Booger

I was actually just thinking about this not long ago. Maybe not so much for weapons, but it should certainly be good for refueling...

After installing your mod, this is what I get after talking to the JTAC. I installed MODMAN var 2 JTAC UTM zone mod I can talk and get initial 9-line data fine. I can also readback fine as well. This error only happens on being given further remarks. Error found while playing Single Player/Campaign.

Link dead.

Perhaps you missed the part about "quick reference" :smilewink: Nice manual, thank you for sharing. I've been looking for an excuse to get Flight Crew Check List Binders again. I now have one :)

http://en.wiki.eagle.ru/wiki/DCS_A-10C_Guides,_Tutorials_and_Reference_Documents Incredibly handy collection of resources on that page. There's no mention of what HOTAS you use. Getting a Warthog profile is a HUGE step forward...you can always tailor/personalize it as you progress.

Oh hey there :lol:

The $20 upgrade should include patches to 1.1.1.1 if I remember correctly. You shouldn't have to patch. If I'm wrong & you still have to patch, simply look on the second link you provided. Note the version installed on the BS2 splash page, then grab the patch(es) you need. Upgrade from there (from the upgrade links, not the standalone ones). Standalone are BS2 purchases without BS1.

Unlikely. The AH-1Z Viper is the latest model of the (Super)Cobra. With ED sticking to pretty much previous models of modern aircraft (minus Legends), I would suspect that if they were to release a rotor aircraft, . But yeah, minus the obvious lack of weapons employment, that's pretty much the A-10 on a helicopter. Damn sexy.

Upload it & give credit to the original developer. It's not like you're taking credit for their work. You're simply making a BS1 skin usable in BS2. No biggie.

No announcement yet? Oh yeah, it's still 2012. My bad.

This might be of some help to you... http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=81296

If you're a patient person, you'll enjoy BS incredibly. It's elegant in it's own rough sort of way. If you're an impatient 12 year old who constantly whines about how bored you are (and HAS to let everyone around them know), don't even consider trying this sim. A-10 is the happy medium with the current void DCS has. You have all the wonderful things fixed wing aviation has to offer & get to blow up stuff. Like others have mentioned, the patience is only really necessary during the initial learning curve (oh and air refueling). Compared to the BS, you're certainly higher & faster. In the end, I think it just depends on your personality.

No one has nor would they ever say a multi-role wouldn't be profitable. Quite the opposite. The biggest money ED would make from the commercial simming side would be multi-role. What was discussed was the priority in regards to longevity. @F-18 Watch the 5 part series...

I don't think that holds true Grimes. If you were talking multi-role specifically, I would completely agree with you. Since your statement blankets "teens", I think one would impact the other. Let's strip away all the nonsense and look at it with a quick Q & A... If the F-15 were offered next, would folks buy it? I think the majority of folks would. After Black Shark, there was a demand for fixed wing, which the A-10 has filled very nicely. Now the mob is hungry for a fast mover. If a multi-role were offered next, would folks buy it? Hell yes (can I get an amen?). If the F-15 were offered AFTER the release of a multi-role (near or distant future), would folks buy it? I don't think there would be a high demand for it.

+1 This is exactly what will be faced eventually. While there are promos currently to stimulate new sales, the burden of obsolete airframes isn't much of a factor. The Shark for all intents & purposes may have been "trumped" by the A-10, it's still unique enough. Once the multi-role is introduced, what you said is exactly what I would expect to see happen. His argument is based on real world costs (as he explained). Of course multi-role is cheaper in the long run, it's a no-brainer...but in contrast that's comparing apples to clipped toenails in a virtual world. Multi-role isn't suicide as you put it. Yes a multi-role plane would bring in big revenue. It's the the difference between fast cash & long term revenue. If ED were to release a Hornet or Falcon, the only real big money maker would be the other or the eastern equivalent. That's a window of maybe 6 years or so, hardly something I would like my retirement plan based upon. It's simple supply & demand. If there's no demand for an air superiority fighter after they release a multi-role one, why would they invest in making it? To please fanboys? I'm sure they wouldn't mind if say, a private contract stirred their interest. The chances of that? Highly unlikely. In the same breath, yeah you would want to ensure you don't miss the window of golden opportunity. BMS as I understand also has carrier ops implemented as well as an F-16 with an F/A-18 skin. I'm sure hard choices have/will be made. Of course, numbers could be off a bit, but it's still short-term focus. It's also based off of the current technology. Beyond the scope of aircraft alone, Plainsight wasn't wrong when he suggested that ED will eventually have to "wow" us again. This is obviously well known or else they wouldn't bother with Combined Arms. It's a difficult battle to obtain customers, but it's an even harder battle to retain them over time. Now, if they can do all of that & step up their production...

I agree. The opportunity for ED to make a significant impact on the Falcon community is gone. Adding insult to injury, it's the type of aircraft people want (fast mover). Adding high fidelity to the dynamic campaign Falcon is well known for, I don't see Falcon folks coming over in waves. I wouldn't say "way better". Falcon's strength is it's DC. ED's strength is it's aircraft fidelity. While both fail at landscape (currently), it's left to which you prefer in the end. All is subjective and folks will more than likely follow where their friends go. But that's a completely different topic. To be honest, I'm not sure why the pro-BMS light was brought here in such a detailed way. Let's be real here. The main selling point of FC is the online capability with DCS aircraft. It's a necessary evil (due to the lack of aircraft in the DCS inventory) that I'm sure ED would love to get rid of. Absolutely not. If DCS aircraft are to be pushed out faster, it should be because they have more manpower, not because of the lack of realism.

This topic has took a strange turn.

Semantics. I'm discussing why it might be the F-15 (an aircraft I clearly pointed out that it wasn't my first choice personally). You seem to be arguing beyond that scope, but mainly because it doesn't mirror the aircraft you want. I didn't miss it, I ignored it. It's a strawman argument. Apparently the concept of business longevity completely escapes you. See the examples in my previous posts. You don't have to agree with something to understand it. This paragraph is funny. It's the very argument I present/the very reason WHY it's reasonable to expect ED to produce an F-15C. You just spin it to support your own conclusion. While I agree that a multi-role is a more superior aircraft, it's also the very reason why it wouldn't be produced yet. Your comparison between an FC & a DCS airplane is quite troubling. To suggest we "suck it up" because it already exists in a lesser quality (yet compatible) product is idiotic at best. I'll remind you again (since you didn't get it the last 5 times I've said it) that I'm hoping for the Hornet also, but I wouldn't shed a single tear as long as it's a fighter. To answer your question, what I need is a DCS aircraft, just like pretty much everyone else I suspect. Why? Because FC ISN'T "good enough". Still, you persist. People have died saying less blasphemous statements than that. Be thankful we've evolved.

I'm not suggesting it's not. Did you not see in the previous page that I too hope for a multi-role aircraft also? Just because I'm cheering for an F/A-18C myself, that doesn't mean I'm blind to the reality that it may not be the best financial choice. The points you keep bringing up are the same arguments for the Mustang. You have this two-dimensional view of a grand war where every single DCS airplane will take to the skies and kick ass. While some groups will utilize all of the DCS planes, many will not. Some groups don't even bother with the Ka-50. Why? They have a very capable strike aircraft in their inventory (A-10). What do you think will happen to the A-10 once a multi-role plane is produced? If you're the type of desktop pilot that likes A/A, then an air superiority plane is your ticket. If you're that guy who likes to kick dirt, then you have the A-10. If you like both, buy both. Look around. Folks LOVE multi-player action that isn't limited to just one realm of the environment. Yes as GG has mentioned, there are those die-hard PvPers, but the majority of folks that I've played with love the coordination & collective effort of the whole. If there's only one airplane that does it all, what's the point of even making more?

Actually, you missed the point. Look at what you typed in your first sentence, then apply it to the A-10. My entire point is that as a business, ED would have a better chance at longevity of their current product sales by releasing an F-15C than they would with releasing a multi-role aircraft. Think about it. If we had DCS: Hornet instead of DCS: Warthog, and the next plane was the Hog, who would be the people that would buy it? Hardly anyone (except for the uber Hog fans). Why would you when you have a badass A/G platform already? If we had DCS: Hornet and the next plane was the Eagle, who would by that? Again, the same type of folks. Least you forget, ED is first and foremost in business to sell products & make money. Who would buy the DCS: Eagle right now? A lot of people. Why? Because people are scratching the walls with bleeding nails for a fast mover. If ED kicks out a multi-role with this next release, they'll end up cutting off a few toes in the long-term. Maybe that's their plan anyway since they know they'll make bank up front on a multi-role airframe. There's still a huge demand for Russian aircraft as well as helicopters, so the long-term plan won't be completely moot. What it will effect (I suspect) is the "retaining" profits of existing products. To dumb it down--if you had your DCS: Hornet, would you pay for a DCS: Warthog upgrade? Some would, but I doubt it would be a huge number. Why? Like you said: "a multirole would work just fine without really missing anything". That's lost profits my friend. Eventually a multi-role would have to be released (if this is their plan) but really, the current market at this "tier", there is no mad rush. Maximizing profits. It's nothing personal, just business.

While I would agree that BMS put out a nice product (I fly it too), I don't think it's the end-all-be-all of F-16s. I just can't see it being as simple as that (and really, it never is). Unless ED & BMS are shaking hands at some kind of compatibility capability (yeah, no), you're leaving out a very large piece of the picture. Really, with that same reasoning, DCS: Hornet shouldn't be made because of VRS' product. :doh: In respect to the topic, I think that focusing strictly on the F-16 & F-18 is equally shortsighted. If ED releases either one of the multi-role airframes, it's safe to assume it'll impact future A-10 sales, leaving it pretty much to the die-hard Hog fans. If a dedicated air superiority aircraft is released (F-15C), there's no encroaching between the roles, leaving an incentive to purchase/upgrade both. Why? It's a no-brainer that the typical modern military aviation simmer wants a fighter. The market has and no doubt will continue to demand it. What would be the incentive for the average desktop pilot to buy/upgrade the A-10 if the F-16/18 is released? Why would a new (or old) player buy the F-15 later if the 16/18 is released? Further, do you think the A-10 would have sold as well as it has if the 16/18 had been made before it? My guess is hell no. It wouldn't be much of a surprise if ED as a company capitalize on it for the sake of longevity. Nonetheless, it'll be interesting to find out what decision was made...someday...or I might get fed up with this crap since DCS isn't the only modern high fidelity sim on the market anymore :music_whistling: While I too am hopeful that the next aircraft is the F-16 or F-18 for my own selfish reasons, smart forward thinking points to the F-15C. DCS: Eagle would be aok in my book. So yes I agree that it shouldn't be the F-16, the justification certainly isn't solely because of BMS.

BMS killed the Falcon for you. It is amazing? Huh what?

You were cycling between engine 1 & 2. There's no reason for that & no doubt added to your frustration. Ensure you wait for the engine's RPM to zero (N1 gauge) before start/false start. When repairing, always shut down the following prior to attempting a start... 1. Engine cut-off valve levers 2. Throttle down 3. Left & Right Generator switches. Depending on whose checklist you use, there are other systems that are start cycle (order) specific, but these three above seem to be the most cycle specific.

Congrats. Ditto to MP sessions.