Weta43

& a modern imaging system that tracks moving targets would be nice, but it's a 2019 aircraft, so it's not coming here soon...

At one stage it shone through the floor, making the cockpit washed out.

Except the red dot isn't actually a thing, it's a construct of your mind that interprets the reflected light as a continuously existing object, but none of the photons you see as a dot actually moved faster than light, & there's no physical continuity or connection between the dot at one side of the moon and the dot at the other, other than that the photons you're seeing all came out the same laser a few seconds apart. (Edit: Analogy - If it takes half a second for the water you squirt from your hose to leave the hose and land in front of you, and you turn in 1/10th of a second so the water is now going in the opposite direction, the 'splash' will move from half a second's travel in front of you to half a second's travel behind you in 1/10th of a second, but the water doesn't travel any faster, only the construct you label a 'splash')

.. & allow the creation of forward bases on roads for the Su-25

Yes, for me "A" before "T" as well, but SM would definitely have my 1st preference vote...

Apparently not, … & that's the problem & why we have this thread... Chizh has said E.D. have no reason to believe the Ka-50 ever carried operable IGLA (needles), & Ka-50 ED is an "act of imagination" created "Because they want to" (I posted the quote somewhere), but once you've said 'We'll add this imaginary feature to improve gameplay", the whole "The Flanker cannot have TWS & the R-27AE because the AE was never put into serial production & the radar improvements to support the missile weren't implemented until 5 years after the date we nominally attribute to the version we have" argument starts to ring a bit hollow... Don't you think ? Surely it's now a legitimate question to ask why is it absolutely imperative to implement realistic radar gimbal limits that mean the Su-27 can't hold a lock at more than 120 (?) degrees roll, if the Ka-50 can have imaginary weapons systems "because we want to" ? Why can't the Su-25T have a datalink ? Or the Su-25A receive a couple of MFD panels and a GPS system, and become a Su-25SM(ED) ? Surely what's good for the goose is good for the gander ? (I hope it turns out not to be the Ka-50TE - Thin Edge - of the wedge :) )

part II ? Part IX ! :)

? What makes you think it does ?

Or wrap some random triggers around them so they turn on & off every few seconds - that way they last longer and look more like they don't think they're operating in God Mode

see https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3948720&postcount=201 JL-khGrzoY4

Gravity works because of gravity fields ? & fish are fish because of their fishiness... True. ...& we don't know why a collapsing magnetic field generates an electrical field at 90 degrees to the magnetic field, or why a collapsing electric field generates a magnetic field at 90 degrees to the electric field But we know that they do - through simple observation. The same approach proves mass causes a gravitational field. The metaphysics of why are not sciences questions to answer. Science might give a theory that derives causation for all the various forces (some grand unified theory), but it won't answer the "Why", only bump it up (down?) a layer. My personal view is the answer to "why?" doesn't exist. Regardless, science has brought us significant understanding of the mechanics of the universe, and while I don't want to be a killjoy - they prove the universe is very old, the earth is round, orbits the sun (which is not hollow, and is not a catalytic reactor), and is part of a larger galaxy. Almost all of the evidence can be reproduced by the average person if they're inclined to try...

Maybe they eat their lunch with their gloves on :)

I'd like to see FC3 aircraft spawn able to spawn on the ground - it would be useful way beyond MP missions. Worth remembering though: Way more people play SP than MP. If you fix something for SP, you fix it for MP as well, so everyone benefits. If you fix something for MP (& this isn't actually a 'fix' it's a feature request), only a small % of the community benefit. Where should the effort go ?

No. The reason the 'blinking' was added wasn't long range F-15 TWS shots, it's that ECM blinking also defeats HOJ shots, & the problem exists as much for Su-27 pilots as for F-15 pilots. Blinking turns the ECM as implemented into a 100% effective shield against radar guided missiles until 'burn-through', which wasn't (& shouldn't be) the intended behaviour. Blinking the ECM as modelled in DCS makes BVR engagements impossible. It was removed to eliminate an exploit that was crippling MP gameplay for both sides. If your problem is that the F-14 now has this unrealistic effect, the more sensible thing would be to work to have that removed than have something that effectively removes BVR from the game applied across all aircraft. Maybe - just maybe, the process should be : Research the issue, then if there isn't a reasonable explanation, move on to conspiracy theories. not jump straight to conspiracy theories...

Interesting... The carrier's looking good, and the features shown have been requested by the community for years, but almost all the comments are negative and all from MP players who are a small minority of players - & most of the people that purchase the module will never face those issues even if they weren't to get fixed.

Ahh, but that wasn't gravity, that was "Reverse Buoyancy". (which, of course, just bumps the question of why buoyant things float down the road - so the 'anti-gravs' wont have to say the answer, the answer being "Gravity" :-) )

For me: sea level, 20 degrees @ 28800 lb - pretty consistently 1.13km (3,700 ft)

To show just how underwhelming they are, you should set weapons and fuel to unlimited, and see how many bombs you have to drop to actually destroy the dam. Just don't stop till it's broken...

Not exactly disagreeing, but I guess it depends how loosely you define 'transmission systems' & what you're using to do the 'blowing up'. You can set up temporary transmission lines in a couple of days: August 1975 – A strong wind storm caused a string of seven transmission towers to collapse [on the HVDC link from the NI to the SI] and damage the line. The link took five days to repair. There are other bit's of equipment (which I won't mention now) that would be susceptible to small explosions that could take 6 months to a year to replace - even in peace time. The reality is though, that if you dropped a single penetrating bomb on each unit in the powerhouse, the station would be out for years even though the dam might be structurally intact & the storage still controlled (after dropping the head-gates). Dartmouth PowerStation Australia: "The turbine casing and concrete machine block surrounding it were destroyed in 1990 when two steel beams entered the turbine. The station was subsequently re-built and re-commissioned in 1993."

& apparently every other scientist there ever was since the enlightenment....

I wondered how long it would take you two to realises you were furiously agreeing :)

You can collapse your gear if you're overweight and you hit the deck hard. edit See:https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3793105&postcount=5

You've misread/misunderstood his post. Read the quote he included

I'd rather we had inscrutable dams... Seriously though - we wouldn't need to have inundation, just treat them like any other static object and at the point they've accumulated enough damage to be 'destroyed' replace the initial model with a model with nick out the top & a crack in it with a bit of river running down the side from the crack representing water seeping through... That lets you determine the damage visually, & set its destruction as an event for evaluating mission success (triggers or scripts).

+ why would you make free map number 2 butt hard up against (overlap ?) the existing free map ? Surely you want to give the punter some variety.