Booger

It's half full because of how it's currently being presented, which is caused by a number of reasons. I think the main culprit is the lack of information provided by ED. While yes, having a P-51 seems great in a way, the environment simply conflicts with just about everything pertaining to it (which was brilliantly illustrated by the table on the previous page). Some have promoted IL2, etc as worthy--making DCS: Pony pretty pointless. While I will never agree that ANY DCS model will be "pointless", it certainly doesn't make their concerns any less valid. These other WWII era software releases are themed, just like DCS initially was. BS was brilliant. The right aircraft in the right place in the world at the right time. As previously mentioned, environmental realism was lost when A-10 was released. Offering a WWII era aircraft to the mix, to some, adds (literally) insult to injury. Someone already stated that the realism you should expect in DCS is flight. In short, your options are... Others offer the environment with "unrealistic" aircraft DCS offers a realistic flight/model, but (currently) a poor/unrealistic environmental setting Pick your poison. Both are subjective. Should you expect more? I guess that's the million-dollar question. Would it be a good move to release a (partial) European map along with the Pony? I would like to think it would. It certainly would not be a perfect fit since we don't live in the WWII era (nor should it; you can only expect so much from a single series), but as it's been mentioned before, it just feels wrong to fly the border of the Soviet Union in a Mustang. How folks spend their pretendy fun time is up to the individual, but even if you have an opposing view, I would suspect people can at least understand that point. With the pre-purchase incentive for the A-10 (free NV map) I'm kind of floored that there isn't a map to compliment this aircraft. At present, my guess is that no one has a lack of faith in the quality of the aircraft...this has been more than proven. There's obviously a (screaming) concern over the future progress/potential of the landscape based on the shift (rather, expansion) of the company's focus. If this is the route being taken, there IS a long-term plan to start filling the earth quite a bit more, right? Yeah, I caught that too. A weak and incredibly lame argument to boot. To be honest, at this point it's to be expected from the backside-patting clique who respond to concerns (albeit overly dramatic at times, but that doesn't diminish the validity of it by any means) with less-than-clever sarcasm & passive-aggressive comments. I haven't decided if I'm going to get the Pony, but I certainly won't be basing my purchase on "supporting future releases". I do that by paying for the aircraft/upgrades to the airframes -I- want to fly (based on the aircraft they determine to produce...see how that works?). Suggesting the above statement (I think it was a moderator who first made that comment actually, then changed gears later) is like suggesting a lingering (and much desired) model over everyone's head, followed with "if you want A, it is highly encouraged that you buy B" in tow. Hardware grows on trees? ;) On the surface, it does seem "shady" to pay for the same aircraft multiple times. I admit I was a little burnt over the idea initially (before I read the list), but then I remember my purchase history with Flight Simulator.. 95 98 2000 2002 MSFSX Of course, if it's an actual improvement to the aircraft itself, I don't see where the complaint is. It's not like paying for upgrades is a new concept.

Is it really a big deal if that's the standard of your MP group? What does it matter to you what they do, especially if you don't participate MP with them? Oh right, it doesn't. The same thing could be said about a group that allowed such a mod :thumbup: It's of no consequence what people do with their game, but if a group wants specific standards you don't agree with, then common sense would tell me that it's not a group you would find ideal for your online time. But really, what do I know.

So far there are: References to Star Trek References to Doctor Evil I do believe this is well on it's way to becoming the best topic ever. As far as the mod goes--hey, whatever floats your boat. Labels have been used as an example of a more "serious" type of cheating...which I'll agree with (even though cheating in this regard is subjective). I'll also offer that simply having an english cockpit is also another form. The files are there to be modified to fit your version of "fun". To those who install this mod (and those like it that move away from the original design)...don't whine like a school girl when MP servers dump you because you've exceeded their established limit(s) of tolerance. I think it would be obvious, but you never know.

That's kind of splitting hairs, and very far off my point. If there's no capability in the currently modeled airframe to rack missles, then there shouldn't be that option in the default menu. Smoke as an example is very much supported (I believe illum too, but not positive), there's just no option in the menu to adjust your loadout. You have to do it through the mission editor. All I'm simply stating is ED should add those to the menu. For those who want R-73s, etc, fine...but they shouldn't be part of the default package (menu) if there's no support for them.

Even more reason why it should be default. In order to allow these modifications, you have to open up to the potential of asshattery happening. On the flip side, if you don't allow it you kill fidelity. It makes zero sense not to include loadouts that the Shark COULD and WOULD use in the default menu.

Indeed, VERY nice work. It's a dang shame this isn't included in default. Hint hint... Thank you for sharing!

A delay of the news of the news? That sucks. What about the news of the news announcing the new news?

Noting his comments, he includes the symptoms of the DNS not completing it's initialization before auto-hover is engaged... If you enter a Vortex Ring State, it doesn't disable your AP. From the topic I linked in my post above...

QFT^ This was discussed in pretty good detail as well as the correct "controlling"/responsible system identified. The actual discussion starts on post # 15. With elevation not a concern, the big "teller" if your DNS hasn't initialized is the lack of ground speed indicated on your HUD. If... you're well above 4m the ground speed is displayed on your HUD result is still flashing AP button lights/loss of control ...it's safe to assume that something has gone nutty. That .trk, for sure, is one to attach for the gurus to look at.

Not to be or sound rude (that's certainly not my intent of this post), but... For that amount of bones, I would hope for a video that shows a lot more than just the pit view in the dark, regardless of which mode is being played. Nonetheless it looks fantastic. I would certainly want it for Black Shark.

Some years back some Marine MPs were climbing in F/A-18 pits. They took tons of pictures, etc. Apparently this had been going on for some time. Someone turned in the pictures & every MP caught in the photos got court-martialed. So while it's cool that you got to sit in the pit, I think your friend is an idiot.

I wonder if this can be applied to an english pit (e.g. russian text on the panels, but the ABRIS in english).

Thanks Toby.

Why not make the tan variant? That looks pretty awesome too. Aha, that was it. Thank you sir!

Weird. I installed it with ModMan & fired up the shooting range mission...nothing.

Hell yes!!! +1 & thank you for making it!

My brother in law in MD fell off a roof. He dropped about 20 feet or so & landed on his side...knocking him clean out. He busted 2 ribs, cracked another, concussion, all that neat stuff. That's what happens when safety harnesses are "gay" & go unused. Down the road, a co-worker of another brother-in-law had a car up on a lift. Apparently the car shifted right off & crushed the guy's leg. I'm glad I wasn't there, there was no internet service for a while.

Diagrams of the different airfields are easily obtainable. Like any real-world pilot, have it handy if you're in an unfamiliar airport. Simply orientate the diagram with your current bearing & badda bing. Second, reinforce ground school. A period of instruction can be easily done to familiarize a pilot with all the neat things found in an airport. I think everyone would like ATC to be more intelligent. I hate labels, but that's just my own opinion. I'm not sure how fast the auto-start is in the A-10, but if it's anything like Black Shark, your screen will be flipping so fast, retention will be completely out the window. The start-up training isn't enough? Alternatively, having a 2-ship group on the ramp. One calls out the steps over the mic, the other(s) follow along. Their response to you at each step is their flight position (not "check" or "on/off"), in order: You: Master Arm Switch ON Second aircraft: Two Third aircraft: Three This way, if there's a stall or if someone is stuck, you know exactly who to talk to. It also keeps chatter to a minimum. Although, I do agree with you on your intent. In a perfect world...Black Shark & A-10 being the exceptions, a trainer variant included in the sim would have people going nucking futs. It would certainly enhance the playability as well as create a parallel with Virtual Squads. Honestly, Nevada would have a soul. It could also be the test-bed for multi-crew pits, of course leading up to other aircraft requiring them. One can wish, I suppose.

Correct. Part of the upgrade package was extended stub wings & AIM-9 on the wingtips.

His URL has changed. Like an idiot, I didn't write it down. I'm sure he'll make a follow-up post with the new address soon.

^^

Nice, I like that. It's the choices we make. That actually gives me an idea for a mission :joystick:

Well said :thumbup:

Fun is subjective and yet again, you go to the extreme for a third time. I will concede though that it's safe to assume that the majority would agree with an orbiting mission that resulted in no tasks assigned would be pretty boring. I certainly wouldn't insult someone if they enjoyed or didn't really mind doing it though. Let's use the "wingman experience gain" suggestion again. If all you did was orbit, that's a cake (and hopefully well earned) mission where you're ensured no losses. If there's nothing to attack, it's safe to assume that your assets & equipment are, in fact, available (and even improved!) for the next mission. [] <-- This is a box. Think out of it, you should. No, I won't (ever) agree with your black & white absolutes. I'll agree that it *might*. I'll get to this in a minute... Because chicks dig big spenders? It's only an option. Guess what? It's not the only first-strike option in the US' arsenal. Well, you're getting warmer at least. That's certainly the intent of implementing stealth in fighters (as well as the new targeting systems). And naval vessels. And prepositioned assets in various countries throughout the world. And prepositioned assets on ships (MPS). But of course, all of this is moot since options are incredibly limited in this sim as it stands now. It is, and will remain to be (in the foreseeable future) an aircraft-based simulator.