Leaderboard

Well, I'm not going to dwell on the subject. But it's important for anyone else reading this to get correct facts: My Ka-52 is per default not conflicting with any core units, it takes active tinkering with the configuration files to use the second version. Someone just downloading and installing the asset will never need to know about the second version, I can't really explain it any clearer than that. The reason I included the second version is the same as the reasoning behind all of my assets. I make them for myself, for my own amusement. And then I release them for anyone else to use them, if they're interested. Finally, let me give you an example why I included the second version: the difference between the trainable and non-trainable Ka-52 2A42 cannon is about 3 km.

In all honesty, I'm getting a bit tired of your commentary. You are free to use my assets, as everybody else. You are also free to not use my assets, actually I would recommend you to stay away from them if they make you sad. My Ka-52 is per default not conflicting with any core units. But as I described in my post and the included readme, I've included an easter egg for the tech savvy who wants to experience the added animations, as an interim solution. I also clearly state that it will replace the Ka-50 BS (and not the BS3). This feature isn't available for the 52K either, so if you're tinkering with my configurations on your own, that's up to you.

Hello everyone. Type 23 frigate HMS Richmond F239 has been released for download. HMS Richmond is a Type 23 frigate of the Royal Navy. She was launched on 6 April 1993 by Lady Hill-Norton, wife of the late Admiral of the Fleet The Lord Hill-Norton, and was the last warship to be built by Swan Hunter Shipbuilders. She sailed from the builders on the River Tyne in November 1994. She is named for the Dukedom of Richmond. I forgot to add the HMS Richmond has a damage model as well. If you have any major technical issues PLEASE PM me. Thank you all for your patience. Enjoy!

Good Afternoon everyone. I have finished creating the HMS Richmond AI 3D Model ship for DCS. I would like to thank all who contributed to the creation of the model. CH, Eddie, Toan, Marroux, Citizen, and CrazyEddie. Thank you all for your assistance in creating the HMS Richmond 3d model. The HMS Richmond 3d model was created for printing I think but I made due with what I have. I couldn't find a better-detailed model of the ship online. I am preparing her for release as I write this message. We try as 3d modelers our best to create 3d model AI ships to function as close as we can to the real ship. However, the DCS game engine doesn't always do what we want it to do. Also, we can not please everyone and I will not try to. That is impossible. If you have some input that can make the AI Ship mods better PLEASE PM ME and share your thoughts. Below are some snapshots of the HMS Richmond along with 3 UK Liveries and 3 Chile Liveries. I will give more details of the model once I release her. Thank you all for your patience and understanding. Stay Tuned!

Well! After a few false starts, And hair pulling! , May I present, The CH Ka-52K Katran https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ka-52k-katran-helicopter/ Flyable! Almost there...... Uses the KA-50 cockpit and FM. And the Brothers Eric et Patrick Cuesta"s Helicopter mod as a Template. Quite Clever! Need to set the spawn height a bit lower And the cockpit view needs adjusting. But I am IN the cockpit! Now to get the CH weapons to work! Thanks to @currenthill for making a great add on! This is going to be FUN! If the arg 114 was added to the cockpit area, the view would be un restricted!

I'd be curious to know how you've drawn that conclusion. I was never that big on the 14 to begin with (nor the air combat mission itself), but it's been an interesting module to use. In the ultra-modern era, it's going to have limitations and that's just a fact of life. Like the SA-5 is an old system that can be defeated in certain ways and methods, but you still have to do something when one of those freight trains comes hauling butt at mach "get rekt" and altitude "eye of sauron" at you. So too for the AIM-54, because you can do certain easy things to defeat it, but the mere fact that you have to react to it can make all the difference in the world. Lately, in the ultra-modern space, I've just been using it to pick off high value targets. Being able to reach out and touch enemy fuelers and AWACS at 80nmi+ is quite a capability. My furthest was an A-50 at 94nmi. And unlike AIM-120 hits, an AIM-54 will knock them down. If I'm not doing that, then I'm using the long legs to deliver precision ordnance on target. The platform itself was built for a particular era, within particular limitations. The mere fact that it can be merely viable in the modern space is amazing in itself, considering that it's predominantly 1960s tech. I bet if you walked the clock back to 1986-1990 prior to the AIM-120 and R-27ET/ER, you'd find a ton of people just hopping into F-14s with AIM-54 doomsday loadouts. That's just the stupid meta bovine excrement that characterizes DCS multiplayer. Players want to win, and they'll pick whatever is best to do that for the situation. For me, I want to do something interesting and see what happens. How can I knock down that modern advanced fighter with a cold war rust bucket, not how I can't do it.

That's a nice light and it's not too bright. Can you send a link to the Massun 92 Asset Pack Rudel? I can add an Omni light of any color over the flight deck but it will always be on. The existing flight deck spotlights I added can be brightened but not sure how bright they need to be. I can also add more. I can also add any color to them. I created the plaque already. Just need to add it to the model and the liveries.

Hey Rudel. Thank you. I appreciate that. So it's just a wooden plaque with the words engraved in it correct? Let me see what I can do.

Hi, Thank you so much for adding chilean liveries to this ship, looks great: Wish you could add our navy's motto on the bridge front, "vencer o Morir", like this: Greetings, from Chile.

Hey Tactical_Apollo, sometimes it's difficult to get the exact hull colors of the ships unless you're physically standing beside them. I use a tool in Paint called Color Picker to pull the texture from photos I have but what I noticed is two photos of the same ship turn out different. I had a blueish texture on the HMS Richmond but I think it was too bluish so I removed it and just added a haze-grey texture. If you can pull the exact texture color of the ship's hull colors, I'm more than willing to update the textures. I hope that explains why the Mod textures are the way they are. Thanks so much, Pappy2. I'm recovering well at a slow pace but I'm getting there day by day. I appreciate the well wishes from you all. It means a lot. Thanks again Pappy.

Since 2.9 DCS update there are some issues with cockpit textures. I have fixed them. The link for the updated MIG 23 UB https://pixeldrain.com/u/e8NbLZHH

Das Problem ist, dein Selective Jettison Control ist nicht auf Safe. Laut Handbuch verhindert das, dass Waffen abgefeuert werden können. Dreh das mal auf SAFE und probier obs geht.

@Raz_Specter another improvement that I'd love to see, is increasing the depth of the channels on the Chilean side of the map .. on 1978 the chilean fleet hid on those channels to ambush the argentinian navy, and this cant be properly simulated withe the channels being so shallow ... for example, this is the closest I could get this ship to the shore: I've had the fortune of sailing some of those channels, and they are quite deep, allowing the ships to be much nearer the shore, like this: Hopefully, the depth of the channels can be increased without having to rework too much

As many others have already stated... Kudos to you for creating this package of quick scenarios. Thus far I've done only a handful but have found them all to be useful and very enjoyable. It's great to jump into the pit to complete the missions without spending the time to set up, takeoff, taxi, etc. If anyone is looking for training and/or fun, this download is very worthwhile. As an example... the landing mission 'Dashing thru the Snow' mission... a little challenging, yet concise and fun at the same time. In addition, much appreciate you taking the time to describe detailed mission parameters in the mission briefing. Many of the missions I've downloaded fail to include any detail in that regard.

Holy smoke, that would be a blast. And of course a Germany expansion on the map for veeeeery nice long missions

Colour changes by camera and monitor setup and time of day...

Yeah, that‘s true. Especially from altitude - Caucasus Redone looks marvelous!

Besides confusing "initial FOV" not matching the "default FOV" in many planes, there is a possibility, that your mission file contains saved views. This can further complicate any investigation - if you try it with such a mission. Most proper missions don't do that - as it breaks user's own snap views - but it happens often accidentally. I'm not sure exactly how (perhaps when you fly the mission in the editor?), but long story short - the best practice is NOT to include Config/View directory in the missions except for extremely specific reasons I can't imagine right now. Check your mission whether it's "view-free" not to distort your observations.

This Apache was reportedly able to fly home with its rotor shot this up in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Pretty unbelievable, but fully articulated rotors are pretty amazing things

After I made updates to the main model a few years ago, I didn't do the LoDs. (mainly because of the spine & tail merging differences) It was a difficult decision because I was on the cusp of redoing everything for Phase II, but I also have the F4U to attend t. The original LoDs still use the 8K texture layout as well. It's such a pain transitioning back to separate 4K textures....however, LoD4 was recently uploaded as it's easier to work with since the unaligned UVs are less noticeable with missing triangles. In any case, I'm currently doing CE2 LoDs. Depending on my schedule, I'll get around to doing the other MiG-21bis LoDs. I certainly want to finish before we show off our next module.

Why so salty ? There's nothing wrong with the cat, she's an old girl which more modern designs have taken lessons from and improved upon. It's the most faithful representation of an aircraft we have currently in DCS, and shes a challenge to fly. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that it is automatically bad . based on the data and SME opinion it flies like it should, and when someone finds new data that highlights an inconsistency, HB change and update it. it'll never be perfect but all the constructive critiquing helps to get it ever closer I'll also pick up all the toys and put them back in the pram for you

Upgrading the FC planes has been a popular request for a while. I don't think FC3 itself is even relevant. DCS is what it is because of highly detailed planes, not in spite of it. The MiG-29 is in the same boat as the Eagle and has a lot of support as well. Also in both cases, half the work (FM) is done. These could be the best value FF modules of them all.

I can't stop admiring and enjoying it! I still haven't found anything more realistic for myself among all the maps than the textures of Barthek's Caucasus

Heatblur discord https://discord.com/channels/1071433028045377637/1071574236403081287/1180282402434732092 Happy Phantom Phriday!

they're included. Haven't made my mind up yet but if I'm satisfied with the final product I might be making my finished panels available for purchase in the future but that's a long way ahead. I will however release my designs for sure for free so that anyone can have a go at it. Once I'm happy with the final version and done with all the panels, I'll upload them

1. Wombat got Delta to host a visit for Wags to get sim time at the training center. 2. No F15C FF planned 3. Dynamic Campaign is being worked on 4. No E2, no P8, No Recon aircraft modules planned 5. Some DCS users/fans have sent classified info to ED to try and help further development. ED's stance is to shut down the effort and they don't want anything to do with it. 6. ED will not be attempting to develop 5th gen or any current frontline assets as they can't confirm systems operation 7. Roughly 170-180 people working for ED worldwide. 8. The F4E is gonna be pretty cool, with new module features not seen in DSC prior. 9. The P8 flyover of the football game did not impress anyone. 10. ED is working on a DTC function for FF modules. Gonky believes they should leave this out of a "Fun" sim title. 11. No planned flyable B17 12. No bombers planned 13. ED is still planning to make a full spherical world map. 14. C-130 is still work in progress, developer and ED are working on cargo system. 15. Chinook Logistics will come after aircraft completion, cargo system and dynamic campaign. 16. Development priorities for ED are centered on products and features that satisfy the largest DCS user demographics. 17. No Viper A, B or D planned 18. F-5E update question to WAGS reveals that there are secret plans for an F-5E update in the future and WAGS can't talk about it. 19. VULCAN API is a huge project and it's in the works. 2024 and beyond. 20. ED is currently working on WWII assets and more specifically for the Marianas map. Naval assets mentioned for WWII Naval Aviation. -----I might of missed a few points, but interesting listening. Had to walk away halfway through video.. ----- 21. Lots of talk about Aliens. Mostly doubt that the congressional hearing had any legitimate substance. WAGS feels we will find out soon enough that there is financial gain somewhere. 22. Why no F-18D? WAGS, says resources are elsewhere and now is not the right time to start the "D" when the "C" isn't finished. 23. User request for a kneeboard you can write on and is available in F10 mission planner. WAGS agrees it is a good idea. 24. User asks, why is the bomb frag damage so small? WAGS says they are actively working on a higher fidelity fragmentation bubble. 25. Wombat brought Gonky to an A-320 sim and Gonky kicked too much right rudder and freaked the sim out. More picking on Gonky. 26. User asks if current Maps will be merged into the Spherical map project. WAGS answered no, that the technology is the limiting factor. 27. User asks about small diameter bombs. WAGS answered if the aircraft would carry SDB's, then it's an option for the future if they can get the documentation to back it up. 28. No planned Japanese aircraft modules or assets for WWII period. 29. Talk about "Mass Effect", "Cyberpunk" and "StarField" 30. Another request for an F-35. WAGS, says absolutely not as there is no legitimate info available. 31. User asks about a Vairo Aero fix and WAGS says they don't have the headset and the company can't afford to buy every piece of hardware. 32. Somebody wants a "TurboCat" Module. Nobody knew what it was. 33. Question about the "AI Texture Controversy".. WAGS doesn't know what they are talking about.. 34. There are some "Century Series" fighters in the development pipeline. Had to walk away again.. with about 50 minutes left..

@Rudel_chw Thank you for doing these missions. They're a great addition to the training regimen!

I had no intention of making fun. I was frankly confused about what you were trying to communicate by listing a slew of diverse projects, and I only said that you were referring to rumors because you actually used the word "rumor" multiple times. Examples: I am also well aware that ED does not directly control nor finance the development studios, nor did I ever suggest that they do, although they absolutely do control what is licensed for inclusion in DCS, so there is that. If I was to make any practical suggestion on the matter, it would be that everybody would benefit from some voluntary coordination of overall development. I think that this would not only benefit players, but the developers themselves, as I would expect stronger sales from complementary products than from maps and planes which just sort of exist as outliers. For instance, if someone (I don't know who, I'm just saying) were to release a mid-war Zero or a J2M or something, that would help drive sales of the Corsair and Hellcat. I expect that, if Razbam's MiG-23 sells well, it will be at least in part because we now have the Mirage F1 and (soon) the Phantom, without which it really wouldn't have any contemporaries, outclassing the MiG-21 and the F-5 (except in a turning fight), while in turn being thoroughly outclassed by the newer American fighters. Is this just a happy coincidence, are developers consciously looking to fill a late '70s/early '80s gap, I don't know, but it's a good thing and we need more of it. Anyway, that's all I have to say about that. As for the Sea Harrier FRS1, I'll preorder it on day 1 if that day ever comes.

There's not enough info in your post to answer your question, but, to cover general DCS comms "peculiarities" you might not be familar with, please keep in mind that: a) There's easy comms and realistic comms to choose from in DCS. The former doesn't require setting up radio channels, frequencies etc. in mission editor correctly while the latter does. The choice between two is done by ticking the relevant box in gameplay or realism options (I don't remember which one now); b) It's possible to communicate ONLY with planes, ATC and ground crew of airbase which belongs to the same coalition colour as you (blue on blue, red on red); c) "\" key by default (communications command) is supposed to mimic pilot shouting out of the opened cockpit. Thus, if realistic comms is selected, you can use it to "shout" to ground crew or even ATC, but only while you're on the ground, with canopy open. In every other circumstance you're supopsed to bind and use push-to-talk command - "Alt+\" by default, which mimics using the actual radio equipment of your airplane. d) Various offline or online missions created by someone else can override your own realism & gameplay settings. So the question are: do you use easy comms and which mission exactly you're having problem with (is it one of stock ones available in game or a custom one you made for yourself?)

The last OPEN BETA update fixed the problems with the AI by ED. The last OPEN BETA update fixed the problems with the AI by ED. Mit dem letzten OPEN BETA Update wuden die Probleme mir der AI von ED behoben.

Easy mistake to make, drag chute must be washed at 30C sensitive wash. But looks like it was washed on cotton 60C

I have the A-4 and it's great, especially considering that it was done without the official SDK for free. Is it exactly 100% accurate? I don't know, but it's good enough that I don't really care, since it's the closest simulation of an A-4 anybody's ever made, which is pretty much my point. This is the kind of content we need more of in order to flesh out the sim. After all, it's Digital Combat Simulator, and in a combat sim, context is critical, even if you're doing a hypothetical Cold War-gone-hot scenario. To simulate any particular conflict, you need the appropriate planes and map. In MSFS, it doesn't really matter that we have a 747 and an MD-11, but no Il-86 (although a hypothetical Cold War-gone-hot widebody dogfight would be cool). In DCS, it matters that we have a Falklands Map, an HMS Invincible, and a couple of Argentine planes, but no British planes, because we can't simulate the Falklands War without them. As for a fictional '90s or later war in the region, we still have the same problem of lacking planes which were flown by any plausible participants in such a war. The map includes Chile, Argentina, and the Falklands. We have no British planes, so that leaves Chile and Argentina. Chile flew the F-5, and later got F-16Cs in the 2000s, but we have no Argentine fighters. Same problem.

Gruppestab of JG4 WIP

It was not though, by the time Lockheed took over the F-16, from the company that actually first designed and built it, General Dynamics, the type was like 20ish years old in service already. Not sure how this follows to be honest. Deal of the Century refers to F-104 afaik, and that was some ways before the F-20s time... F-20 was, in fact, intended as an F-104 and F-5 replacement. When F-20 did indeed get killed off by indifference of US towards the type, and by the F-16 itself, Lockheed had nothing to do with the F-16. F-20 was very cool, but with adding features that made it thus cool, and up to scratch with modern tech, it became barely any cheaper than current F-16s, new 4th gen competitors like F-16, F/A-18, and Mirage 2000 all promised a lot more future upgrade potential, and while being pretty close to those new types in flight performance with the upgrades, it was still not quite up there in most respects. I am honestly curious, can you give us a list? Afaik, by the time LM took over, which was after mid, probably late 90s, Block 50 was already a thing, or was about to be. Block 40 happened under GD afaik. The sales that killed F-20 happened in at most mid 80s, and by then LM had nothing to do with F-16. And again, while most was, not all of the sales that killed it off were F-16s, Hornet and even Mirage 2000 did pay some part as well. Although the Mirage in the end, arguably didn't end up being upgraded to as truely multirole as F-20 was, at least not in great numbers. But the potential was there. Back to the topic itself, a lot of the advanced air to ground stuff are literally tacked-on afterthoughts on the F-16, and it shows. A-10C upgrade was more of a ground up thing, as was the Hornet, being intented as multirole for the Navy and Marines from the start, replacing A-7s, to a degree also A-6s, but only supplementing F-14 as a fighter, latter remaining the main fleet defender still. F-16 at first was supposed to be a light fighter with mavericks and some bombing features too. Multiple sensors and precision weapons came later. Being primarily centered around the idea of pre-planned strikes isn't as bizarre as it may seem at first. In truth, great majority of air combat operations are pre-planned flights if possible. Planes looking around for targets is really more of a sim-ism we are accustomed to. In A-10's case it is more fit, it being a primarily CAS platform, but even its system works much nicer with preplanned targets being available.

I've considered that possibility, too, which makes the South Atlantic Map's development even more of a head-scratcher for me. Why invest the time, effort, and money in a map without a workable plane set? Right now we really have just two Argentine planes, namely the A-4 and MB-339. There is/was a freeware Pucara which seems to have been abandoned and is now bugged, but Razbam might still be working on a proper module of that; the Cuesta Brothers did a very basic rendition of the Super Etendard which hasn't been updated in 3 years; and someone (I think VSN) is working on a freeware Mirage III. Even so, that would still leave us with exactly zero British aircraft from the period. No Sea Harrier, no GR1, no GR3. Certainly no Vulcan, not that I'd actually want to simulate a Black Buck sortie. Unless somebody feels like making a completely off-the-wall alternate-history campaign in which we're flying Tomcat FG1s off the HMS Forrestal, then the whole thing seems fairly pointless. This reminds me of a video posted by Enigma in the summer, in which he raised the point that the strict demand for full fidelity means that there are a slew of historically-significant planes which will never be modeled in DCS either because they're classified, documentation has been lost or destroyed, or simply because it takes way too long to develop modules. I, for one, would unhesitatingly buy a Sea Harrier knowing full well that the radar is Razbam's best guess rather than a perfectly accurate recreation, if the alternative is no Sea Harrier ever. It wasn't really discussed by Enigma, but it's clear to me that DCS also suffers from a scattershot approach to the development of modules and maps, of which the South Atlantic Map is just one example. There are also the F-86 and the MiG-15, which ED released ages ago, and followed with absolutely nothing else related to the Korean War. OctopusG made the I-16, although we have not one other interwar/early WW2 plane in existence or in development. Sure, it's nice to have a simulation of it, but since we can't simulate its use in combat, they might as well have made it for MSFS and sold more copies. Now they're working on the La-7, which can at least tangle with the available late-war German fighters, but we'll still have no other Eastern Front assets or map. Magnitude3 might actually release their Corsair sometime this decade, and ED is working on a Hellcat, but how long before we have any Japanese fighters? Enigma's proposed answer is to fill gaps in the sim with FC3-level planes, and I'm inclined to agree. Maybe a little upgrade from FC3, with clickable cockpits at least, but something along those lines. So long as aircraft performance is accurate, and weapons and sensors are accurately modeled in capability if not necessarily in every fine detail of function, then it should still provide a satisfying combat simulation of a given aircraft. I'll always prefer full fidelity, but also I'll settle for second-best when full fidelity isn't possible. It's sort of like when Confucius said, "Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without," except that in this case, the alternative is probably no rock at all.

Anyway, auto-hover got to be fixed, and not in three years. Speed is life, but sometimes you need to hover. Of course we can use the mini stick, and Cyclic, and rudder, and collective, and so on, but thats a lot of workload when you try to aim (espacially at a moving target for instance).

v1.5.1 Another release bringing updates and keybindings, improved documentation for modules and very important bugfix: Shark Planner was rounding the DD MM SS format toward nearest for increased precision, however this rounding was not perfect and could have result with e.g. 60 minutes or 60 seconds without incrementing the overflow handling to next component. Comments on potential additional hotkeys are welcome. What's Changed Implemented keyboard hotkeys in #110 SPACE: add way/fix/target point DEL: remove last add way/fix/target point SHIFT+DEL: reset ENTER/RETURN: transfer data SHIFT+ENTER/RETURN: execute experimental code (no significance for common users) Most of the module hotkeys are blocked, except for function keys and User Documentation for Ka-50 in #102 https://github.com/okopanja/SharkPlanner/blob/main/Documentation/Ka-50/README.md User documentation for SA-342 in #104 https://github.com/okopanja/SharkPlanner/blob/main/Documentation/SA-342 Gazelle/README.md User documentation for F-16C in #105 https://github.com/okopanja/SharkPlanner/blob/main/Documentation/F-16C/README.md User documentation for CA in #106 https://github.com/okopanja/SharkPlanner/blob/main/Documentation/CA/README.md Updated used documentation for JF-17 in #103 https://github.com/okopanja/SharkPlanner/blob/main/Documentation/JF-17/README.md BUGFIX: Coordinates displayed in DD MM SS may end up being rounded to 60 in #101 Full Changelog: v1.5.0...v1.5.1

And even if the F-15 would be 10 times better than the F-14, that wouldn't change my mind about the F-14. There are planes that are way better in things like ACM. But the Tomcat is the Tomcat. If you like an old GTO, you don't care that a new Porsche works better on the track. And if the F-15 is so great, why didn't care Hollywood about the F-15? Heck even "Iron Eagle" used F-16s

Problem resolved: i was given the tip by @MadKreator to uninstall my NVIDIA drivers, and reinstall the latest drivers fresh. This did the trick. I now have butter smooth gauges! Thanks @MadKreator for the support you’ve given my! Really appreciate it

Thanks for reaching out for our thoughts on the terrain textures for the South Atlantic map. It's a significant topic, especially given the current reliance on satellite imagery for this map. I feel the feedback for the map overall has been very mixed, partly due to the lack of textures in some areas. The improvements it's had the last few updates have been significant. While there's no denying the realism brought by high-definition satellite imagery, I believe shifting to synthetic terrain textures could be beneficial. This is particularly true for areas like the Andes, which currently might not fully capture their real-world grandeur. This approach might better serve the overall gameplay experience, especially in intense scenarios — whether that's navigating a Huey on a MEDEVAC through the streets, or dropping JDAM's from the stratosphere. In such moments, the playability and strategic layout of the map are more pivotal than the ultra-realistic depiction of terrain. Focusing on synthetic terrain could also mean more playable areas, which, in my opinion, should be a priority. Enhancing the map's functional design can elevate the gameplay experience, making the South Atlantic map not just visually appealing but also more engaging and versatile for various missions. I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this. The South Atlantic map has great potential, and with thoughtful development, it could see increased use and some day servers might do the switch.

Indeed. I've long since switched from Bordeaux to (IMHO much better) Spanish wines. Currently I prefer the Rueda or Ribera del Duero regions (I have a Casa Lebai "La Nava" picked out for tomorrow, if it's as good as promised, it'll become part of the 'strategy selection' )

In my opinion it would be absurd to omit sacred places with the intention of avoiding the production of offensive material because in DCS offensive material can already be produced. No normal person would use DCS to replicate a terrorist attack and spread it with the intent to offend outside the pure context of the simulation which is based on the recreation of war scenarios where the objective is to attack or defend, not to offend. But in case someone with some kind of disorder wanted to offend, they could do so anyway by crashing their plane into an office building in Dubai, the pyramids in Egypt, or one of the hundreds of mosques located at different points on the map. However, the final responsibility would not be that of DCS, but that of the end user and the content hosting platform. As a Christian I wouldn't be offended if someone shared material based on the recreation of a conflict as long as the objective of that material makes some sense within the simulation and is not based solely on stupidly crashing a plane into civilian targets with the intention of offending, but If that happened, I wouldn't blame DCS, I would blame the user.

That's not how that works chief . the discount is to encourage sales, not due to the fact that its "poor" this isn't a balanced game....or a used car dealership.

I haven't seen it mentioned yet but I did a little more digging on this and found something interesting: It does appear that there is some hidden magic going on when creating waypoints in ME, versus scripting a waypoint and telling a group to follow roads. I noticed from testing that a single waypoint created for a group, following roads in ME, generates a table of points along the route, the table is named "spans". This can be found in the mission.lua of the miz file if you unzip it, then look at the ["route"] for the group, and you'll see a huge table of ["spans"] (the longer the route, the larger the table), listed prior to the ["points"] for the actual waypoint. So, my thinking is that when using the ME, it automatically generates all these pseudo waypoints to better path the vehicles to get to their destination. Perhaps having these "spans" (multi-mini waypoints) is what's necessary to keep vehicles happy and following along roads/crossing bridges, and scripting a simple "goto waypoint on-roads" just doesn't work as well. As far as I can tell, scripting in pretense tries to create tasks and waypoints and assign it to AI groups as similarly as possible to the way the ME translates to scripting in the mission.lua, so they should work similarly, if not the same way. However, this ["spans"] is definitely not being created in pretense and unfortunately I don't see any possible way of recreating this as it's black magic in the ME. I wonder if this is the center of the problem we're discsussing?

You're probably the only one, so everyone else is confused. Officially, it's called the Eurofighter Typhoon, formerly European Fighter Aircraft (EFA, Eurofighter EFA), or EF-2000. Inofficially, EF is often used as an abbreviation. EU is normally interpreted as referring to the European Union.

For anyone looking for a workaround for now: I did some digging in the mission editor luas to see where the water depth is being checked. Turns out, ships have a draft value that gets checked against water depth. Now, I could not find that value in the ships luas from the SA Assets, so I guess there's some default value for shiptype or something like that. Anyway, long story short, you can overwrite whatever is default by adding GT.draft = yourvalue_in_meters to ships. You can find the ones from the SA Asset pack here:

ATC is planned for improvement but it is a massive task and will take time. thank you

Have LG OLED 48GQ900-B i absolutely love it.