Weta43

That's why I said earlier - be careful what you wish for :)

Look at the textures - Pretty sure it's just a screenshot with the camera placed inside the model Go to the chase view in your current install and mode the camera to inside the cockpit - that's about the level of detail you'll see. (You could post similar images from inside the Mi-26, get shots from the cockpit or rear section of the Mi-24, & the An-26 has a very nice cockpit )

Where do they talk about not being profitable ? They've said they didn't think a Russian module would make as much money as a Western one, but I don't remember them ever saying they weren't breaking even.

Because you want to fly an interceptor ?

Drinking half a bottle of wine before hitting 'fly' ?

Before going to that, I'd like to see better damage modelling, better route following AI, better ground / SAM AI, better airborne AI teamwork, proper GCI for RedFor aircraft, proper datalinking for RedFor aircraft, the dynamic weather system updated to a decent GUI, the dynamic campaign system rolled out, the ability to have damage to infrastructure persist between campaign missions, the thing where labels show through the floor fixed. & once they've got those sorted (lots of which they're working on - credit where credit's due), maybe a discussion could happen around whether RL weather is a good idea (me - I vote no. No interest in starting a mission only to discover that today's weather means the mission is unflyable.)

That was me. My memory is that there were howls of outrage at the time - about the FCS, about the trimming laws, about how easy it was so put into an inverted flat spin, and how hard it was to get out of an inverted flat spin, turning performance, blah, blah). Most of those have died down, but there are still some die hard "E.D. have deliberately under-modelled the Su-27 and over modelled the F-15 to please Western buyers" conspiracy theorists even now... Now imagine that applied to every aspect of the aircraft's system and avionics modelling.... Or do a teen fighter and everyone that buys it knows what to expect, and (eventually) claps their hands I have no idea how qualified he is to "evaluate rl fighter performance", but I know he has "ED Producer" in his sig, so I guess if he doesn't like the idea of a modern Soviet fighter (for whatever reason), a modern Soviet fighter's unlikely to happen... (& for the record, I'd love to see a full DCS.Su-27S (or any "M", or "K" or any suffix salad variant they chose to model)

Ever considered the possibility that they don't do a full version of one of the Su-27 or MiG-29 variants because they don't want the grief ? Chizh has expressed his low opinion of Soviet gear on the forum before, and maybe they just feel that if they were to model an Su-27 S with it's actual radar & WCS & weapons limitations, the sh*tstorm that happened when the Su-27 (then MiG-29) PFM was unveiled would seem like a little squall - from both hemispheres of their market. Better to leave that particular bitter pill for someone else to swallow.

Well worry if you really want to, but they just said this week that : Which is 'non-screenshot' news, and tells us that : - The model's not finished, and - The animations aren't finished either. If they're not finished, they're certainly not optimised. If they're not finished, and they're not optimised - why would the give performance figures on the carrier as it stands ?

Interesting way to ask the question. (The first half of which is already answered over and over and over in so many threads, and the second half of which is really only a rhetorical question so you can complain about E.D., which again has been done over and over and over in so many threads that surely it's getting tiresome to type ?) I guess the answer will be what it is every time the question is asked: That you're still getting what they've said you'll get all along, which is a free update that brings the model & textures up to current standards, and the option to buy an 'upgraded*' version of the aircraft if you think the extra features warrant the spend. I'd say though, that you sound so wound up and ready to complain even before the module is released, maybe you'd do your health a favour if you stop checking this thread till the module is released and you can read what people write about it ? & Want to see me beat a dead horse ? Watch: * & by 'upgraded', I mean imaginary ;-)

They said they'd get the Huey going first, then the Mi-8. I guess that means they intend to get the Huey going first, then the Mi-8, and I guess after that the Mi-24P

Like these ? …

There has to be something the matter with your controls set up.

Interesting, but not really very insightful into the actual WVR combat qualities of the two aircraft, given that the , and the Malaysians say that:

You need a flat bit to land on, but even if they just made it that the functional part of the FARP was just the metal covered bit shown in the image - because it's so much smaller it wouldn't end up as a massive hill, just a bit of level ground. You could then make the base any shape you wanted by adding multiple pads. (eg laid out as a strip of terraces on the side of a hill, or in a grid on the flat) You could avoid the multiple ATC that would happen currently by making it that the FARPS are a simple spawn/de-spawn point, and putting the ATC logic in the mobile ATC unit that's available, then linking the mobile ATC to a pad/pads in the ME

This is not true. It's quite possible to fly the helicopters (& fight, or land on chimneys and trains) just using the twist grip. The thing that will catch you out is the number of available buttons and rotaries, not the twist grip.

It can be tracking something moving & still work

Auto turn on target should work regardless of speed - if you're feeling like playing, you can fly the plane by turning on Auto Turn On Target, enabling the HMS, Looking where you want to fly to and clicking the lock button - works at any speed (& would make a good template of an operating mode for the AI auto pilot for the Huey and Mi-8 :-)

Make sure you're not in route following mode too.

As QuiGon said, I wrote "E.D. will have released..."

& as you were told, it never was, that's not your problem.

It's the best way to get a few thousand testers checking features as they're added. If you think you might be one of those people that buy an E.A. module having been told it's not feature complete, has bugs & will continue to have bugs appear as features are added, then be unhappy that it's not feature complete, still has bugs and that new ones appear as features are added, and are likely to spend the next however many months clogging up the forums complaining that the early access module isn't feature complete and has bugs, or isn't progressing as fast as they expected, please do yourself and the rest of us a favour and wait till you read it's feature complete.

Think of it this way: When we do get the Mi-24 E.D. will have released 3 Russian helicopters, of which 2 are attack helicopters, and only 1 Western helicopter and zero Western attack helicopters

Twist stick is fine - that's all I used for years (& that was with the Mi-8 and Huey) until the twist started getting spikey

They may be flying, but do they have original engines / weight distribution, and is someone prepared to let E.D. put one in a wind tunnel / fly one hard to get some performance data. If not - it makes the model & textures easy, but not much more...