Leaderboard

DCS: F-4E is, as the name implies, an -E. Our -E is modeled mostly after a specific block and set of T.O., however in general, specimens did change slightly here and there. E.g. our cockpit includes the AVTR recorder, which was a later addition to the cockpit across the fleet.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cv-afrRNQuD/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA%3D%3D heablur showing off phantom and ef2000 reel

WOW! That would be maybe the door opener for more interesting mods. So far- I put some more polygons on the models, worked on the bump textures and animations : Cheers TOM

Warehouse control functions in DCS Update 2.8.8.43489 on 16th August 2023. We are pleased to include warehouse inventory script functions. Thank you to @Grimes for initial testing and feedback, and overall creative multiplayer and mission content creators community for driving us forward. Airbase get Warehouse example airbase:getWarehouse() local w = airbase:getWarehouse() w:addItem("A-10C",3) -- add 3 w:removeItem("A-10C",1) --remove 1 w:setItem("A-10C",10) --force to have 10 local count = w:getItemCount("A-10C") w:addLiquid(0,300) -- add 300 kg of jet fuel w:removeLiquid(0,100) -- remove 100 kg of jet fuel local amount = w:getLiquidAmount(0) -- current amount w:setLiquidAmount(0,500) local owner = w:getOwner() -- get owner object -- weapon can be managed or using string resource name , or indexed type table w:addItem("weapons.missiles.AIM_120C",3) --or w:addItem({4, 4, 7, 106},3) Warehouse get Inventory example warehouse:getInventory() Usage example: local airbase = Airbase.getByName('Wadi al Jandali') local warehouse = airbase:getWarehouse() local inventory = warehouse:getInventory() local function dump(o) if type(o) == 'table' then local s = ' {\n' for k,v in pairs(o) do if type(k) ~= 'number' then k = '"'..k..'"' end s = s .. '['..k..'] = ' .. dump(v) .. ',\n' end return s .. '} \n' else return tostring(o) end end env.info(dump(inventory)) inventory = { liquids = {}, – map of [enum_of_liquid] = numeric_current_amout in kg, weapon = {}, – map of ["string key"] = numeric_current_amout, aircraft = {}, – map of ["string key"] = numeric_current_amout, } out sample : 10:15:16:245 2023-08-07 07:15:15.225 INFO SCRIPTING (Main): { 10:15:16:245 ["liquids"] = { 10:15:16:245 [1] = 100000, 10:15:16:245 [2] = 100000, 10:15:16:245 [3] = 100000, 10:15:16:245 [0] = 100000, 10:15:16:245 } 10:15:16:245 , 10:15:16:245 ["weapon"] = { 10:15:16:245 ["weapons.nurs.SNEB_TYPE253_F1B"] = 100, 10:15:16:245 ["weapons.bombs.BDU_45LGB"] = 100, 10:15:16:245 ["weapons.missiles.AGM_65H"] = 100, 10:15:16:245 ["weapons.missiles.P_24T"] = 100, 10:15:16:245 ["weapons.missiles.AGM_154"] = 100, 10:15:16:245 ["weapons.bombs.British_GP_500LB_Bomb_Mk5"] = 100, 10:15:16:245 ["weapons.nurs.SNEB_TYPE252_F1B"] = 100, Warehouse get ResourceMap example Warehouse.getResourceMap() getResourceMap - return string to wstype mapping for weapon and objects in DCS ! note ! - wstype can be NULL for some objects (like shells or some categories of static objects ) local resource_map = Warehouse.getResourceMap() – ["string_key"] = {lev1,lve2,lev3,lev4} for k,o in pairs(resource_map) do env.info(string.format('[\"%s\"]\t\t\t= {%d,%d,%d,%d} ,',k,o[1],o[2],o[3],o[4])) end

C-RAM in action. From DCS TikTok https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGJsJs46D/

BTW, this is described in our Flight Manual: The clock includes a classic watch and a chronometer with a small needle that counts elapsed time up to 15 minutes. The clock spring has a total capacity of 2 days of operation. It is initialized at mission start in half wound state. An error may be expected when the spring is almost fully discharged.

The clock spring has a total capacity of 2 days of operation. And it is initialized in half wound state. Moreover, there's an error implemented to the clock time, when the spring is almost fully discharged.

Hello there! @currenthill First off I want to say with all sincerity that you are making some of the finest Chinese assets I have ever seen! Your dedication to details and the time you take to make these assets come to life is truly amazing. I do have some question...request if you will regarding to possible Chinese assets in the future: Will you be considering making any long range SAM for China? Like the HQ22? Or a land based anti ship missile like the DF-21D? Or a PLAN Shandong Carrier? Or how about the Chinese infantry pack like the US infantry pack that you made? Again I want to thank you and commend you for the ongoing effort you have made in bringing these assets to life

Added liveries for South Korea and Germany in 1.1.0816 AFAIK, those torpedoes still don't operate as a proper airdrop MK-54 for AI deployment.

I would like to suggest a KC-10 Tanker. I know there is a mod already for it, but it works not really at the moment with the basket . A working KC-10 as AI would be epic

Howdy there! I'm not sure what kind of ammo we have in the DEFA's at the moment, however they feel a little limp when hitting planes at times. They do great damage to ground targets however, which leads me to believe we have an AP or AP/HE belt. However the DEFA 30mms had belts of all different kinds, listed as follows: DEFA 552/552A/553/554 Caliber: 30 mm Number of main: 1 Barrel length: Overall length: 1957 mm Weapon weight: DEFA 552 -80 kg DEFA 552A -81 kg DEFA 553 -81 kg DEFA 554 -85 kg Number of chambers: 5 Muzzle velocity: DEFA 554 - 765 m/s APHEI-SD; 815 m/s HEI; 820 mps TP Cadence: DEFA 552 - 1250 rounds/min DEFA 552A - 1300 rounds/min DEFA 553 - 1300 rounds/min DEFA 554 - 1100 - 1800 rounds/min Method of shooting: dose from DEFA 553 limited (lasting 0.5 s or 1 s) or continuous Manufacturer: Manufacture National d`Armes Ammunition:30 x 113 mm Match: electric Length: whole hub 213 mm cartridge 113 mm Weight: whole projectile 245 - 275 g (according to projectile type) projectile explosive charge 18-50 g (according to projectile type) whole charge 450 g dust 48 g Species: Type 5432 APHEI-SD Type 6522 HEI & HEI-SD Type 21202 TP & TP-T Type 2671 SAPHEI Type 2271 AGTP It would be great to know if at all possible, if these would come sometime down the line. Currently the Air to Air effectiveness of the guns are very hit or miss.

As per the title, can you please add the rear gunsight repeater? Unless I'm missing something, I can see no way to add the rear gunsight. There is a special options box to add or remove the front cockpit gunsight but not one for the rear. Pages 222 to 230 in your manual explain the workings of the sighting system and make it clear that there should be the option for a rear cockpit gunsight repeater. The MB339 would make a very poor weapons trainer without one. I would like to be able to use the MB339 to instruct on academic weapons delivery and the lack of the gunsight makes the C101 the much better proposition at the moment, while the 339 is my preferred tool for everything else. Thank you.

Hi, It would be great if we could have the ability to shade the sunglare on the mpcds with the vr hands. It would be extremely useful and great for inmersion. It´s already been a couple of times I´ve tried to do it without realizing while playing.

Pilot and copilot radio selectors must operate independently, like in the Hind, so each one can transmit over different radios at the same time. This is a bug that has been present since the launch of the Mi-8MTV2 but now with the implementation of the multicrew has become more important.

Wish lists are like... eh... rear ends, everyone's got 'em. Here's my mostly serious rear end... 1. The ability to merge multiple unit types into group templates. Specifically, I'd really love it if I could take an aircraft carrier and add static (and non-static, I suppose) aircraft and other items to the flight deck once and for all, along with other ships in the task force*. It can be pretty time consuming to have to do this over and over and over again. The closest thing I've come is to create master copies of each of the maps I have, and each of those templates has the carrier set up. But still, it would be nice to be able to mix and match in templates. (*When I was in the Navy, they were battle groups. Now they're task forces, task groups, Battlestar Galacticas, something like that - I can't remember.) 2. I'd like the ability to create unit templates (or a new feature - just plain old groups of things) without having a master item. Let's say I have a SAM site with a command post, search radars, and 14,728 launchers. (Okay, four launchers.) If I smack down one of the launchers I'd like to be able to delete only that when I create a new mission based on the one I just finished. Of course, the next item on my list would solve this issue... 3. PERSISTENCE. I'm going to persist in being persistent about persistence, and I'll be persistent about persistence until persistence is added. (Mission persistence, that is.) 4. I think this is in the works for the upcoming super duper version coming up - better air traffic controllers. Right now, the ones we have obviously aren't in the union, and, being scabs, they're not nearly as skilled as the members of the air traffic controllers union. 5. I'd like to see aircraft directors direct us all the way from parking to a catapult, and from the arresting gear to a parking spot. 6. National borders on the maps, maybe with the option of turning them off. I know this would be dependent on what period of time is being simulated, but ED has performed miracles so far so this one should be a snap. 7. Make logic simpler and clearer so LUA scripting isn't needed as often. I'd rather spend my time at a luau. 8. Maybe the explosive growth in AI could help with this, but I'd love to be able to create custom callsigns that would then be heard on the radio. (Dragonfire and/or Shamrock are what I'd like to have. Squid will have to do for now, and I appreciate the shout-out to all my tentacled friends.) 9. This one's kind of minor - when the pilot's salute is given at night, it should make all the external lights turn on. In the real world, salutes can't be seen at night so lights-on is the signal. 10. Another minor thing - I'd like to see the interval between the shooter touching the deck and the actual launch be a little longer. From what I remember it can be up to five or six seconds between the two. 11. I'd like to be able to set up a racetrack orbit centered on a single waypoint. Specify leg length, turn radius, speed, altitude and whether or not a piddle pack is needed during one of the legs. (Okay, just kidding on that last part.) 12. Bubbleheads that actually earn their pay by sinking ships and launching cruise missiles from submarines. Right now all they do is play acey-deucey in their skivvies and fart all day long. 13. Maybe this is possible and I just haven't figured it out, but I'd like to be able to specify a time that an AI aircraft lands. I tried setting one for four minutes after mission start and it ignored me. 14. I'd like to be able to visually damage or destroy those existing structures in gray, the ones you can right-click on to "assign as." Me want be Godzilla. 15. I know this one's a biggie - true polygonal trigger zones. The limitations we have right now are triggering my anxiety. 16. Smoother pilot movements, because we know all pilots are smooooooooth. The pilots in the Christian Eagle seem to have the right stuff, but the dude in the Hornet acts like Lurch from The Addams Family. 17. Smoother aircraft movements on carrier flight decks. I know they have NWS HI, but not that HI. 18. And no AI backing up aircraft to parking spaces on the carriers! 19. I'm a white guy the last time I checked, so this one isn't personally important to me, but overall I'd say it is important. You need to add options for non-whites and females. This is the 21st Century, after all. Discuss it, debate it, and eventually argue about it. Don't forget to invoke Godwin's Law. 20. This one's minor, but it sort of relates to #20 in terms of model textures - the Navy aircrews all seem to be wearing Air Force flight suits. Appropriate patches, please. 21. Just a nice thing that's not important at all - it would be nice to have some "canned" real world military audio we could listen to in lieu of actual AI comms, just to add atmosphere. Currently, I create a trigger zone that covers the entire map and then at mission start a trigger plays the audio file over one of the radio channels. 22. Realistic ship damage, in all ways - appearance, percentage, Kate Winslet (naked, please) on a wooden door with Leo DePopsicle hanging on. 23. Viking tails shouldn't be folded down if they're on the flight deck. There was no reason to fold them down in real life - there was no point in downing an aircraft because the fold mechanism broke in the down position. 24. When setting up a trigger for something like "bomb in zone," please include an option that's more generic. Personally, I'd like to see three extra options: "air-to-ground weapon in zone," "surface-to-air weapon in zone" and "air-to-air weapon in zone." Whenever I'm creating a mission that I later fly, I know exactly what kind of weapons are going to be used by the bad guys, and that takes some of the mystery factor out of a mission. 25. This one's a tough one. Have the AI enemy sometimes choose what missions to fly - first strike, retaliatory strike, etc. (Or ground and sea missions, for that matter.) Having a surprise strike hitting the airfield you're based at will really pucker the old [redacted]. Maybe there could be different levels of AI involvement, all the way up to full-on strategic and tactical missions using multiple unit types operating from a variety of places. (You'd probably need a bitcoin mining processor farm to make this work, though.) 26. Not all that important, but adding hospital ships would be nice. In the US it would be the USNS Mercy and USNS Comfort. Stay tuned for items 27 through 4,716.

My apologize, the extract in my previous post was from F1 manual. This explanation still has to be added to the C-101 manual.

I reckon a Willys would be a doddle to hotwire. I’ve driven one. I can’t go without mentioning it as it was a childhood dream to own one, not that I do. Chatting to an owner taking pics of his jeep he just asked if I wanted to drive it and I almost fell over. I had a few laps of the airfield, beeping the little horn and grinning like a little kid, pulled up to my missus and told her we were “off to the Ardennes”. I’ll never forget it and will always be grateful. Serendipity. I do like the idea of being able to rescue downed pilots though. By land, sea or air.

ED already expressed they're going to continue to refresh old modules, just like they did with Ka-50 III and A-10C II.

Hi, ich empfinde die beiden Muster wie folgt: Rein vom Flugverhalten liegen Welten zwischen den beiden Mustern. Die F18 ist wohl das mit Abstand gutmütigste Muster in der gesamten DCS-Flotte. Mir fällt auf Anhieb kein Fluggerät in DCS ein, welches derart "einfach" zu starten, zu fliegen und zu landen ist. Selbst in den Dogfights, egal ob Fox2 oder nur Cannon, die F18 ist so Einsteigerfreundlich, dass sie fast schon langweilig wirkt. Die F18 verzeiht Fehler, welche bei der F16 mit einem Mal von einer überlegenen Position in eine total unterlegene Position führen würden. Die F18 kann man prügeln, würgen, peitschen und sie macht ruhig ihr Ding und lässt einem immer noch genügend Raum zum Ausbügeln von Fehlern. Das wirklich "aufregendste" bei der F18, ist die Trägerlandung. Die F16 ist im Gegenzug zur F18 eine verwöhnte "Bitch". Sie mag es hart und schnell, aber immer nur mit Handschuhen. Kaum Spielraum für Fehler, ansonsten ist sie beleidigt und zickt rum. Und man braucht seine Zeit, bis sie wieder mit einem "redet". Die F16 hat eben Feuer und braucht den "einfühlsamen Macho". Von den Waffen selber und wozu man die beiden Muster einsetzen kann, gibt es keine gewaltigen Unterschiede. Ja, man muss ein paar Knöpfe in einer anderen Reihenfolge bedienen und was bei der F18 gut ist, ist bei der F16 teilweise noch besser, aber wirklich nichts, was man nicht schnell lernen kann. Einem Neuling würde ich immer erst die F18 empfehlen, da der Lustfaktor deutlich einfacher zu erreichen ist und der Frustfaktor um Welten weiter weg ist als bei der F16. Die F16 hat noch viel mit seltsamen Dingen zu kämpfen: wie dem Verlust der Aufschaltung von Zielen, aus nicht erklärbaren Gründen dem immer noch extremen hohen Energieverlust beim Kurvenkampf (Samthandschuhe sind hier gefragt ;)) oder dem immer noch nicht angepassten Blackoutverhalten, welches immer noch viel zu früh und zu intensiv einsetzt (trotz G-Aufwärmung) und, dass die Beschleunigung aus dem unteren Drehzahlfenster immer noch zu wünschen übrig lässt Wer die F16 wählt, sollte sich bewusst machen, dass man schon ein wenig Erfahrung mit anderen Mustern haben sollte, wenn man gegen andere Muster sofort bestehen möchte. Und man sollte auch in sehr intensiven Situationen immer daran denken, dass man den Stick nur sanft bewegen darf, ansonsten braucht die Zicke wieder ewig bis sie auf Touren kommt. Im Gegensatz dazu kann man die F18 an den Beinen packen, ein paar mal auf den Boden klatschen und die fliegt weiter, als ob nichts gewesen wäre (ein "wenig" übertrieben dargestellt, aber nur ein wenig. ). So sehe ich das alles zumindest.

Sorry, but three years is just nonsense. 2024, maximum 2025.

Nine men went to mow, went to mow a meadow....or at least an airfield. Maybe we could have a new asset to the ground units - lawn mower brigade. I'd love to see shorter grass, would look better as well as not poking through the wings.

threads merged, this has been reported. thanks

Noted, we will consider to add it as feature. Inviato dal mio ASUS_I005D utilizzando Tapatalk

Yes we need it

Wow, what a mess! When we're getting this fixed, could we also make it so planes spawn already at their default view angle instead of the (seemingly random across different aircraft) value that's hard-coded into the aircraft module?

One of the reasons I bought the Hip in the first place. So, rejoice! It's finally here!

https://m.twitch.tv/videos/1897761024 BoB flight starts at 1:25:40 Looks and sounds fabulous

We know that some people have trollish tendencies, and some are additionally afflicted by a total lack of refection, believing that their opinion should be, or in fact is, the correct and only one. People may or may not like mods, that is their privilege, and they should act accordingly: ignore them or install them. There is something else that bothers me, though. First, since "Unreal Tournament", mods have been proven to be a critical factor when it comes to popularity and appeal of games. They have the ability to draw in a greater variety of players, and provide a vital ecosystem that extends the core game. For decades it has been proven and proven again that games with mod support and a community are more successful and enjoy greater longevity that games that don't. Like them or not, mods a part of DCS's lifeblood. ED understand this and therefore support them More importantly though: I believe that someone who calls mods "trash" or "worthless" is merely expressing their own antisocial maladjustment: mods are someone else's work. It doesn't matter if you like a mod or not. The fact is that someone invested time and care to lovingly craft something, and then went the extra mile and shared their work with the community, including you. Whoever denigrates such behavior shows a decided lack of respect, and does not understand that such a self-centered stance highlights their social dysfunction rather than the perceived shortcomings of a shared mod or their creator. You may or may not like a mod, but the fact that someone created one should always be acknowledged as something positive. So say that you like a mod or not. But don't disrespect someone else's contribution to the community.

In MSFS they make scenery addons to be implemented onto already existing terrain as a base. For DCS they have to build the terrain itself from scratch, 3D mesh included, using a new SDK for them to learn, for a totally different software platform. These two cases are not even comparable and their develoment pace for MSFS is irrelevant here. It's going to take longer to build product for DCS.

I’m regularly shocked by how much I like the Hornet, as I had zero interest in it before the DCS one came out. I much preferred the F16 but, though I still like the Viper, the Hornet is now my “plane wife”. I’m wearing a Hornet T-shirt right now. It has it all: weapons, looks, naval ops, and has the best performance in VR of any of the planes I own. Could be a touch faster and some more fuel would be nice (and I wouldn’t say no to some cbu 97s/105s) but my only real bug bear is no single Amram. I keep trying to light the flame of love for other aircraft (Harrier, F14, F16, Apache, F15E) but I always end up back home in my Hornet. The Mudhen is mighty fine looking and right up my street (AG yes please) but I can’t get a reliable 90fps in it like I Can in the Hornet.

Great news from Heatblur Simulations! "We're warming up your seat! The last miles are always the hardest, and the team is presently working night and day to get DCS: F-4E ready for launch. The Phantom has now been in development for just over two years, and we've been working incredibly hard to build not only the ultimate recreation of the Phantom, but a sustainable platform for Heatblur moving forward, starting with the launch of the F-4. Every rivet, screw, breaker, lamp, and otherwise will be accurately recreated in what we hope will be the ultimate simulation of the legendary Phantom. Our current focus is still on wrapping up some of the most complex and intricate systems coming to DCS: F-4E, such as Jester 2.0. Not only do we have to make sure that new features developed are great, polished and fun on day one; but since we'll be re-using a lot of our new technology in both past and future aircraft, we're treading thoughtfully. We've always tried to look for new ways to further DCS and our own products, and the Phantom will be no different. Elements like better in game learning or RPG-lite mechanics in JESTER are just some examples of where we've gone this time around. Our key priority however is ensuring that you have a great experience on launch day, with a rich and as close to feature complete experience as we can provide, and we'll be sparing no effort to get to the quality you all expect. We can't wait for you to fly the F-4. Stay tuned for more news, including F-4E, but also MSFS F-14 as well as updates to DCS: F-14, Viggen and other Heatblur elements shipping this year. We're somewhat quiet at the moment as we have our heads down and are working hard, but we hope to share much more soon. Thank you for all of the support, we couldn't do this without you all!" Source facebook: https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/posts/pfbid02gvEgiD8JnwtinHZaf7xcEe63NWGCrx4wC2VS9TL8yaFDqcV7ij6c4k2YAjSRHHVgl

The TACTS BLUFOR training server running a custom NTTR scenario is online. Nellis ranges 62A, 62B (Dogbone Lake Model Test City), 66, and 76 are replicated as closely as possible using in-game assets. A live-fire exercise runs at range 76 for those so inclined. Voice comms are via SRS. Use real world procedures when possible. Broadcast intentions. Monitor GUARD. Server stats, mission stats, and situation reports are available via the radio menu ->F10 menu item. Kneeboard pages are available for the target ranges. Discord https://discord.gg/kYSsvEGTZ8

Fancy trying a new campaign but unsure if it's right for you? The first mission of all Ground Pounder Sims campaigns are now available to try for free. You'll find all files here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/10-MLLMRiZwqOEW6pEWFkWLhSJBPFN7EW?usp=sharing

One would guess that the "Ready Room" on the Supercarrier will eventually translate over to the DCS Core for airfields as "OPS Building" or "OPS Briefing Room" ect. Same goes for the ground crew animations. One can dream... maybe someday we will see these core improvements come to fruit.

the hornet remains my go to jet, versatile fighter-bomber with naval ops and looks very cool, plus it has the best cockpit and vr performance is excellent.

Digging up that threat. Just did a short flight with the 2.8.8 OB and the changed oil cooling behavior. This is much more reasonable now. With an OAT of around 18°C I was able to do warmup, runup, takeoff and cruise flight without the oil temp going boiling. Could almost fully close the oil cooler door with 64% rpm and I was able to mange the oil temp at around 240 km/h with no problem to stay in the green. Thanks @BIGNEWY and @NineLine for not forgetting the Yak.

Almost all smart weapons are missing features, gbu-24 missing settings, HSD is missing functionalities, HAD missing stuff etc etc, progress is very slow atm.

Yes it looks to be fixed, I have checked the ticket, thanks for the nudge.

I believe so! I am testing it today for the Tarawa you basically use the name of what you want to access the resources of. That I presume includes ships. But I will edit this comment with my findings later. EDIT - The answer is yes all you need to do is enter the unit name of the warehouse you want to access. I will add the relevant part of the cope snippet I used below BASE:E("Fuel check running.....") local _tarawaairbase = Airbase.getByName('BLUE TARAWA') local _tarawawarehouse = _tarawaairbase:getWarehouse() local _tarawainventory = _tarawawarehouse:getInventory() local function dump(o) if type(o) == 'table' then local s = '{\n' for k,v in pairs(o) do if type(k) ~= 'number' then k = '"'..k..'"' end s = s .. '['..k..'] = ' .. dump(v) .. ',\n' end return s .. '}\n' else return tostring(o) end end if first_load == true then _deltawarehouse:setLiquidAmount(0,FuelArray[0]) local _romediesel = dump(_romeinventory['liquids'][3]) local _tarawajet = dump(_tarawainventory['liquids'][0]) BASE:E(_tarawajet) Result = BASE00000.function(100000)

True. They forgot to copy new bindings to TM WH HOTAS files. These actually are new bindings - doing the same thing as previously, but different internally because of multicrew (I think). The new bindings have been put in the files for keyboard (keyboard\default.lua) and IIRC for "generic joysticks" (joystick\default.lua), but not to TM Warthog files, which Mi-8 is still using. If you don't want to wait, you can find these bindings in one file and copy to another. It works. Anyway, someone at ED needs to copy them "officially" so that people can bind them out-of-the-box, without tinkering with Lua files themselves.

Enjoy!

Finally. Thank you ED. Its been a looooong wait.

It won't be the case as it's not realistic anyway.

This is an excellent point

@NineLine Is there any movement on this please? This could be such a fantastic map for ground attack (Gazelle etc) but as it stands it's useless: a convoy completely hidden driving along a wooded road can open fire and you have no chance of spotting them at all.

Agree, I wish all users were a bit more cautious when encountering a possible bug, and disabled their user Mods to re-test BEFORE reporting it as a bug. But I honestly think that you exagerate a bit with the developer's time, as a quick view of the user's dcs.log can quickly show if he has user mods active or not, any developer worth its salt wouldn't lose more than a couple of minutes on such a report (like I do when trying to help someone on the forum).

There are people here on the forum who make the same spelling, grammar and basic sentence construction mistakes than they did years and years ago. So that's why at the very least it seems that they refuse to better themselves. That being said, it's also up to us to not take anything they say literally - exactly for that reason.

Картинки - хрен с ними, но когда в теме десятки видео YouTube (особенно на форуме Ил-2 у меня было), у меня браузер в смартфоне вешается. Не все же с персональных компуктеров на форумы ходят. Плюс правила хорошего тона, конеш.

Mod updated, awaiting approval.