rogorogo

It's all good, keep the circle-validation up instead of trying to actually issue-trace. You do not have to mind me, for I am truly and earnestly irrelevant. I was asking a question, I got my answer and to everything I typed instantaneously perfect examples were provided. That does not take anything away from the great experience on the CW server, does take nothing away from the positive spirit. It just shows that zero admonishment from the consumer role for systemic issues is even theoretically possible, and actual change for the desired outcome has to be instigated from an entirely different vector (highly unlikely and even if in a few years the earliest). So instead of anything else, let us all cross our fingers together. /topic

Thank you for the quick answer.. but please... that is EXACTLY what I have been typing.. that has nothing to do with the 21's module radar but with other things... and I have presented you the opposite example of the scope. As you are in the unthankfull position of "gamemaster" on top of server-runner and maintainer and mission content creator you have to reamain steadfast in a purely analytical approach and not give in to confirmation bias. I know this is another load on your almost unbearable position, since - in case that is not clear enough - I as a random consumptor am more than gratefull for your conviction to keep a cohesive workable Cold War scneario against all the odds. And you yourself have noticed the troublesome notion of the "rapidly changing mentality". So while the symptoms very much arbitrarily arise (but so do with all other modules), these are issues born of combinations, with source issues we are not allowed to mention, even hint at. We can only hope, hope - that at some point the changed equity structure, which has already bruteforced necessary changes for the better may also address these issues, methodolgy at least. Any notion in insularity to the symptom instead the source issue only validates screeching. and I have typed that this DOES apply codewise, but would not show in behaviour if not for entirely unrelated reasons. Comprehensive reading. And bandaid workaround fixes would only intensify the mess and lack of we are not allowed to mention here. As much as describing outlier events as systemic standards shows a limit in cognition of basic statistics.

Dear Serverrunner, may I ask an HONEST and EARNEST question out of actual technical interest (and I have not flown DCS for a while now.. and I only ever visit the Cold War Server, not matter how bad I am, because it is the only COHESIVE and COHERENT server). Where does this neverending myth come from that the "21er" radar overperforms. While this might or is very true when it comes to codelines - the reality in a normal scenario presents itself differently. Ever so often, wheter in COMP or NORM, whether in normal dish orientation or with "terrain" (2% upward) I can never pick up signatures (not IFF, signatures) for planes even I can see with my poor specs, looking upwards, planes that are close, are skylining, with no terrain maskiing, no terrain interference. The "overperformance" applies only in a combination of factors that have nothing to do with the module but the complete lack of things we cannot mention here... from my limited understanding of a few decades in a related field in topically relevant functions. That no one could change but the core product provider and franchise holder and its symptoms arise arbitrarily, not globally and not systemically. So - again - I ask.. why does this keep popping up by people (not you) who "should" know better as they are that involved in a high intensity in the product consumption and server attendance? Again, I am "bad at <enter what you want here>", and a total irrelevant bystander - but that persistence and insistence to misinterpret and misunderstand (maybe even "twist") something honestly and earnestly intrigues me.

This is a quite sardonic rhetorical question, ne c'est pas? But we shall bear witness if the bait applied results in the outcome yearned for.

even for the bisSAU (aka the DCS module, although as usual.. somewhat), compare deployment to the VVS and to pact-allies (example NVA der DDR, Fliegerkräfte) but apart from anything else... elegantly hint about what no one dare mention - the Elephant in the room.. when it comes to actual market-sensibility, franchise cohesion.. or purely technical franchise core standardization and technical and methodical due-dilligence... which is an Elephant akin to a Apatosaurus excelsus. And has and will be hampering many things - among them most unexpected ones (cough.. multiplayer... cough) far more and far longer than most "engineered" to be still present in the official communications challenges as pure consumptors will be capable to perceive in all its sombre to melancholic aspects.... And thus no more shall be spoken but refering to a recent statement that "the mentality (sic: pariticpation profile outline) is changing and is changing fast" - and looking at those very aspects... and recent examples in other places.... "we" as in "anyone sensible" should murmur a not so quiet "bbbbBBRRRRRRRRRAACCEEE!" while hunkering down...

fe: https://www.oxagile.com/article/the-waterfall-model/ Don't bother if you are not familiar, I just placed that term there as a very layered hint (which some may get, and other can safely ignore or glance over), since there would a lot of things to be typed about, valid things, constructive things - about this product provider and core curator of the entire franchise, its integral aspects, standardization, engine (mostly about omission and "complete lack thereof"). But we cannot - because its CRM is as it is.

current situation in Multiplayer: Pilot-Commander dead: No switch of seats before but also no autoswitch of seas by code, aiframe tumbles to its death or keeps flying gently into nowhere Pilot-Operator dead: No feedback to player/Pilot-Commander but once you figured out dear Petro is now in a place with endless Vodka, you can RTB (but you have to reselect role, a repair does not dezombify Petro for most player so far) Multicrew: Pilot-Commander player dead - Pilot-Operator player gets blue message box and can RTB and vice versa (but you have to reselect role and switch aiframe, no rejoin on base for most players so far) Early access module, Eagle early access module... and that is all that can be typed.. although a lot could be typed from a SCRUM, U-Waterfall, agile, any of many perspectives.

The weapon pylons had a secondary function added by also mounting lift surfaces optimized for the "usual" aiframe orientation in forward translation - generating lift and thus affecting the envelope. Thus if forward translation you can effectively bank without adding torque control (slight nose up pitch in the turn of keep VSI neutral). Since the YAW-damepener now acts as a heading-mode channel you can only bank when adding torque input - which results in the remnant of the dampener plus the heading-characertistic sometimes effectively fighting against the pilot-input. The winglet effect - only noticeable currently with H-channel in off is currently also barely noticeable since there is a general mass/inertia/weight issue with the module at the moment. Something which has been reported, now thankfully gets noticed by some more people. Also the threshold limit for a winglet bank (pitch+roll only) has changed significantly, not matter the noticeablity of the effect itself in general (which ofc does not only manifest in turns.. but most will just fly the airframe, not notice or distinguish the separate input factors of a particular envelope part) This issue might have its source somewhere or be the result of an unfortunale bugchain (many changes working together resulting in an overall bug) - often referred to as momentarily "twitchy nose", the Hind twitching out of banks, VRS often feeling like some trigger-state instead of an actual physics effect and envelope result aso. If you were not conscious of the winglet effect before (nothing wrong with that) you can barely feel/notice it at the moment - turning the H-channel off will just result in being able to turn without torque input (unless you intentionally initiate aggressive turns, speedhooks or combat maneuvers). With the H-channel on you will not notice anything.... since it will be as before... moreso if you have yaw-trim off in the module properties, thus the pedals/twistaxis never assuming a "new" neutral state by trimming.. making the dampener less pronounced by default on top. And yes, the H-channelf of course would not affet the winglet effect in itself, only the torque input necessity - currently it just does coincidentally. But the H-channel randomly goes to max without a change in airframe orientation in random situations too at the moment. It is a little bit confusing sometimes, like the channel not being able to decide whether it is a gyro-based dampener or a gyro-compass orientation mode. Plainly spoken.. in the experience translation of a flightsim, without the diverse visceral physical feedback the module was more fidelic in behaviour, experience and the necessity of proactive and reactive flying before. But ofc that is complicated, is not easily accessible for most (unless by subliminal feel). As the Hind is an Eagle module If and how Eagle adresses this, no one can say - their "feedback" to the bugreports and feedback is thus far and as usual very... well... Eagle Dynamics.

first of all, with the last 1,5 patches things have changed. fe the AP H-channel (for НАПРАВЛЕНИ, now "Heading channel", actually the "yaw DAMPENER") should now be turned OFF if you want to have any semblance of the Hinds winglet effect (before, needed to be turned ON if you wanted to have a semblance of how it manages the torque pedals). Now any standard joystick seems to also work better with "central position trimmer" than "default". Apart from that. When you trim (press the button, release the button), you have to release the cylic/joystick to the center position in both modes, then you will fly trimmed and your inputs are registered from the new trim position (cylic will be arrested in the cockpit render at the new trim position). But that is also currently a little.. bugged. Basically expect to trim.. and then trim a second time.. or finetune/finalize the trim via coolie hat commands (manual trim). Also - the Hind has a unique flight envelope, not like the Shark, not like the Hip, not like the Huey... not like any other rotary. It is heavy (although currently... but that is offtopic), it is forward translation oriented, it has a unique feel in the relation of orientation, cylcic, collective, torque. Also be advized that there is currently ZERO feedback for entering VRS.. expect you drop like a stone (well, used to.. currently... but that is offtopic). That will at some point change. And RBS and VRS are very relevant for your envelope experience. To the point where you might even skim RBS all the time in some maneuvers, intentionally. Also it is a hands-on rotary.. that requires finesse and attention. You do not "throw it around", you are proactive and reactive in inputs and observant in behaviour (although currently... but that is offtopic). But the trim will ALWAYS set the stick (visually represented and input coded) and will ALWAYS set the torque pedals (visually represented and coded, if "yaw trimmer" clicked) APART from what the dampener channels and the AP-suite modes do on top.

most definitely (the FM for example) but that is not what is happening here. This is clientside - you are stuck in a shader-load-progress that remains in the thread-stack. Sort of the process went into "non-reponsice".. and since DCS has a baziliion core engine functions that are first-core-single-core-first-thread-single-thread only... such things can happen.. easily.. especially with an early access module. Just clicking something at some point might nuke that particualar process, like Mig-21 not having pippers or gyro or RSBN channels pointing to a different airfield or or or or or... Advice for your client: activate the single line counter (fps counter) before you join a server. Even if headtracking is reacting and things are interactable.. wait until you see the CPU-timer run stable cycles again with no stuckstutters (the CPU timer, not the FPS)... and only then do inputs. And wait until you are SURE that the shaders have also loaded (so the lighting overlay now matches the weather present on map and mission). Also the usual: - never alt-tab - clean your system tray - have no browser no nothing running beyond what you actually need - pagefile location and fixed size - aso aso aso

We all have many dreams, but given who the product provider is and how the Franchise was taken care of in terms of viability and cohesion until... recently.. we sometimes have to very carefull what to wish for. While the F-4 in an early version (especially navalized) and f.. finally would be a suitable dancing partner for the "21er" we only have as a "bis" - Eagle and DCS in general tends to always go for the latest evolution in anything U.S. (and maybe U.S. market) related. (latest example - the F-4U Corsair is an end-of-cycle Korean War version basically.. while somehow also for the Marianas map in its WWII version and thus the Pacific scenario together with... FW-190s ??) But again - a Phantom, early would also be a true "pilots plane" and also represent and pad-out the era where things mainly "thrust" and only fly as a secondary consequence. Excellent choice. For the F-105.. interesting and intriguing dream.. but given how the entire Century struggled, it would be a suprise to ever see that happen. Maybe the reason some academics try very hard to this day to document the Phantom as part of the Century series is the reason we are deprived of a suitable one to this day? And then there is the crusader.. why oh why are we not getting this with its interpreations of variable wing geometry but an A-7 CorsairII (the other Corsair in the pipeline) instead. Anyone of the MOARFASTAHLOUDAHHMETTTAAAAHHH crowd will ripplefire SPAMRAAMs on Howling Shitwinder anyway and spare us their presence (although I am not sure that one video helped....) - and maybe get a Tomcat because of that movie with the $cientology-dwarf Leni Riefenstahl should have directed. And those with a more refined cognitions would surely rather be drawn to a Crusader as is it unique, while the Corsair - while relevant, very relevant - never seemed to gain much popcultural affection, even among those interested in a more hands-on era and interested more in digital flying than being a digital weapons engineer. But it is how it is (and the upcoming Falkland territory will the late Marines Harrier be a SeaHarrier by loadout flying with many things against... something.. but at least with an era correct asset pack). Which leaves the Bronco - again suitable, excellent choice for a dream (all of them are btw). But the OV-10 is somewhat of a Unicorn. Which would usually have resulted in Eagle - maybe - "allowing" some "3rd party studio" (a bunch of guys with spare time and a dayjob) to "go hang yourself, we do not care". But since recently they had the ephiphany (well.. a change of ownership too) that having a cohesive concept and boxed units instead of just ignoring your paying customers unless they worship you uncritically on blood sacrifice level for "we hef produkt and u no choice tavarish" actually sells more units and makes more money (shocker.. and it only took about a decade or so for that to think in) - unsupervised unicorns are even more on the endangered species list. So I would not hold my breath, and neither should you. I am just waiting what other ephiphanies we are to witness... like suitable CRM... knowledge managment... actual industry standards in engines, shaders... maybe even... actual knowledge- and iteration-management (I may live just long enough to see that)? Just as they not so unwisely stay away from dogmatic territories - we will most likely never see anything near Afghanistan.. or Vietnam (airframe modules only if globally dispersed in service with many operators). It is how it is. P.S. And most of "us" will also get a Tomcat - because of that movie with the $cientology-dwarf Leni Riefenstahl should have directed where that awesome and not easy to fly variable geometry interceptor hookturns on agile A-4s (loosing all energy and airspeed.. but it looks cool). Also because that module is very nicely down and even supplies it own EWR-arrival to all existing modules - by making any median client go into slideshow mode if you come near one , thus brutally exposing the neglect of the franchise's core engine suite and the ommissions of its supposed curator.

they are irrelevant (as on all MP servers btw) save for minor additional immersion. You want to use SRS ( https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=169387 ) where you will get autodialed into all necessary channels for AWACS and EWR. You can then trigger the automated notice by requesting "bogey dope" via quickcom-menu - ONCE (please, do never "request picture) and will receive every update AWACS/EWR has for your and can repeatedly actively ask for this also via hotkey or menu as needed. But - the far more relevant channel is your primary radio, where - for RED you want to dial into 124.000 (coresponding channel per airframe), where you will experience some everchanging levels of actual coordination and also a human GCI (if present). This does apply to all maps (afaik) - and is mentioned in the ingame briefings (at the bottom usually) for every mission on every map as well as at the beginning of this thread (somewhere). The Mig "21er" might start on 251.000 on ch 0 in default (where you will find even more being ON SRS while never actually particpating via SRS), so you just dial until the SRS overlay shows you the correct frequency (rest ist automated as mentioned).

as a humorous remark - now the SPO-10 suddenly magically definitely HAS sound.. the sound priorly limited to other functionality and despite the (now of course magically vanished) definite downcom of "this version of the Mi24P..." aso aso Shrug... well.. the same rocker as before turns the beeper off (now in general, for many modules ["modules" as "cockpit modules"]) now for the RWR (and friends)- thus correctly explained by "Saint Chuck, patreon saint of the proper CRM-information deprived": and the "no sound" - if we were to ask, which we will not - would refer to the "test button" and its system test/bulb test procedure (naturally... right.. rrrRRRRight ? ) (that is not for he latest hotfix btw.. that happened at least 1,5 patches ago.. right when the FM and the Dampeners, the whole AP suite as well went bonkers... and OF COURSE zero hint in the patchnotes anywhere, also as usual)

direct connect via the IP found here in the first post at: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/180252-cold-war-1947-1991/ Server IP: 193.70.81.86 Next time it should then find the server also in the list to click on the "favorite star". When searching only type "cold" or "Cold" into the search field, not "cold war". Or even try "1947" - anything that makes the server show up so you can mark it as a favorite. Also be patient when waiting for the search result, or do a "refresh" (yellow circular icon) before trying to search, again being patiently waiting until the list is fully populated. Local maintenance like a DNSflush is possible, but any advice there would be rather unsuitable... only you can know your system and everything related to it.

good to know - it is an EA-module.. by Eagle themselves.. so Zen is required and present. So for the occasional and potential glancer-in-passing: WORKAROUND: if refuel bug manifests -> return, land, repair, role to spectators, select role, respawn Transporting, yep, thank you for the info, all good. But even later, DCS is what is this, so any transport capability is an addition to help the on-mission involvement of everyone.

bug report (again only potential bug): PHONE BOOTH I was on Phone Booth either mid or late-stage yesterday (or rather.. today) around Midnight/0000 Zulu/GMT . At this point the RED FARP did not offer FUEL with the "sorry, we do not have this item in stock" textline if a Crocodile managed to return or tried to add fuel on spawning. REARMING on a turnaround was started with the usual "copy" message and finished with the "Rearming complete" textmessage but the actual screen showed random pylons empty (but weapons fired and were present only on the pylons not shown as emtpy. While I would judge the latter as a module bug (thus disregard) I do not know if the fuel-situation on the FARP was intendend (has run out, got destroyed, no ressupply by Hip aso aso) or a bug, but since it was mentioned that the mission file needed attention elsewhere, I thought I should maybe just make aware of this. For the bug - trackfile (did not check if it was desynced or not): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O0Nmf7QD8XAuCpLTh9aLrnQSZl9lmH1z/view?usp=sharing Question (entirely unrelated): Are some missions at some point intended to make use of the transport capability (for something like a Manpad Squad, AT or anything feasible, fidelic, sensible for the mission context) at some point (when available, when working, in near future, far future, does not matter, just in general). This is just a question out of interest, fully aware that the not even the slingload properly works on the module yet, and internal transports have not yet any inner or outer rendering model (which are planned according to Eagle) or the inner render model of the compartment/benches (already present on the outer render model.

Good to know that you are aware because that is the only reason I type anything - to make you aware just in case you might not be. Not more. And EA modules and beta maps inevitably may iron some of that out anyway at some point. As for the rest, well. We all should know that. And we should also all know that waddling after and for the lowest denominator, trying the please the stampede will only end in a downward spiral, inevitably ending in eroding retention and lastly abandonment due to the lack of actual challenge and cognitive involvement. There even is a proverb in German for it - "Teufelskreis" or "Circulus vitiosus" (for those having had Latin in grammar school, still widely used colloquially by contemporary teenagers btw). I am just happy that there still is a server and a gamemaster that does not bend and twist without any coherent and/or cohesive outline, concept, standard(s) for the sole sake of popularity (or rather: "hardcore populism") and is well aware of the mitigations necessessary to create fidelity within the confines of this product, its playerbase and participation outline. And is also aware of the product's state, shortcomings and problems - instead of hypefluf"§$...ffffffloating around in fictional clouds - and social media relevance questing. These days one cannot even use the term "balance" as it has become twisted in and from its meaning, so let's type instead "module viablity and scenario feasibility". And while I am just a "casual" (again in the descriptive meaning of the word) - I am happy that there is place to enjoy the modules I like for sporadic participation bursts in suitable scenarios. That was a little /offtopic but the latest black-hole event of half my Hind-FM bugreport (a quite extensive and relevant half) and watching the finally only self-deprecating opinionating of some towards those having made the mistake to invite opinionation may have made me a little sardonic.. or cringy.. or creaky? what would I know

bug report (only potential bug): For the friday mission I was able to attend and join almost directly at mission start. AAV7s first wave After starting up a Hind, making a wide pass for the Shturms to heat up I tried to engage the AAVs in the Channel The first wave of 15 AAV-7s was already very close to the northern coast of Tinian. They made landfall 18 minutes after mission start, which makes the engagement window extremely short, since a Hind will have trouble spot them while they are in the forest. By making landfall I mean they just blinked out, probably until their first roadpattern waypoint was triggered. The default loadout for the Hind carries 4 Shturms, and currently you still cannot default from presets, otherwise the module itself might have weapons bugs. With 2 Hinds avaiable, this short window makes it basically impossible to stop the first wave from reaching engagement positions. Case in point: when a KA-50 arrived at intercept position at the NW beach of Tinian, I had to inform him that they are already in the palmtrees. He could not spot them despite the AAVs in theory rolling right next to him. On Tacview he hovers directly next to them, while I am seen making 3 passes and getting shot at while actually there were no vehicles there to see. Tinian parking positions for spawnslots Exactly 40 minutes after mission start that first wave arrives at their engagement positions and Tinian AF, and start blowing up stuff. From that point on the SW part will also engage the spawnpoint of the roleslots. Not permanently but randomly at different stages during warmup or takeoff. I personally was able to take off and get hit before leaving ground effect, or got hit while doing the startup, or had impacts or tracers fly by (all from around 220° off the 6 of the parking position) immediately after loading in, or got splashed by them when leaving the AF (the latter is absolutely correct for the positioning, that is not a bug). repair timer wait counter for Hind, textline feedback, counter The Hind seems to have no repair "wait time counter" or any related textline on Tinian, I managed to somehow land (actually, not totally fataly crash) a damaged one in autorotation, and tried to repair. I never got at this or any other instance any feedback from the ground-crew whether this would actually happen. Thus I had to change role (thus blowing it up). The rearm gets the usual "copy" as a textline after the angry line in Han? Mandarin?, so the player know the process is underway. Conclusion: I do not know if this is intended, but the channel crossing is very fast (for every wave), and they are very much not "sitting ducks for 40 minutes". Currently 40 minutes after mission start rotories can effectively no longer spawn at Tinian (as in will get hit directly at the parking position) and with its AA screen gone on top. Furthermore the landfall currently (map related) seems to have the AAVs melt into the ground for a while, while they are "on the beach going for the road", again reducing the already short engagement window directly at mission start that effectively takes out Tinian (in the case of the Friday mission, an Su-25T thankfully showed up and cleared enough of them to at least make spawning possible again - but that was far far later in the mssion). Trackfile and Tacview to illustrate what is mentioned above: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VRHTUg9e_G4KEjYyD7Z-DVbe_snfy500/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lq957wqM9tgutJs2KP1tMUfaV1a3CePM/view?usp=sharing Unrelated notions (not part of the bug report): A two player Hind of course would be far more effective, as the Petrovic-AI still has locking issues when the craft are in the water. A lock is achieved at extremely short distances or not at all, even when guiding the Petrovic AI directly on the target pixelprecise. Reliable locks from a bit more standoff distance are achieved if the approach is higher - but then the Hind will also be toast, immediately, since the Channels is a hot zone as intended for the duration of the mission (I took a Hind very late, and immediately a Harrier showed up and took care of me, twice, direcly over and next to the airfield). With the current realities I do not know if it is intended to have effectively Tinian out of the mission equation 45 minutes after the map has rotated. Even two Hinds with 4 competent players in 2-player crews (that means I was completely double useless) would not be able to stop the first wave or make a dent keeping the spawnslots/parking positions unegaged. Also as the permissable weapon loadouts are now more flexible, I think the briefing (in this thread and in the mission file) needs more clear statements what players are allowed to do. For exmaple Hinds cannot do manual loadouts for the time being, removing weight works, adding anything might trigger global module problems (early access). In the Mig-21 I was unsure whether I was allowed to carry 4 R60Ms or stay in the default with R60Ms only on the inner pylons as stated in the briefing. Other modules seemed to be free in their loadout choice (on SRS magic told us that we had some Tomcats doing what they seem to have learned on DCS:Fortnite aka "Howling Sh...winder"- take off, ripple fire HARMS from a galaxy far far away, land, rinse & repeat.. but that is #justDCSthings). So something clear, and I mean CLEAR, beyond any ambiguity what modules are allowed to do with their loadouts would help. (fe for the Hind: "DO NOT CHANGE YOUR DEFAULT LOADOUT!" P.S. I had great fun, and the mission is very intense, even for someone who does not achieve anything but blowing up . Also ty to the human GCI (in this case Legolas), for those on SRS and working together, that alone made the mission perfect. (well.. me blowing up in everything witout ever doing anything also eluciated some earnest laughter - so I helped!! wohooo ).

but does that not document the problem? Especially the last sentence... that basically says "git gud at a sh$%" game" - just translated into DCS. Sure, you can "control" the asset, you can make it "look" stable - but it IS NOT stable, just as it does NOT HAVE weight and a too twitchy nose. And while "mastering" whatever there is may be enough for some.. should this be acceptable or "enough" for anyone with any standards or self-consciousness? Earnest question.

It is, look at the WIP pictures - any of those it "is" Mk-wise and "could represent" loadout-wise would fit nicely to pad out the earlier Cold War era. That the full fidelity Mig-29 will be most likely an "A" is also good news (another "pilot's plane" that flies for that era instead of a Sega-Nintendo-clicky-frame).

"Mid era evolution Lighting", noticeable by the "fat belly" (airframe extension) that remained an identifying feature until the last evolution of the airframe, even if the truly British and wonderfully weird missile hardpoints were not present/mounted/removed.

There is a lot of relevance in what was typed here, and a lot that would need to be typed as addendum... But given what core Eagle's approach to CM is and how they implement it - and what in result the median outline of those still interacting in this forum is, it is better left hinted. Otherwise it might just be lost to time, like vanishing in a black hole, without a hint of a trace.. or warning. Moreso since the early CW era is the one most suitable for DCS MP given its current technical state, functionality and participants, while modern struggles even more to represent the integrated nature and focus of most modules due to chaotic (the systemic descriptive term) participation than it is already the case with some early CW era modules (GCI dependent interceptors fe). But maybe we should notice that "some" cohesive padding effort in terrains and module mapping erawise seems to be given thought to, lately. As seems to be the case in for franchise/market production suitability. And somewhat finally in global standardization (technical, outline, approach, codeconcept) franchisewise and some (very) rudimentary form of knowledge management. It only took a decade, and a change in ownership (which in itself is more fleeting in its goals than most would assume due to its very own relevant factors and winds of change soon™). Short bug report (unrelated): "Mountain Peaks" mission. Status message of target showed Blue Coms towers active that were destroyed (towers and most surrounding assets, some AA still up that was NOT relevant accordng to briefing), so maybe a trigger failed or some other lua bug.

"He" has also a name, Gero Fin(c)ke, and at the end of his service career was also a little more than "just" an instructor and pilot on both airframes. He is also not the lead dev, but more the GM/rel equity holder - and he partnered as their PR project has seemingly gotten them some project(s)/contract(s) TrueGrit was gestated for and was after in the first place. (Also would like to see and early Phantom, and looking forward to the a mid belly Lightning, not that it would matter but so I can utterly fail in more modules).

Definitely. Which again should be a reminder for RED faction players to bind their INTERCOM button in SRS.

The Shaitan-Arba currently has FM issues, which finally some people start to notice as in "bugreport" and "type about it" (it has basically become an unstable twitchy noclip cam esp in transition, hover aso and is barely controllable in most envelopes or at least extremely unpleasant to fly for most). Also if flown by one player, the Petro-AI still has spotting, locking, and weapon release problems. Maybe that was the reason they were not that effective/underused, as the population on CW is more likely to truly know their modules and also appreciate fidelity. Also the module in its current state (no R60s) is even more dependent on actual friendly CAP, moreso in this scenario. I was unfortunately too late to use one (AAVs already standing next to the slots) but looking forward to try - and fail - next time.