Rainmaker

I wish they were. Generators are over 100 lbs. Shouldering them is a back breaker. Got the MRIs to show for it.

Make sure are on the current build number one. If using MT, the DCS updater should not sure. The back seat HOTAS are functional as of the latest patch.

Remove an AMAD…bushing falls out or mic checks bad…this is the result. A big metal jig that sets it all.

Second time I tripped over that gargantuan drain pan, it would become a frisbee to the best of my abilities.

Its not.

If no one is posting logs or tracks, makes many scenarios 1000x harder to trace and for the devs to attempt to fix.

Just carried it two nights ago. Look down the list.

According to your track....it appears you took off without ever aligning INS? Is this truly the case?

Part of TFR. Not implemented. Ignore for now. Known issue

Its a small world man…probably. 6 degrees to Kevin Bacon, probably 1-2 to a strike eagle maintainer.

That’s an ED issue, and is just the way it is unless ED changes the IC process.

Then by what you are saying in your posts, its working as intended. I believe there should be an OFF flag in there somewhere IIRC, but the general process is correct.

Its not a dynamically unstable airframe. This is why it will fly just fine with no CAS at all in most cases. Its built to be aerodynamically stable.

Was a bug introduced in last patch

1. No 2. No. If the ADI X/OFF is no longer present that is a new issue all its own 3. I’ve already explained to you why the change was made.

1. The change is the more correct system operation than previous. It is also not immediate. The nav system is aligned, but the attitude alignment is not. The path is supposed to be there, this was a bug that has been rectified. So, no, your assumption is what is 'more real' and what is not is incorrect. 2. The logic flip has to do with MP sync issues, so at this point, the default will be fast alignment with the option for full. And its also false that it should have no alignment, it will save previous values from the prior 'simulated' sortie. 3. The alert status option is a holdover and does not really accomplish anything at the moment, or shouldn't. My hope is that the devs apply that to alert switch positions, but its not going to be a high priority if they choose to listen to me and apply that, so it will likely be a down the road thing.

Agree. IIRC. 6186 wasn't in the active units. Might be now with the great number of tail swaps done to balance hours. Back then, the FTU birds had no EW gear on them, so they wouldn't have gone to the AOR. 7186 was also an FTU bird, but was the one that went down while we were deployed for OIF. 6189 was a replacement for 1701, and that one was a green tail. 188 was a yellow.

Dont have to desire to look up what the C’s static weight is, but nothing wrong with the E’s weight in the picture. No bug there.

That’s not part of the discussion….

Likely interference. Modeled in game.

There is no real route support or time investment in the other two routes. They are there as place holders.

What weight issue?

Route B is not implemented.

Internet info is incorrect.

A lot of this stuff was identified a long time ago. Its all on a very long list of things still to implement. You are 100% correct that its all based on prioritization.