных ограничений.

So I've decided to make a set of posts here that are a bit different, educational, if you will. First will be a post explaining the fairly straightforward process someone would go through to correct the performance of this module. (in simple steps) Second will be a post explaining how you would go about profiling the performance of this aircraft entirely by yourself. As a note, this is as much about HOW it would be done as it is about the ORDER in which it SHOULD be done. (if anything the order is the most important part as doing it in some messed up order would make it more difficult) I'm not going to talk about what the flight model parameters actually look like or how the devs themselves would go about fixing it. Just general strokes of "correct this after checking this" So how would we start fixing the performance? Well first, torque calibration should be noted. The torque gauge in the huey was not perfectly accurate, and gave different readings in each huey IRL. However, each aircraft was provided with an engine data plate, this plate included plenty of data, but the one piece we are looking for is the torque calibration factor. How they measured this was fairly simple. What did the torque gauge read at 1125ft/lbs of shaft torque? That's it. Now, if at 1125ft-lbs of engine torque, the torque gauge reads 61.4449346228909 PSI, it would actually be perfectly calibrated. In an ideal world, all hueys would have their torque gauge read this way, but they don't. However this is a simulator. Some huey torque gauges DID read that way. So, calibrating ours to read that way would be a great first step to simplifying the process to fixing the performance. TLDR 1125ft-lbs of shaft torque at 61.4449346228909 PSI of gauge torque would make our huey's power per torque line up with all of the performance metrics. This makes everything easier. So where do we go from there? Next would be correcting the amount of power provided at different engine throttle settings. This graph. After that, we get into the fun stuff. The next step would be correcting the tail rotor. You might be wondering what effect the tail rotor has on the overall performance. In terms of authenticity and accuracy? Quite a lot. The huey's tail rotor can draw upward of 170+SHP at full left pedal. This would change the torque gauge by 8PSI. Yeah, think back to the other graphs and how much 8PSI changes things. First we need to understand how the tail rotor would be set up. How it would be rigged, if you will. It is different for every aircraft, some have less total travel, others have more, but overall the balance should be the same. Blade travel range is what you are looking at here, Pedal full left, provides a blade pitch of -17.5 degrees Pedal full right, provides a blade pitch of +8.9 degrees, yes you read that correctly, PLUS 8.9. Pushing the right pedal all the way in should actually cause the tail rotor to push the nose to the right faster than torque alone can. However, before EVEN THAT, we need to correct something else. The gear ratios. For whatever reason, in DCS the tail rotor to main rotor gear ratio is actually 5.5:1, you can test this yourself easily, the gear ratio doesn't change with RPM. Go hop in a huey, set it to third person, and press the starter Watch how many times the tail rotor rotates in the time it takes the main rotor to rotate once. Fix the gear ratio, then rig the tail rotor. Currently in the DCS huey, the full right position on the pedals actually draws the least power from the engine, this is incorrect. The pedals should be neutralized (producing no thrust, thus drawing the least power) 66% from full left. IE to the right of the center position, but not all the way right. From there the next step would be tweaking how much power the tail rotor draws. 170shp at full left should be sufficient. Additionally, you would correct how much thrust the tail rotor provides in the same way we are about to correct the main rotor thrust, however the tail rotor seemingly doesn't actually produce thrust in DCS, only the relevant torque and anti torque forces. After this would be correcting the lift generated by the main rotor at different power (collective) settings. You might think this would be a difficult metric to determine, however, we have the exact data we need to make this an extremely simple affair. This graph is a performance profiling of the huey in an OGE hover. Out of ground effect means that the performance benefits of being near the ground are not a factor as the hover altitude is high enough that they do not affect the aircraft anymore. This means exactly what you think it does. It means that the amount of thrust generated by the rotor is exactly the same as the mass of the aircraft. A huey at 7700lbs hovering out of ground effect would be producing, you guessed it, 7700lbs of total net downward thrust. This means the chart even takes into account the amount of downward force generated by the rotor pushing air against the body of the aircraft. This graph is an EXACT representation of how much effective thrust the rotor generates for any given power setting. It also includes the position the pedals would need to be in as well. But how do we read this chart? Well, with a little math, of course. I know, don't worry, the math is fairly basic. I know, I know, the symbols look scary, but don't worry, they're just variables like A B C D. Here they are. Allow me to write it out for you. Power Coefficient = ((SHAFT HORSEPOWER*550)/((0.02289013*PRESSURE INHG/(TEMPERATURE C +273.15))*1809.56*(((ROTOR RPM*2π)/60)*24)^3))*10^5 Thrust Coefficient = (TOTAL THRUST IN LBS/((0.02289013*PRESSURE INHG/(TEMPERATURE C +273.15))*1809.56*(((ROTOR RPM*2π)/60)*24)^2))*10^4 As a reminder, our atmospheric test variables are normalized to 15C and 29.921255347142inHg, and the huey tends to spin its rotor at 324rpm. So, in these conditions, a total thrust of 7700lbs would produce a thrust coefficient of 26.99843261, and 780shp would produce a power coefficient of 18.47226921 Check those values on the graph, congratulations, you can now read the graph. From there, it would be adjusting flight model parameters until the out of ground effect performance matched the graph. The rotor would then be producing the right amount of thrust for any given power setting. Then the ground effect parameters would be tweaked so that they could match their respective graphs as well. All 3 graphs are combined on this one. Things get more complicated after this, and I apologize, but I am going to speed up at this point and make it even simpler. With the rotor producing the correct amount of thrust while the aircraft is stationary, next comes correcting the amount of thrust while the aircraft is moving. This is far more complicated as it not only involves dynamic airflow, but also drag. As the helicopter gains speed, the rotor begins to produce more thrust for any given power setting. At 60knots true airspeed the rotor is the most efficient, it takes the least amount of power to keep the aircraft flying at this speed. Effectively, correcting this would just be adjusting the parameters that determine aircraft drag and the amount of thrust gained from forward flight. However, this is not something easily detailed. It is also effectively impossible to profile in DCS as an end user. While, for the hover chart, we could assume that the thrust coefficient was equal to the total weight of the aircraft. This is not the case for forward flight. In forward flight, the thrust coefficient involves an unknown variable we can not reliably obtain, cable tension. In the hover chart, this variable was easily predicted to be zero, however forward flight requires more thrust than the total weight of the aircraft. We cannot determine that in a simple manner. However, the developers should be able to. From there would be correcting the rate of climb per horsepower, however, with all the other parameters corrected, this SHOULD fall into place on its own. Lastly would be correcting the performance at different altitudes, however at this point, you get the idea. Check the data, compare it to how it performs in DCS, adjust the parameters until it's correct. I'm going to take a break and come back at some point with a post about how you can profile all these parameters yourself where possible to the exact same degree that I have done for this thread. Potentially even higher.

We have listened to a lot of feedback and concerns and it has been passed on to the teams. We will share the release date with you all once we are 100% sure of it. thank you

Hey Guys, here is my Video about a few Features of the upcoming Gazelle. Have Fun _________________________________________________________________________________________ Hey Leute, hier mein Video über ein paar neue Features über die "neue" Gazelle. Viel Spaß

Sir, this is the internet.

So, this is no longer a WIP discussion! With all due respect, just like the poster 2 post above me said, "I love DCS". I love it too and these discussion threads for the wealth of knowledge that a lot of users share. But this incessant whining is becoming unbearable. I mean, I want my SE very much so, but obviously, it is not ready. ED and RB can explain all they want; it'll never be enough for some people. I also watched people whine in the Viper beginnings as well as the Apache. It never fails! Whining won't make it come faster. All of a sudden, everyone has a business degree from Harvard! I love it when those outside try and tell those inside how to run their business. I can't run a Wal-Mart and wouldn't try, don't know the first thing! There are things that we know and don't. The developers have apologized and explained up the Waz zoo! Things happen. Is it messed up, yes! But things happen. Let them (ED/RB) finish the work fellas! If you are like me, you probably have more than enough modules to fill out a month. Stand by for heavy rolls as the ship comes about. Next will be when the SE releases and there are still bugs, or the never ending, "what about this system" or "why isn't this thing in that thing." I now remember why I left Customer service and joined the Navy. The YT videos make me glad I pre-ordered in the first place. I hope this thread gets back on track until the release. Feel free to flame-spray me all you'd like, it's just my 2 cents!

Manage your weight and she'll do fine vs the F-5 and MiG-21Bis

I bought this, it turned out it was actually the other way around. The description was correct and the presented picture was incorrect. It was the launcher, not the radar. So I had to ask for a refund. So I'm still looking for the S-350 radar model for a reasonable price.

Findest du echt?? Das verwundert mich extrem. Vor 20-25 Jahren (und davor) gabs Flugsims doch wie Sand am Meer und sie waren weit verbreitet. Man errinere sich z.B. an die Falcon-Reihe oder die ganzen Janes-Spiele oder an Tornado von Digital Integration. Damals hatte die GameStar sogar noch eine eigene Rubrik extra für Simulatoren. Mit der Jahrtausendwende änderte sich das dann ziemlich plötzlich und es kamen immer seltener neue Flugsims und das Genre wurde zu einer nerdigen Nische. Damals gabs ja außerdem auch noch FF Sticks, die man heutzutage ziemlich vergeblich sucht.

RWC those are some beautiful photos of USS Gerald Ford. Really nice!! One thing about carriers. They never travel anywhere without a submarine which is what you never see. You may see her escort but not the Submarine. She's always well-protected. The more I look at her the more I want to create a mod of her. We'll see! We have a lot of warships in DCS but not Harbor Patrol boats. We will have some soon. https://i.postimg.cc/J4FjJQCs/Digital-Combat-Simulator-Black-Shark-Screenshot-2023-05-25-21-03-40-97.png

PGZ-09 SPAAG 1.0.0 released! Changelog Version 1.0.0 Release version

July is the current goal for RAZBAM and we share their optimism. That said, testing is dynamic and when MP testing is done many things can go wrong. We totally understand your frustration, but we are trying to give you something but managing expectations as well. Its a fine line obviously, and sorry if we have upset anyone, it is not our intent at all.

And add to that the fact that every YouTuber and their dog has been given a copy. "Oh, so you've preordered the Strike Eagle? Well, it's going to be a few months more before you can check it out", meanwhile at the Grim Reapers "Can a Strike Eagle kill the Red Baron while doing the Star Wars trench run?".

BECAUSE RUNWAYS ARE FOR BEAUTY QUEENS! BLACKSHARKDEN squadron is proud to offer to the DCS community a new public server exclusively dedicated to rotary wings operations: HELO WORLD Our developers have been capitalizing on our 9 years of operations to build what we believe will be the best DCS helicopter experience that no other public servers we tested so far can meet (yes, that's bold but we really think we can do it). The HELO WORLD public server is offering you the BLACKSHARKDEN experience less the milsim aspects or the need to become a member. It does stick though to its three founding principles: a FIXED WING FREE environment, NO Players Vs Players and encouraging COOPERATIVE missions. We value the roles of ALL the DCS helicopters and give them meaningful tasks that will influence the outcome of the battle. Exclusive and improved scripts unlock all the potential for rotary wings operations in DCS. In this server, you will be able to perform the following tasks: Close air support (Troops in contact) Sector control (capture areas while fighting against vastly improved AI) FARP activation (Mi-8, UH-1H and UH-60L are heroes too. Provide the required logistics to support the ongoing battle) Oil Rig assault Maritime security and VBSS (Visit, Board, Search, Seizure) Anti submarine warfare (on selected helicopter types only) Counter Insurgency Operations (COIN) (work in progress) At BLACKSHARKDEN, we also made sure to address some of the other servers pain points: a clear and responsive documentation about how to use the different server's functionalities, a dedicated space on our Discord server for support and meeting our pilots, a pretty solid pro hosted server in Canada giving great response times whether you are in US or EU, a real time heatmap access to see who is flying and where without the need to connect to the server. The HELO WORLD Public server can be found on the DCS server list at "Helo World by [BSD] BlackSharkDen" and runs on the Syria Map. Auto kick and auto ban are enabled for team killing (make sure you understand the server rules available on our Discord Server). All DCS helicopters are available plus the UH-60L Mod (not mandatory to join the server). Although we took away some of the milsim aspects we are applying to our missions at BLACKSHARKDEN, it doesn't mean that HELO WORLD is suitable for complete beginners in RW operations. There are some good challenges. As such, we cannot encourage you enough to join our BSD Discord Server and get all the info and links you will need to fully enjoy this public server. MAKE SURE TO JOIN OUR DISCORD SERVER TO GET THE INFO AND SUPPORT TO FLY ON THIS SERVER!

A free model from flight Gear. OvGME ready Saved games mod. You asked for it, We deliver! Better than Grub Hub! "We accept CC's only, 20% gratuity please!" Presenting for your consideration, The Concorde Super Sonic Transport Aircraft. Concorde is a tailless aircraft design with a narrow fuselage permitting a 4-abreast seating for 92 to 128 passengers, an ogival delta wing and a droop nose for landing visibility. It is powered by four Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593 turbojets with variable engine intake ramps, and reheat for take-off and acceleration to supersonic speed. Constructed out of aluminium, it was the first airliner to have analogue fly-by-wire flight controls. The airliner could maintain a supercruise up to Mach 2.04 (2,170 km/h; 1,170 kn) at an altitude of 60,000 ft (18.3 km). (from the wiki) This is a Beta release. Some nice skins included no extra charge! Flyable has NOT been tested. Yea, I could not help myself! https://www.dropbox.com/s/y8cu8qoal21ay5u/The Concorde V 2.8.0.zip?dl=0 This one is for @crazyeddie! Thanks for all you do for us! Tho British skins to choose from! And we have not forgotten France! She awaits inside! Please enjoy and, Have Fun! Hawkeye60

Das würde ich auch so sehen. So direkt aus dem Stehgreif: Dynamix, NovaLogic, Digital Integration, Digital Image Design, Microsoft, Rowans und von Janes und Microprose fang ich garnicht erst an. Die haben alle so einiges an Flugsimulationen rausgebracht. Und das war nur auf die Schnelle. Wenn ich etwas intensiver drüber nachdenke kommen mir mit Sicherheit noch einige Entwickler mehr in den Sinn. Für mich waren die 90er das goldene Jahrzehnt der Flugsimulationen.

Quoting Cobra : There will be some gaps between releases as this is something that all parties feel is good, but the development or release schedule on a macro level is not influenced by the 15E. Put simply, and with all due respect, we do our own thing and don't really care much about other third parties. I wouldn't even say we consider other releases quite as competitors, as the rising tide raises all boats in DCS''.

Was denn sonst? Nehmen wir mal diejenigen Entwickler, die ihr erstes Modul rausbringen - die sind über Jahre hinweg in Vorleistung getreten, und bei den meisten Softwareprojekten gilt sowieso die goldene Regel: die ersten 90% des Projekts benötigen 90% der Zeit, und die restlichen 10% des Projekts benötigen die anderen 90% der Zeit. Das wird bei Flugsimulationen tendenziell vielleicht sogar noch schlimmer sein, weil es weltweit nur grob eine handvoll Entwickler gibt, die sowas einigermaßen ernsthaft betreibt. Das heißt bei vielen grundlegenden Aufgaben kann man nicht mal eben Reddit oder Stackoverflow fragen oder sich 3 Tutorials auf Youtube anschauen, wenn man gerade vor einem komplexen Problem steht. Und komplexe Probleme gibt es nun wahrlich genug zu lösen. Irgendwann wäre es halt echt nice, wenn man für die ganze Arbeit Geld reinkriegt. ED und die etablierten Drittanbieter stehen im Prinzip vor dem gleichen Problem. Auch das x-te Modul ist nicht einfach runterprogrammiert und fertig. Der Aufwand ist immer noch immens. Gleichzeitig gehe ich ganz stark davon aus, dass es in den Phasen Pre-Sale sowie Early Access jeweils die besten Verkaufszahlen gibt und sich die Verkäufe danach auf irgendeinem Niveau einpendeln, Tendenz vermutlich im Lauf der Zeit eher sinkend. Wenn man jetzt beschließt, dass man alles erreicht hat, was man erreichen wollte, dann könnte man an dieser Stelle aufhören. Aber da sowohl ED als auch viele der 3rd Parties weitere Module planen, muss halt die Kohle für die Entwicklung irgendwoher kommen. Und genau da hat ED wiederholt gesagt, dass das Early-Access-Modell ihnen erlaubt, die Lichter anzulassen und sie sonst nicht in der Lage wären, ihre Produkte in der gewohnten Form abzuliefern. Kannst du kurz aufzählen, wie viele Entwickler aus der guten, alten Zeit (TM) heute noch mit aktuellen Simulationen am Start sind? Quatsch. Das DCS-Ökosystem funktioniert blendend. ED und die Drittanbieter hauen nach wie vor haufenweise Content raus, und ich sehe keinen Grund für die Annahme, dass das in absehbarer Zukunft mal anders werden könnte. Und während ich mir natürlich auch wünsche, dass es weniger Bugs und Probleme gäbe und dass neue Features schneller kämen, muss man halt auch ab und zu mal kurz innehalten und anschauen, was es denn so alles komplett kostenlos für uns alle gab und gibt: großes Wetter-Update, neue Wolken, Multiplayer-synchron Marianen (modern) Marianen (WW II, in Arbeit) Multicore, fast durch die Bank weg bessere FPS für Alle integrierter Voice-Chat (in Arbeit) verbesserte Licht- und Beleuchtungseffekte neuer Infrarotrenderer (auch für existierende Module) Und klar, fast alles davon ist noch in Arbeit, es gibt Problemchen und auch ausgewachsene Probleme. Aber DCS als Plattform wächst und gedeiht doch im Moment und sowieso seit vielen Jahren ganz prächtig, und die Strike Eagle hat daran dieser Tage gerade einen erheblichen Anteil, weil das Flugzeug in der westlichen Welt halt schon echt bekannt ist und sich viele DCS-Piloten das Muster seit langem gewünscht haben. Dass die PR-Arbeit bei RAZBAM, genau so wie bei allen anderem im DCS-Umfeld, nicht immer perfekt ist - geschenkt. Die Preview-Videos sehen fantastisch aus, und ich glaube in ein paar Wochen werden wir alle ganz viel Spaß mit der Maschine haben und sie wird DCS im Singleplayer und ganz besonders im Multiplayer langfristig stark bereichern. Und beim nächsten Modul erinnern wir uns dann wieder dran, dass auch bei der Kritik am Strike-Eagle-Release nichts so heiß gegessen wird wie es gekocht wurde.

Keep in mind that in the A, the mid compressor bypass valve opens when you extend the fuel probe. This increases engine stability at the expense of thrust which is very noticable if the tanker flies high and fast. During OEF, F-14As sometimes used zone 1 afterburner on one engine to keep up with the tanker when fully loaded. Taking gas from an S-3 flying at 200 something knots should not require AB. Did you sweep the wings back? If so, try refueling with wings in auto and you should be good.

Hello Admiral Sir, Enjoying the arrival of the USS Gerald Ford in my home town in Oslo :

Those are stairs which US pilot uses everyday

Hi @Jackjack171 Fwiw; There is this "no discussion" WIP thread here: It kinda died unfortunately (yet understandably), since there are now countless YT videos out there and no official WIP news, this nice thread became a bit useless.

Brian was a great man. He and I were Recce IPs while we were stationed at Beale, me in the Deuce and him in the Sled. I still remember the time he brought Sheila O'Grady into the O'Club for the first time. All jaws dropped with mouths agape at the sight of her in that form fitting red dress. A proud patriot and warrior. He will be missed. RIP Brother.

Because of you and Admiral189 ,ED is full of lively .

This exactly. On their twitter account, ED posts stuff like "The Strike Eagle is coming in hot and soon you'll be able to fly...!" (that is a direct quote), then will be like "No date is set yet. Everyone just needs to be patient. We'll let you know once there is a date." How is it "coming in hot" if no date has been set? How do they know "soon" when it is all up in the air?

I will just drop this here. but it is FUNNY as hell. Even some youtubers have decided to stop posting content because of this mess. one would think with every clown and his poedel getting a copy its close to release. not another 2 months off. BUT allas, it is this dev, and this module. one marred with controversy and fumbles. We would think ED had learnt their lesson after the viper. Take a page out of that other dev working on a most wanted module. shut it till its ready, then release stuff. but NO! Now its a game of he said they said.

Nicely done. I do love this little fighter.

Not sure what you have in the pipeline but every one of your assets is incredible. Just going to put this guy right here though.

The lengthy preorder period isn't really the issue here - the problem is the lack of communication from Razbam/ED. They're dropping hints and conflicting information about a possible release date - Ron's "Two Weeks" joke really threw a lot of people, who apparently weren't in on the joke, off. And then they go and release it to a whole bunch of YouTubers (through a quick serach I found 15 YouTubers who seem to have access to it) who are now flooding YouTube with Strike Eagle videos - the Grim Reapers alone have done ten videos on the Strike Eagle in the last week... And all the general public has to go on is a vague hint in a video that it might be released in July. A quick update on what's going on would clear up a whole lot of frustration.

New companion module "sittingDucks" I've added the "sittingDucks" companion module (by request from @Panthir) that allows for interesting new multiplayer options: when a static stand-in is destroyed, the associated player slot is closed. This means that players must defend their airfields against enemy attacks lest they lose access to their aircraft. And it allows players to attack enemy bases to deny players of that side access to their planes. Enjoy, -ch

Hello Beldin m8, I hope it's ok if i share this with you on here. At the moment .... guess who is in my town in Oslo ....??? The one and only USS Gerald R. Ford !!!! She is so big ! 4800 crew members are now partying in town RWC.

You are correct about the rockets. The weapons defined as type rockets doesn't have a RCS and thus aren't recognized by the game engine as engageable threats. Let's hope ED fixes this in the future. Most of the rockets in my assets (like the HIMARS) are defined as missiles and can therefore be engaged. Thank you! I'm happy to hear!

That's true and well said, but all this teasing, YouTube, Easter egg, two weeks/ months thing is starting to get a bit bizarre...

I'd like to see literally anything but the f15. They've been driving the strike eagle hype train pretty relentlessly, there's a lot of other good stuff in the works at the moment. At this point I'd prefer a newsletter that says " well, we got nothing this week" over f15 news..but you can't please everyone, no sense in trying. Grass is still touchable

Very easily, we don't have one, so people want it. It's simple.

Quick video to, hopefully, answer the question that pops up now and then. Which version is the best? In 2019, the A Mk60 dominated due to its vastly better kinematic performance. Nowadays, every version has pros and cons, and ranges at which they work best. It all comes down to how you use them.

There's a reason for the cliched 'two weeks' joke that everyone uses. This just perpetuates it.

AvgeekJoe, I updated the Independence to its latest weapons although they change all the time. Strike Missile and the AGM-114L. FlyingScotsman I'm sure they had to make multiple trips back in those days just to transport cargo. It amazes me how large the ships are today. The Largest ship I've piloted was the MV Carter and MV in Diego Garcia. They were close to 80,000 Tons. At the time I thought it was very heavy but looking at the ships out there today. 80,000 tons don't compare to 240,000 tons. Our saying was slow and easy because those ships don't stop on a dime. Some took an entire mile or more to stop. Speaking of Piloting. I've created a Pilot Boat to assist with the Canal Transit. Still WIP!

you bought into a pre-order, early access comes once it is released to the public. The Pre-order discount gives you 30% discount, you get to support the team before release. If you bought into early access it would be 20% discount. I understand it is frustrating waiting for release, and yes it can take some time, but I would suggest if waiting for pre-order is not something you like you should have waited and purchased the early access instead you would still be supporting the dev team and it is appreciated. thank you

Not a WIP shot, but my Lego build J-8II