Weta43

I don't see that as a promise, just a statement of intent/fact: "our dedicated team has been working diligently for a release in Q2 2025" & they were, and it didn't work out. They were working hard for a target release date, they weren't finished in time.

functioning visor in that video !

It truly is a work of art (science, mathematics and organisation) Easy to forget & focus on the gripes, but it's come so far since the LOMAC days in all regards

Posted by BIGNEWY @Ronin_Gaijin I have spoken to the team, we are planning the use of mobile RSBN beacons that can be placed on any terrain. thank you

LOL Is it just my imagination, or can you tell that's an official ED video by the fact that Red takes shots - but only Blue gets kills...

In the interests of making the map useful to people who don’t want to play as the US’s coalition during OEF, what say ED just make templates, distribute them through the user files section, and let users add 2000 - 2020 bases as they see fit ? Maybe they could do some Soviet in-fill too…

Afghanistan is the map I’m using most at the moment. Still : An occasional screenshot of something happening development wise on the Northern part of the map would go a long way to instilling confidence in purchasers of the whole map that something is actually happening with the Northern part of the map. There doesn’t have to be an estimated release date, or a % complete estimate, just some evidence that SOME progress is being made would provide confidence that our patience isn’t being taken advantage of.

Thanks YoYo, I thought probably it would…

As for the title - can the AH-64D use the a JTAC if one is added in the ME ?

It did, and they discovered it wasn’t very ‘tropicalised’ … apparently warm, wet & infested with insects that eat wood is harder on wooden wonders than damp, cold and only warm enough for insects to breed on the 3 days a year that would count as summer anywhere else in the world.

Agreed - given the experience the US had with IR seekers and flares once the cold war ended & they got their hands on some of what would have been the opposition, it would seem reasonable to assume that (within a particular generation of radars) 'Blue' jammers might work better against 'Blue' radar than against 'Red'. On the "do they work" question ? If they put an SPS jammer in the F-15, it's because they thought it would work against at least some radars, and presumably the USSR/RF feel the same way about their own jammers. & as has been said above, to be useful they don't have to 'stop' them launching at you, they only have to delay them launching long enough that your missile goes active before theirs does. Seems to me though, there's also that there's radars and there's radars, and an SPS jammer that 'works' against EWR &/or Sam search radar but is totally useless against an N001 or APG-65 might still be a useful thing in the real world (& vice versa or some sliding scale mix of each)

You say it's not necessary to order them exactly, but what you're asking for is for them to be ranked correctly +/- a little bit of wiggle room. You're still asking for them to be ranked well enough for you to not be annoyed by their stupidity (which is what irritating you now...) Getting the ranking correct (so the most dangerous are "all at the top of the Ai list") is the only trick bit, as the SIM already knows who's tracking who (including engagement parameters) and who's shooting at who & who's going to do the most damage if they hit seems both non-trivial, and not always what you want to happen anyway For you - how would you rank threats in a way that's useful across a range of scenarios? Should the AI show the 10 infantry that are already shooting at you at the top followed by the 30 that are tracking you but not yet firing, then the Shilka that you're in range of but that hasn't yet detected you followed by the Igla that you're out of range of but has detected you.. Or the Igla, then the Shilka, then the active infantry then the rest (armed, then unarmed) If there are 100 units that could theoretically engage you, do you list them all, or trim the list to most threatening first? If you trim the list, what if your mission is to destroy some howitzers that pose no threat to you, in the middle of a range of targets that do? How long do you want your head down scrolling through targets to find the howitzers at position 132 (after everything with a gun & a few trucks)? I agree Petrovich's listing isn't great now, but I don't think it's as easy to get right as simply telling someone to fix it. That said, I hope they're actively trying to figure it out, not just consigning it to the 'too much effort for the increase in sales" bucket. It's one thing to sell things "as is, where is", it's another to say things will be finished to a particular standard in a reasonable amount of time, then not finish them because 'finishing' is more work than was initially thought.

I agree about the gunfire thing - if Peter's boy can tell there's someone firing, it's not super difficult to work out if the projectiles are aimed at you & if they are, the offending unit should be on the target list (Actually, skip that - the SIM knows without calculation, because THE SIM is omniscient. The code's just not passing the information along.) Ordering the threats is probably the hardest part - is an infantry unit that's already firing at you more or less of a threat than the Strella you're still well out of range of - & is that more of a threat than the tank that is currently tracking you & that in 2 seconds you'll be within range of?

OT, but saying it anyway... I've been coming here for a long time, & I've never seen anyone banned for pointing out a problem - or perceived problem - with the game. What I have seen a lot of people banned for being d*cks in the way they go about pointing out those problems. 2 quite different things...