plott1964

So... we digress. Go back to the original premise. Is the map actually smaller than it used to be?

what upcoming Normandy 2 revamp? I haven't heard of that.

Nice apocalypse therapy session. You’ve invented a new genre: meta-simulated ennui—DCS isn’t a sim, it’s a bug-hunt simulator. Cute. Reality check: some people indeed love the fiddly joy of installing mods and fixing LUA scripts; others actually enjoy flying and shooting stuff. Both camps exist. Want a polished “DCS 3.x” miracle boxed up with 2025 graphics, flawless AI, perfect carriers, and a worship-free forum? Great wishlist — drop it in Santa’s mailbox next to “unlimited development resources” and “instant QA for all third-party modules.” If you want change that isn’t a rant-shaped prayer: Pick three realistic, measurable improvements and push them with reproducible bug reports and community proposals. Stop asking for “everything” in one release; prioritize. Engage unpaid modders with concrete incentives (docs, tool access, communication channel), not broad insults. And while you’re at it, fix “its” vs “it's”—syntax matters when you want devs to take you seriously. We’re not doomed. We’re just dramatic, and drama doesn’t compile into features.

Yes. of course I'm unaware. Thanks for the input. So, 50% work on DCS core and 50% are split between terrains and modules? ...or am I getting even more confused?

Even a mark on the windscreen would suffice.

My issue with this whole thing is that we in community that support ED really have no way of knowing that our requests are even being considered or implemented until ... they are. ED never says. "We hear you. We will be implementing these features by this date." We only here the dreaded "maybe" and "in the future". This community provides a lot of insight and experience not only to ourselves, but to ED as well and we all do it in support of making DCS better. I would just like to see definitive timelines and a better interaction with us in the community.

Okay. ED may do this already, but I would suggest having sub-teams for R&M (Revision and Maintenance) and others for New Development.

I would pause the new dev and update what you have to adequacy, then turn new dev back on. ED may have over committed with f-35, Iraq, Fulcrum and others.

Yes. That's why I propose a modest fee. For instance, ED could still provide the free (unedited) Caucasus map for entry level users, but then offer an "upgrade" (modernized map) for like $19.99. The other maps could be handled like they did with the F-5E (granted, ED got a little heat for that). Anyway, all of this would be feasible and (mostly) welcomed by the community.

I would say all three could use a serious update: NTTR - could more like Afghanistan Caucasus - could be more like CWG Persian Gulf - could be more like Syria Also, I'm sure most players would also pay a modest fee for such upgrades if they were actually agreed to by ED.

? ... Sorry, I don't understand.

I am having trouble with Pitch. It doesn't seem to work on my keyboard or stick. I can adjust the pitch with trim, but not with the controller. Did I miss something?

I guess the short answer is: "We are most likely not ever going to see a moving map for the AMPCD for all the terrains in the Hornet."

Great idea! What hawkeye mods are required for this server?