Weta43

It's a Caravan, but still... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/27/worlds-largest-all-electric-aircraft-set-for-first-flight

Maybe some of us will know before others then :)

The Shkval doesn't use contrast to lock targets, and I have another secret for you - the flight model doesn't really use air either - just numbers to approximate the results you get from air. Whether the Shkval uses contrast or an algorithm that detects 'objects' to decide if it can lock a target is irrelevant, if the target is locked - or fails to lock - under conditions similar to the real thing's capabilities. Some of your points (that the proximity fuses are not set off by trees for example) are interesting (though the question of how you expect the fuses to work in MP when some players have more trees than others, or in the design of SP missions where the maker has no idea how many trees the end user will have - has been skipped over). Most of your text though seems simply a complaint that you find the system too difficult to use, want something easier, and for some reason think replicating an early Soviet version of contrast locking will solve your problems. If everyone was having trouble locking A2A targets, maybe your arguments would carry more weight, but that's not the case.

Actually:

E.D. : We're asking you not to modify core mod files, only modify files in the saved game tree. Users : We don't care if you've asked us not to do it, we want to do it, so we're going to do it. E.D. : We're asking you not to modify core mod files, only modify files in the saved game tree. Users : We don't care if you've asked us not to do it, we want to do it, so we're going to do it. E.D. : We're asking you not to modify core mod files, only modify files in the saved game tree. Users : We don't care if you've asked us not to do it, we want to do it, so we're going to do it. E.D. : You wouldn't do as we asked, so we've stopped you modifying core mod files, you can now only modify files in the saved game tree. Users : This is terrible - you didn't give us any warning, there's no communication, we can't do what we want to do !!! We'll never play your game again !!! E.D. are tyrants !!!

If you match the altitude, FOV and POV that's used in the videos, DCS is a pretty good match for RL. If you don't, you're comparing apples and oranges and expecting them to look the same.

Well at least after reading this thread I know where Henny Penny's (chicken little's) offspring ended up.

Hi zoranin73, To avoid disappointment and future aggravation for yourself and the rest of the community, please make sure you understand what the Open Beta is, and what you're accepting as an experience when you download it. Yes, It has all the most recent bells and whistles, nut it is a beta, and if you're going to use it, be aware it has more bugs than the stable version. I'm not saying don't use it - it's pretty much what I use exclusively - but some people seem not to notice the word beta in the title, then spend every waking moment of every day on the forum complaining that E.D. have released a beta that has bugs in it...

You mean like this ? Don't think it's going to happen... Given they have to be at particular stations, I'd imagine the animated crew are where they are & the mission maker doesn't have a lot of say over where they start.

I never realised you could have tacview as a module !

You paint us all with a very wide brush.

I don't want to be rude, but it's pages and pages of discussion of how many angels will fit on the head of a pin. I don't understand why you feel the need to say this is 'real' when E.D. themselves have labelled it a work of imagination. If you're happy with a fantasy that isn't too far from reality - OK, that's great - but a little fantasy is still a fantasy. Maybe with a fantasy not too far from reality you can suspend disbelief & fool yourself that it's real for a while, but it's still a trick you play on yourself. Maybe no worse than the fantasy we all engage in when we play the SIM, but a fantasy none the less. There's no point in arguing with E.D. not to go down that path - they've said they're doing it and committed the resources, but some of us are disappointed. Guesstimating things you know exist but have trouble getting information is par for the course in simulation. Making stuff up that you know never existed is another thing. Oh well - we move on... What you're not going to do is persuade people that care about the distinction, that fantasy is fact. I'm happy for you to suspend your own disbelief in the interests of your enjoyment, but stop trying to get us to suspend ours...

or - bury interesting news that otherwise would make headlines in the middle of important ongoing political events so no-one notices. This is also their game, it's nothing new...

I agree with all your reasoning until you get to: "The obvious answer is the AH-64D Longbow Apache..." 'cause I'm pretty sure they said it's fixed wing.

The APKWS & it's Russian equivalent would be interesting additions for this, the A10 & Su-25A/T

Got my vote :)

It says once the early access is finished, not the final release. As they're doing the 'final touches' on the EA P-47 now, I guess that will be before 2025. I read it as once the P-47 is in EA (& the inevitable random-unreproducible-unless-you-have-a-very-unusual-setup show stoppers are patched), the Mi-24P takes main focus.

Yes, the nearest you can get to BFM if they're in the same coalition as you is to set them to follow you at a close distance, then spend your time trying to get on their tail.

IRL ? yes, In DCS - you get what you ask for. You're setting the scale (the maximum velocity in any direction) of the turbulence in f/s m/s depending on your ME setting. What's added is somewhere between turbulence and increased 'gustiness' of the wind. '10' gets you turbulence with a maximum velocity of +/- 1 f/s or m/s How much to add depends on what you're trying to replicate. (if you set 0 wind, and the maximum turbulence, then watch the AoA vanes on the front of the Ka-50,you can see what the gusts are doing...) edit - or set it to max & land on the carrier :)

Not useful for anything other than simulating the actual dynamics of flight - I think for most flights from take off to landing WWII fighters will spend more time during combat in situations where wake effects have the potential to be a significant factor than your average MiG-15 player will spend in ground effect during takeoff and landing.

That's a ridiculous title - It's my favourite map... Even accepting you believe (as you stated in the other thread you started to talk about exactly the same thing) it "does not work with combined arms" - that makes more sense as a title for your new thread...

mission start set flag_1 between 1 and 10 group_1 in zone 1 and pilot_1 altitude < 3000m set flag_2 Flag_2 = true and Flag_1 < 3 Activate Su-27 Flag_2 = true and Flag_1 > 2 Activate MiG-31 80% chance of MiG-31, 20% chance of Su-27 or, a bit different: mission start set flag_1 between 1 and 10 group_1 in zone 1 and pilot_1 altitude < 3000m or group_2 in zone 1 and Pilot_1 altitude < 5000m set flag_2 Flag_2 = true and Flag_1 < 3 Activate Su-27 Flag_2 = true and Flag_1 > 2 Activate MiG-31 or mission start set flag1 0 or 1 set flag2 0 or 1 flag1 = 0 and flag2 = 0, ScenarioFlag1 = true flag1 = 0 and flag2 = 1, ScenarioFlag2 = true flag1 = 1 and flag2 = 0, ScenarioFlag3 = true flag1 = 1 and flag2 = 1, ScenarioFlag4 = true Chosen event = true and ScenarioFlag1 = true, Do "A" Chosen event = true and ScenarioFlag2 = true, Do "B" Chosen event = true and ScenarioFlag3 = true, Do "C" Chosen event = true and ScenarioFlag4 = true, Do "D" Other event = true and ScenarioFlag2 = true, Activate unit Y

Do you need someone to show you how to set what you want up ?

Feature already exists. Use the "OR" button to put an 'or' between conditions.

Same - All USB devices are discoverable by the running game if you just unplug them and re-plug them in. If it's not doing that for you it would appear to be a system specific problem rather than a missing feature in the game. Maybe log a bug ?