evanf117

ah yes i see, if you could implement smoke rockets that would be awesome

i may be wrong but i believe the rockets could be fired individually from one another, also smoke rockets would be great for marking targets this is brilliant, ive been wanting more FAC aircraft in DCS for some time

Syria doesn't have a great wallpaper, seems that Ugra kinda skips over the wallpaper

that is so dumb its comical, because bombing terrorist's is bad somehow, and because DCS accurately representing a 60 year old helicopter is somehow going to lead to peoples deaths or spare their lives

we can remove the IR suppressor's, but id very much like to be able to remove the PZU's on the Hip and Hind this isnt true afaik, MVD mozdok uses Tv2's and they have nose guns if memory serves, and even if it isnt true, why not make the nose gun available anyway to those who enjoy fun

(Bug) helicopters set to uncontrolled or client and set to take off from ground cold or hot change location once a mission is saved to the nearest airport parking. making alot of missions unplayable after save (missing feature) destroyed vehicle's are removed when saving mission. they should be replaced with a static set to the dead state, other wise missions feel empty once units are killed and then the mission is saved and re-loaded save test Track.trk Save Test.mizSave Test out.miz

when i bought the Spitfire we were restricted to 250 or 500 lbs bombs, now we can carry both at the same time, the reason that the change was made was because people provided evidence, primarily photos, that this could and was done

it might be like the Su-47, there is only one Su-47, it is kept airworthy and used for testing of systems, such as it was a test bed for the Su-57's weapons bay, there may be some Ka-50's still flying for Karmov to use to test systems

F-5E's i believe, they were upgraded with their own radios and INS, hence the shark fin on the roof, as well as i believe their nose is shaped differently, i have seen at least one person saying that Swiss F-5's could carry and use 4 AIM-9's but i cannot confirm that info apparently ED is looking to bring the coms and INS to the F-5E, in spite of the fact that no one is asking for it, instead we are all asking for 4 Winders, AAR, RATO and Mav's i believe the Swiss F-5 was also RATO capable

as far as im aware our F-5E, being an F-5 that was sold to the Swiss and then bought back from them for aggressor's would have had the guns and radar removed, so i dont know why ED is trying this "realism" line when our F-5E still has a radar and functional guns

the Spitfires bomb load did not need more than a few pictures and that missile isn't painted as a CATM on the other hand, as far as im aware USAF aggressor F-5's didnt have guns or radars, so why dont we get the guns and radar removed from our F-5?

it was more me saying, "hey, if this is block spersificly you aren't getting 120D's" (in a way i hope it is block spersificly because i would love to see peoples shock, but realistically that isnt a good financial decision

if we get a 2B, and i hope we do, alot of people will be disappointed, i personally believe a frankenjet will be the likely outcome, and in such case i believe many people, including my self, will bring up the F-5E and its RATO, AAR, Mav's and such that could be added, and havent afaik, the AIM-120's on the 2B are C7's not (current in game)C5's or D's

yes it does, because the stated reason we cant have nice things is realism, and yet the F-35 is HUGE departure from realism, doesn't matter how you cut the cake, its still chocolate and cheese

Su-47 and MiG 1.44 next

it seems very much out of character, and unlike ED to go in this direction when we literally just had controversy over "we want Mav's, a Probe and 4 winders on the F-5" "no you cant have 4 winders, they weren't on the exact frame we are modelling". especially seems there is a reasonable amount of people who would buy the upgrade if it got mav's and more winders, this includes my self, "we are making an F-35 because money" seems like a poor excuse when ED chooses not to make money with other airframes due to "realism", im very glad the F-16 got 4 harms, i commend ED for that, so why cant the F-5 get 4 winders, a Probe and Mav's would be good too please i have a feeling in some way this will hurt ED in the long run, and i have a feeling this is ED missing the forest for the trees, there are so many better places that this development time could be spent on, and i dont mean "oh work on something unrelated that you dont know how to" i mean, there are so many minor and less minor things either missing or broken on existing aircraft that could be fixed by devs who will work on the F-35, and there are so many airframes which will bring in so much money that make more sense than the F-35 even if they have to be based on just as little information, like idk, a MiG-29K or something, but no, we cant even get the MiG-29 9-13, we are stuck with the worst possible variant, an export 9-12. also the part about "balance" i think is just silly, modern day is turning into bluefor vs bluefor, even though modern redfor aircraft are on par or better in some cases, but we wont get those will we, not even early 2000's redfor other than the Ka-50 and JF-17 and if ED wants to continue down a fictional pathway, why not a MiG 1.44 or a Su-47

yes my thoughts are something along the line of that, i feel like this is a military contract and ED is just blatantly lying to us about it, i wouldn't care if they just went "yea we are doing an F-35, dont question it" but if it is a contract then making up lies about it all being OSINT is a really foolish mistake

i will make this short, unlike my Ka-50 list, 1. Bullet impacts on glass, when the glass gets shot, there is no visible damage to the inside 2. (most important to me) reduced load racks for Vkhrs, 2 and 4 and maybe even other options real Ka-52's use Vkhrs use reduced load racks (and this is possible for ED to do, see Ah-64) 3. functional windscreen wiper (like on the Mi-24 and Ah-64 4. improved Shkval optics adjustment the SOA rotator doesn't seem to do anything, i would love to see improvements made to the Skkval and to make the SOA rotator functional 5. pilot model, with working animated sun visor no image to show, its probably in the cards already. i have also made a similar list to this, though more detailed and in-depth for the Mi-24

+1

something to tac onto the end here, the ability to use the "ALT" F-10 map as the Map display, so that the map shown is seamless, accurate and detailed, unlike the real world maps that are currently used which are missing in places and not detailed,

not if you turn off certain things in the ME

Syria too Please

i believe my CTD's as of late are caused by it dcs.log-20241002-180442.zipdcs.log-20240928-053606.zipdcs.log-20240927-130747.zip

when deploying airborne troops they always exit out the right side, never the rear, or out the door on the left

could it please be bumped again, and a few more times after that?, how about if its poked?, does that fix it? i jest. please tho.