Laud

They do that ever since... :doh:

Wouldn't you need to set HUD as SOI, before you can switch markpoints by DMS up/down (Steer-(Mark-)point increment/decrement)?

And he says "one zero" because that's just the way how to transmit numbers. You wouldn't say "for ten". This example also shows why: "for ten" could easily be misunderstood as "fourteen". However, that's just for the ten's. You'd say "one hundred", "one thousand" and "one five thousand" <- i.e. for an altitude report.

Hm... I'd say the HOTAS is a bit more useful than the TIR. At least you need both, to get things going really well. AND: TIR is not about immersion - It's enhancing SA and thereby your overall results. Flying as well as fighting.

no comment... :D

I see. However, a jet engine generates heat blur even at idle. Would be nice to have that back... Always looks like your engines were off.

But why do I see others heat blur while they're at Idle too?? :huh:

Guys, your airbase looks simply amazing!

I also thought about Pilotasso might have accidently quoted the wrong post (mine).

I thought the sarcasm in my post was obvious!?

Really? I thought Blk60 was just introduced to make the bird look a little weird. :lol:

Too bad when the "NOPE" comes just after I released my Mk-82s! :D

IRL I'd love to only fly around with any aircraft, but when it comes to simming, the fact that you could fall down and be dead is missing, so the thrill needs to come from blowing things up. :)

If it would be a T-34 or T-6 (or similar) the A-10 will keep most of the attention on it. ;) Everybody asks for afterburner and then you get a prop??? LOL!

I hate the need to spread rep! Agree Frostiken! But in the end we'll take what we get, won't we?! ;)

Don't judge plans by owning domains. Else the vJaBoG32 would feature Fighter Ops. :D

Well said!

What I meant is that the request for a parallel ongoing FC-Series developement, by those who don't want to dive into the whole thing as deep as others and who want the choice between multiple aircraft is plausible. I personally like the "dive-deep into it" thing, but I can accept others, who prefer to keep on the surface. And when it comes to flying on the same server in the same mision: (dis-) advantages between DCS and FC aircraft are kinda balanced if not even with a little + on the DCS side.

The only thing, mission-makers would have to keep in mind, when building a FC X + DCS XY mission, is that the DCS guys would need a certain time to perform certain things (programming CMS/DSMS, Startup, working the CDU, etc.). In return a DCS A-10C would be so much more effective than a FC A-10A. MP-Compatibility could be fun, as long as you have a fairly talented mission-builder. But the guys that said "I don't want to read hundreds of pages thick manuals to get to flight and combat" do have a point. FC offers a fair choice of aircraft which you can get going with way less effort than a DCS aircraft demands. You can't compare the arcade-mode of DCS with FC!

@both of you: lmfao!!!

As costs are playing a role that is worth mentioning it (costs/piece, maintnenance-costs, fuel-costs), you come to the saying: "Money rules the world", which implifies "money makes the decisions". ;) Those concerning the Raptor AND the AT-6. The (expensive) Raptor falls short and the T-6 (at least it's concept) seems to be on it's way together with more UAVs), and as you said, the air-superiority task will need to be achieved by mainly using more or less modernized older aircraft types!

Reading the JTAC stories from Afghanistan, it seems like the gun-runs of the A-10 are still highly welcome by troops in contact! ;) Once you're danger-close, you might feel a bit sweaty when an aircraft drops bombs from 20k ft above you. :D

Yeah, I know these choices. I wanted to say that I don't like them. Or better said: I prefer the options a twin engine aircraft has. ;)

Same goes for the TMHW. So that is my least concern about a single engine aircraft. My primary concern is what happens, once you notice the ENGINE FIRE caution light! :helpsmilie: :joystick: :doh: