Snoopy

I highly doubt ED would allow a 3rd party to create a later suite A-10C because it would directly cut into any sales of the current module. We won’t get into the argument on what does what better all I’ll say is in the two or three times the Hornet will have to go hit the tanker the A-10C will still be engaging targets and hasn’t gone to the tanker once yet.

Unfortunate? Between the Turkish F-16s on alert, our A-10s, Qatar Mirages, Saudi F-15s, KC-135s, AC-130s, and Marine EA-6s there was no room on our side for the Tornadoes.

They were there at the same time I was but they parked on the other side of the runway.

If we got an update suite 7 plus as a minimum otherwise we wouldn’t get HMCS.

Hahahahahahaha thanks for reminding me that pilots wear helmets, I use to strap them into an ACES II almost daily. ;) But to your question, I did not ED asked for the sound raw and thats what I sent them. But as someone who has ran APU and engines with the canopy opened and closed even with double hearing protection the APU is louder than the engines.0

Yes but that’s not how it’s done real world.

You can’t hear the starter on an A-10C when starting engines. The sound has never been correct in dCS for the A-10C (and A) when staring engines. We have a very definitive low bass sound when ignition kicks off. Otherwise all you hear is the APU under a load.

We marshaled them so they were facing away from the doors then pushed them back into the HAS with a tow vehicle which is what we are doing in the second picture in the hotel/India images.

fixed this for you. I would leave a suite 7 plus with HMCS and it include all the symbology that can appear on the TAD and HMCS. I’ve got a handful of other things that are wrong on the current version I’d like to see fixed but the A-10C, at least appears to be anyways, ED’s lowest priority module. Important wishes: -Chocks - agree Other minor wishes: -External air for starting - why we NEVER use external air to start up -Enhanced pilod movement (as F-14 does) - good luck, none of EDs modules have head movement like the 14 -Ability for hyd pump engagement on ground (for ground checks) - ground checks with pilots is never done with APG hydraulic power or hydraulic test stands. Only with engines running prior to lunch -Raindrops. - should be part of the updated cockpit and external model.

I know the reason for this from Airfield Management direction but unfortunately it’s sensitive and can’t be shared. But it’s an operational requirement for the HASs at Incirlik.

Actually the APU sound in game was recorded by me sitting in the cockpit with the APU running, canopy opened. Even with the Canopy closed on the ground with engines at idle is loud.

Real world the APU is louder than the engines.

Because when we stated stuffing A-10s in the HAS airfield management said to push them back that far.

Internal cockpit sounds are good and more realistic now. The external sound is off a little although it’s not easy to explain.

We’re aware.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3942840&postcount=571 I obviously agree it isn’t EDs responsibility to make sure community mods work, ALL I’m saying is maybe if ED communicates a little better mod makers could have a version of their mod ready to test in Open Beta before its release than reacting after and Behring surprised. ED making a statement in a weekly news letter “with the release of version 2.5.5 we will be updating all our models with the latest tool compiler.” Boom, if I was actively supporting a mod that would be enough of a heads up to be ready to test once it hits open beta. Doesn’t require me to have access to the testers branch.

Saying they’re moving to a new version is not communication that 3d models need to be complied on a later version for them to work . What isn’t clear about that. You’ll defend ED (and VEAO) no matter what is said so don’t expect another response from me to you on the topic. As I’ve said three times now, a little transparency and communication would go a long way.

It doesn’t even need to be specific to the mod makers, just mentioned in the weekly news letter is more than enough notice. Mod makers take their time to do things to enhance the game, sometimes with things ED should include themselves, so a little communication would go a long way. First thing I would have done is read my entire post, because I already answered this question.

I reached out to the developer of this mod and got the below response:

You act like becoming an official 3rd party is easy. Specific to the 476th range objects, we’ve talked a couple times about looking into making them official but at the same time we want to retain complete control and keep the mod free to the community. Just a simple message from ED to the community in a news letter stating something alone the lines of “with the release of DCS World X.X.X 3d models will be required to be compiled with XYZ” would allow the community to update or acknowledge the fact the mod will no longer work. Communication is key.

Since I haven't gotten any response about my offer to help here are some images of what the Hardened Shelters should look like at Incirlik AB, Turkey: Golf Loop (fit F-16, Mirage size aircraft): Hotel & India Loops (fit A-10, F-15 size aircraft):

Y’all can’t expect ED to be responsible for unofficial mods that the original designer doesn’t support. I used a lot of these mods too but it’s a risk I took knowing that they eventually may not work.

Awesome, really appreciate this!

Thanks! We need some desert camo tents, US ground forces, and terrorist/insurgent vehicles. Appreciate what you’re doing to help!!!