79Au

And here we go! I wasn't paying attention and the "save" prompt got me, overwriting my last test mission with a completely empty mission when I briefly went into the ME and decided to go back into main menu settings. What the eff man. There's no way that's correct. I didn't even open that test mission that got deleted. Upon leaving the empty mission editor, the damn save prompt came up and took the name out of nowhere and put it into the save box of a completely emtpy mission for no reason. I thought I was editing said test mission after getting back to the pc but I was wrong. I was messing with the weather and didn't look whether units were there. I made a mistake but my old test mission would still exist if DCS assigned a "new" name by default and not an existing name of another mission. Excuse me but it's SUPER frustrating to lose hours of work due to a simple problem like that.

You're entirely missing or even avoiding my point. Let me repeat, so that you can understand. The "forbidden" launcher was there when the F-18 released, it was there when people purchased the module, and there is no reason to remove it other than a couple hard core purists feeling like their day was ruined if it shows up on their armament menu. This stuff needs to stop. I'd call it bug report abuse, and only a developer like ED would side with those who advocate for the removal of previously developed and paid components of a module. Even if it's just a small launcher, it's not okay to flat out remove it from the game just because someone doesn't like it. This time I'm not asking for UnReAlIsTiC weapons like APKWS, I demand that ED stops listening to fanatics that want stuff to be removed. (Most people/consumers would think it's bad to lose something they had access to, you know)

I don't understand why they had to remove the old launchers. Just... Why. Some kids like to destroy other kids' toys I guess. Removing content/features (for no technical reason) should be illegal without the consent of the buyer. Why can't we have both. Straight up removing the single launchers was a bad decision. PLEASE BRING BACK THE SWISS LAUNCHERS THANK YOU ED (I paid for this stuff)

I never said it's a good practice to avoid bullets during an attack run, But it's funny to see these laser beams missing you every time, as long as you keep changing your direction of movement. A couple meters off the calculated course is enough and you're golden.

In my opinion it's not just the aiming/lead calculation, the dispersion/recoil is also very unrealistic, at least in a COIN type of scenario. The shots are always waaaay too close together for a guy firing his AK from 500+ meters away. But for some units it seems to be modelled correctly, or at least it's more plausible. The shilka for example. But infantry and technicals are a nightmare. On the flip side, the current low disopersion and perfect aiming makes it somewhat easy to dodge the bullets as long as you keep jinking constantly. (you have to be aware of threat) A higher dispersion would make it harder to dodge the salvos. At the moment, it's "everything or nothing", you either get hit by the entire salvo, or the entire salvo flies by, which is not desirable or realistic. Because, I believe IRL pilots (even helo pilots) mostly talk about single hits in podcasts and other media.

Guys this is the real deal and I'd notice it right away if someone changed the windshield without adjusting the FM. My day would be ruined and I'd request a refund. We're all REAL fighter pilots aren't we. And DCS is a military grade flight SHIMILAYDER!!! Haha, oh Jesus who let this guy off his leash.

Yeah you're way off the bomb fall line, I had trouble releasing with way smaller deviations. OP, you have to put the "meatball"/velocity vector/FPM onto the fall line. The icon that looks like a plane on the left in your HUD. Not the datum line crosshair. (not entirely sure I don't own the DCS F-16) I'd love to see a sheet for each plane that shows the release logic. Fuses, bank angle, I don't have a clue but it would be handy for study simming.

Yeah in my opinion the problem is that average joe users aren't always so keen to "show off" their enthusiasm, if you know what I mean. That's why VR always gets high percentages for example. I highly doubt that 1/3 of DCS players use a VR headset. Top 10% DCS enthusiasts? Probably. edit: Oh, and I don't like this guy at all, seems like he's still pretending to be some kind of certified DCS instructor, and he talks to you like a first grade teacher, but in a weird way, it's hard to explain. Is he still taking money from minors who fall for this <profanity> [edit: oh come on] ? I hope not!

I'd happily fork over $50 (not $70) for a separate Iraq map. (ODS/Iran-Iraq war/"Shatt al Arab", don't care I'm desperate haha) Same for Gulf of Tonkin/Vietnam map, given the relevance of these theatres, to me it's absolutely puzzling that these products aren't in the works or already released, if the demand is so high. Flying a Phantom over Iraq would be a dream come true, Same for KW, SE, Tomcat, Hornet, Huey, MiGs you name it, I'd buy every module that was deployed there during one of the conflicts. Actually I don't think there's a place that offers more possibilities for the modules we have, other than Iraq. According to rumours the reason why the PG map is focused on SoH is ED had a deal with some aerobatics team from the UAE and decided to call it their middle east map for DCS. And I wouldn't even have a problem with that if it wasn't the last map from ED in this region. BTW, I don't think it's off topic to talk about suitable maps for our beloved F-4 we're patiently waiting for. (or the "reveal announcement"...)

Well, I can't find any pictures, and it doesn't look like Mosquitos were stationed at Habbaniya after a quick google search. But it's very likely that Mosquitos used it as a refueling base for ferry flights. It was just an example, there are other bases that had Mosquitos. Any desert livery will do, all we need is some desert camo scheme and RAF roundels. Here's what I found, hope it's close enough: "Small though this force was for the size of the region, it was reduced by the middle ^ of 1946 to one squadron. Post-war reductions in Europe had thrown up large numbers of surplus Mosquitos and it was decided to use these wherever possible [ to re-equip squadrons which had American aircraft. Although theoretically a sound solution, it ignored the fact that the wooden construction of the Mosquito r was far from suitable either for extremely hot, dry conditions or humid, wet conditions. In accordance with this policy 249 Squadron exchanged its Baltimores for the Mosquito FB 6 towards the end of 1945 and, still at Eastleigh, worked up ^ to operational proficiency by fulfilling many photographic survey tasks in East J Africa. In June 1946 the squadron was moved to Iraq which had been completely denuded of squadrons, but the climate proved too much for the aircraft which had ^ to be grounded with severe wood shrinkage after a brief period. Similarly ^ 114 Squadron exchanged its Bostons for the Mosquito FB 6 at Khormaksar. It was somewhat more fortunate with its aircraft than 249 Squadron, but even so, the Mosquito disliked the Aden climate with the result that the squadron was quickly re-equipped again as soon as the Tempest became available. It was most j unfortunate that the Mosquito, which had such a magnificent war record, should have been exposed at the end of its life to conditions for which it had not been ^ designed and was unsuitable. However, it filled an important gap between the ^ release of American aircraft and the arrival of more suitable all metal designs." https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisation/units/air-historical-branch/regional-studies-post-coldwar-narratives/the-raf-in-the-mediterranean-and-middle-east-1945-71-part-ii-the-southern-tier/

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Not the launchers and the radars. I thought that was obvious... Now I'm relieved to hear they have plans, but to be honest, SAM sites should be a priority, they're way more important than pyramids or sewage treatment plants. On the same level with airports. Seems like I'll have to wait until that 2nd phase is completed. But congratualations @devs for choice of location. And everything looks really nice, many cool assets, that's true. (era could be more appropriate but it's not the end of the world, how about a backdated version for phase 3? )

Meh, haven't seen an single SAM site. They're iconic and rather common alongside the Suez canal, you can see them on google earth. Looks like we get another empty sightseeing map full of civilian buildings. It's very cruel to bomb a sewage treatment plant. Not interested right now. edit: Wrong era too

Apparently there were some Mosquitos at RAF Habbaniya at some point... Any chance we can get some more desert liveries? The israel one looks very good!

Where did they take off from and land at? (will listen to the interview this weekend I promise, so I can understand what you mean) Because the way I see it the most important part is missing, between the two existing maps. From what I've gathered, most aircraft flew out of some major ex-Iraqi airbases. We don't have any Iraqi airbases, except H3, and AFAIK that one wasn't used much after 1991/2003. (Or after the famous air raid, but we can't fly that mission either) Right now we can't have Iran-Iraq scenarios because there's no Iraq on PG map. And we can't fly OIR/COIN missions because there's no Iraq on Syria map except abandoned H3. Everything's split between two maps or doesn't exist at all. I know Iran use F-4 and F-14, but there wasn't any major combat in this area that's covered by the PG map. Even Bushehr wasn't important enough for ED, or it's in the lOw DeTaiL ArEa™ or whatever. Iraq is such an important location, it really leaves a bad taste in my mouth that ED is pretty much sweeping it under the rug, and in my opinion, it's disrespectful to those who served there over the past 3 decades. The Gulf war was one of the largest air campaigns in history. Thousands of flight sim enthusiasts would like to reenact all the missions you hear about in interviews and podcasts. That said, I can't wait for the Afghanistan map, SE and KW. And thanks @Heinlein, yes, that's what I was trying to say. And I'm also saying it's 100% possible/feasible at least for those willing to trade down-low-eye-candy for history.

In my opinion both F-4 and F-15 suffer from the same issue in DCS, and that's the maps. Why buy an F-4 or F-15 if there's no ODS map or Afghanistan. (or Vietnam) I'm just fed up flying over strait of hormuz or Syria pretending to fight some fictional war and wonder why we don't deserve an actual combat maps for US assets. I heard Afghanistan was coming, but it seems like it's very low priority. Last year's flood of strange map announcements and the release of South Atlantic (at $70) really killed my optimism and discourages me from spending any more money on this sim. Sometimes I think about asking HB or ED how to become a map developer... Because someone needs to get it done. There's so many stories, tales, documentaries, interviews and whatnot about major conflicts and it sucks we can't fly these missions in DCS.

I don't see people being rude in here, if anyone was being rude it was you: edit: I know, we're trying to get back to topic...

@NotBonk Relax man. It's a game, because people play it for entertainment purposes. A simulator game. "Simulation" is a subgenre in videogames. Anyway... I do think the SE release will have some sort of impact on the F-4, but my main question is, will the SE preorder "lock out" the release of the F-4 until SE is released. (+ 1 month minimum separation) I hope not, but we'll see. I haven't decided yet what plane I'm going to buy but I think it will be the most finished one with the least amount of bugs and "soon-later-promises".

Hi ED, It would be great if this plane came with a couple desert liveries, for some semi realistic Iraq scenarios using H3 as a stand-in for RAF Habbaniya (ED gib). Plus, the Sinai/Suez map is around the corner. (I'm a sucker for Middle Eastern scenarios, past and present, and I can't buy this iconic British plane unless it's got a desert livery. ) Thank you

I'm not a fan of any of this boresight stuff, that's not the kind of realism I'm looking for primarily when playing a sim.

Wow, cool! You know a lot about this little helicopter and it's weapons, maybe a bit too much I just don't understand why some are fiercly against more choices and possibilities. The more casual players that don't frequent the forums don't share this view for the most part, as far as I can tell. edit: The Apache rack was a stupid example, I admit it, but in principle it does make sense to me to make existing weapons available to new modules, especially if it's just a single line in a .LUA file (M261)

I think my suggestion about the GAU-19(/B) is reasonable, let's see what the PC devs say. It would make many many people happy, and I'd say adding weapons is one of the more motivating, and revenue increasing tasks in module development. Please Polychop

40mm grenade launchers, of course! Great idea! But I hate to disappoint you, triple rack Mavs haven't been used operationally on helicopters, sorry. I can understand that the purists aren't interested in additional weapons but they're a minority. Weapons are one of the main features of a combat simulator, and adding weapons is rather simple, especially if a similar weapon already exists. I'm sure it would be very well received, and I think ED already said they're going to emphasize on the sandbox aspect of DCS. And trust me, nobody's going to have fun with the M296 in DCS. I just want to prevent potential frustration among the more casual players. And it doesn't need to come at release, a couple months later is perfectly fine. Keeping the hype train going you know.

Depends how you define realism. To me realistic means "plausible" or "possible". It carried the GAU-19 IRL, so that's not just realistic, it's an actual, real loadout, even if it wasn't used much. An M134 is smaller and lighter, so where's the problem, it's definitely realistic. All you need is to attach these guns somehow, and hook up the cables, in essence all guns that were used on AH-6, UH-60 etc. could be used on OH-58. A little bit of artistic freedom can go a long way to make a module more interesting, that's why I'm asking for "experimental" loadouts or whatver you wanna call it. I just think there's a demand for that, there's tons of mods that add more weapons to planes, and it would be well worth the effort after all the hard work on FM, system logic and so on. So if there's an existing quad hellfire rack on AH-64, why not add it to OH-58 too. Nobody is forced to use it, but it would double the fun for others.

It can carry the GAU-19, they tested it if I'm not mistaken. So an M134 should also be possible, maybe even 2 per station for a quad configuration. People like experimenting with loadouts and weapons. It would be cool (and realistic) if we had the same choices/options as the IRL customers.

Will the Kiowa come with additional weapons like M134 miniguns or the GAU-19? In my opinion many players would appreciate some more firepower when dealing with DCS infantry units.