Weta43

Not that I know of. to work out the origin for the coordinates I just put 3 units on the map - 1 as a reference point, one south of that, one east, then looked in the .miz file to work out where the coordinate origin is, the units & which direction is positive. put a flight (and/or anything else you want) in a mission, edit the coordinates to have them appear somewhere else relative to the coordinate origin

As pointed out above, your thread title & OP come across to native English speakers as negative and provocative, and your idea that because some very niche areas are missing (though a couple of the things you've said are missing are not) the sim should be abandoned is neither constructive nor realistic. You have a right to express your wishes (though why you would wish to deny everyone else the ability to fly DCS & call on E.D. to terminate their business because you personally have niggles about their product is beyond me). If you express them carelessly, people have a right to be offended. You did, they are. Edit: True there is no world map, but it's not a Far Cry map - there's no destruct mechanism if you leave the map's populated area. If you're prepared to air start, you can start any distance from the target & refuel on the way in as many times as you want. I have entered the coordinates on the F-18, taken off from Iran & landed in Kabul... WMD already exist (in a variety of forms), and can be further simulated with triggers. All other weapon types except chemical and biological are already able to be added, and those two could again be affected using triggers or scripts. There's noting in the simulation of the atmosphere, flight models or propulsion in DCS that stops this. You could have a U-2 in DCS if someone made a module, there's just no use for it. There's also nothing to stop you modelling an X-15 & getting your astronaut badge if you want to, just no one with the skills thinks it's a good idea.

or, turn your desk so the window is in front of you, and make sure you don't have anything shiny (glass picture frames) behind you. As Los said - bring up the camera, see what's causing the problem & either remove that or adjust the camera settings till you don't pick up the reflections by accident.

They have, & home is home. That said, I'm surprised no one* has signed a contract to take the existing Su-27 or MiG-29 & produce an official mod (like the J-11), but mod in the full PSM and new DCS radar modelling using APIs that will presumably exist between the work E.D. & third parties have done on other aircraft, Developer avoids the risks of developing / maintaining the FM / ground handling / artwork, sells it as a full price module & pay E.D a royalty for each unit sold... *no one - like a wholly owned subsidiary in the us or uk "MattWag" developers :)

Because it's not - you're forgetting internal the structure of the eye... The fovea (the part you 'look' with) "comprises less than 1% of retinal size but (is more densely packed with receptors so that it) takes up over 50% of the visual cortex in the brain" There's as much information in the central 1% of your vision (the bit you look at anything with) as there is in the other 99%. You have high resolution sensor in the middle of your low resolution wide angle eyes.

Yes, we need a moveable hand shadow in the same way there's a moveable flashlight

OK, so the Yak isn't moving as fast as any of us would like, but to say the F/A-18C has had nothing done to it for months is ridiculous. Yes, it is in beta, but despite occasional griping from people that have nothing to base their claims on, the FM is near enough for a non-E.D. related F/A-18 pilot to say it's near enough that: If we say your "months" is 2 months, the F/A-18C has received (& in the case of weapons, systems to support were added): IR Maveric Improvements to the Radar modelling and display (BRA to ownship & A/A WP) Harm JHMCS & AIM-9x with new tones logic bug fixes / new options for MAV slew, Dud cue fixed changes to radar defaults based on SME feedback Images of Data Link / MSI, MIDS and COLOR shown Skins added Timed (nose / tail ) fusing added. AGM-65F (I know I've missed stuff, but when did AIM-7 get functioning loft & changes to the guidance system ? Those were F/A-18C driven too) from the newsletters over the past couple of months: •Fix of stores weight calculation in MCc (LAU-61 rockets add absurd amount of weight). •Unable to step through all GBUs loaded, Incorrect release sequence are fixed. •AIM-7 will lose semi active radar guidance when the f-18C is hit and enters 360 spin. •Fixed crash when cycle between CAP-9 and TST pod. •Unable to select BRA with no A/A Waypoint Selected is fixed. •Radar page BRA and A/A Waypoint Color Error is fixed. •F/A-18C: Fixed AGM-65E target lock issue. •Multimonitor: Left and Right monitors are changed is fixed. •VR: One eye image blinks when water set to High is fixed. •F/A-18C training - lesson 12 AIM-9. Default language will be EN not RU. •In game debrief showing dictKey for unit names instead of actual unit name is fixed. •Laser code panel does not close in some case is fixed. •Corrected wrong VVI indication on HUD •Crash when using Weapon.getDesc() on an Aim-7F from event handler is fixed. •Removed GBU-16 dual carry on BRU-33. •Added Instant Action Missions: •Caucasus FA-18C AGM-65F Maverick Practice •Caucasus FA-18C Paveway II Laser Guided Bombs Practice •Caucasus FA-18C River Run •Persian Gulf FA-18 Strike Fighter •Added HARM delivery in the Self Protect mode. •Fixed DUD cue for GPB/LGB. •Fixed FOV of AGM-65E. •Fixed TDC slew of AGM-65F. •Radar ACM modes switching corrected. •Missing Leading Edge Extension (LEX) Vapors restored. •Added COLOR option to Radar, DATA sub-level. •Added Maverick TTMR and IN RNG (in range) cues when seeker slaved to Waypoint Designated (WPDSG) point. •Added new, more accurate AIM-9X sounds. •Added Laser-guided bombs GBU-10/12/16. •Added air show smoke for Hornet. New loadout option and key command added. •Added BRAA (enabled on Radar/DATA) and AA Waypoint (Bullseye), set on HSI/DATA page with indications on and attack radar page. •Added AGM-65F SHIP Mode. •Cockpit textures updated to include fixed normal map issue on the left DDI. •Ripple Single/Ripple Salvo fixed. •VACQ and GACQ symbol on HUD fixed. •Updated F/A-18C RU manual by Vortex. •Added radio command to AI wingmen to “Go to Tanker”. •Corrected nose bounce and blackout when launching from the aircraft carrier with a heavy payload. •Updated AGM-65E/F. While the AGM-65E is now complete, the AGM-65F is still a work in progress. Known AGM-65F issues include TDC slew roughness, missile speed, and seeker lock distance against ships. •Radar fixes: - Radar will no longer move to the other side of the display when when the radar is commanded gimbal limits - Fix the antenna position if the HMD is turned on and the operator looks at the HUD - Radar no longer gets stuck in an 8-degree scan and that cannot be exited after locking a target and breaking lock - Rmax and Seeker Cue can no longer appear outside the tactical radar area. •JHMCS: - HACQ/LHAQ mode - radar FOV circle will be drawn while looking through HUD - HACQ/LHAQ mode - radar lock while looking through HUD is fixed - Fixed radar antenna position lock when HMD is turned on and looking through HUD - Up-look reticles was added

The US still uses Russian (USSR) rocket motors to launch its satellites into space, having never been able to develop an equivalent of their own.

Helpful ? That's the point isn't it ? to have a helpful assist. Or does 'helpful' only mean helpful if it's something you want ?

Oh - the slippery slope argument ! If we let anything fall below the magic level of 'simulation', the next time we turn around we will have a child's game. It might not be what you're intending, but it smells like trying to set an entry bar to keep the game for 'real hard core' players. The reality is that some people will never make good pilots - that's why there's an entry test and a filtering system to get onto and through real pilot training. No matter how long they practice, some people are always going to have difficulty doing A2A refuelling. Your suggestion seems to be that they go find another hobby so they don't contaminate DCS's airways ? Or there is another solution that builds a bigger community not shrinks it... In the same way as their is already take off and rudder assistance for the prop planes, or an AI co-pilot for helicopters while using the guns, or a start in the air option for people that only have an hour of spare time at a time not three - there could be an option that stabilised &/or provided an AP for the aircraft during refuelling. We all know you won't use it & you don't need to use it, but some people - people that have less spare time than you, less money to spend on flight gear, or less talent as pilots than you - might be able to take part in missions that otherwise they wouldn't. & other people using it won't hurt you one little bit ;)

Actually - not very often :). There's only 13 (official) cities in the country (though some towns call themselves 'cities'), as opposed to 69 in the UK.

I've heard a few people say that before, but it isn't true. You might have a different idea of how hard you should have to try to break them, but I'd done it before during testing, and after reading your post I went away and tried again. As my screenshots show, at 42,487 (so 3,500 lb lighter than your suggested 'unbreakable' weight of 46,000 lb) you can break the gear if you land hard. Ever stood at the bow or stern of a large ship as it sails in rough seas ? I remember standing near the bow on one of the interisland ferries while crossing the Cook Straight in a storm (about 22,000 ton, so smaller than a carrier, but a reasonable size), and as the bow fell into a trough, my feet would just lift off the ground, and as it lifted up to the top of the next crest, I'd get pushed down into the ground - at 2 G assuming up and down were symmetrical. Lets say the worst weather a pilot would land on the carrier is only half as bad as that - at the bow and stern everything alternates between 0.5 G and 1.5 G. If the stern were rising up like that, and the landing aircraft touched down half way through the rise, a 33,000 lb aircraft effectively weighs 1.5*33,000 = 49,000 lb. If the gear can survive that, then they won't break under a 49,000 lb aircraft landing on a glassy sea either.

You can turn that off

Am I blind - I can't see where it actually says that that … I can see multiple modules, I can't explicitly see interoperability … ?

Except if you hot start the A-10C, guns, A2A or Iron bombs are all simple, and you don't have to worry about managing the aircraft at all. You never have to worry about reducing boost before rpm, about watching engine temps (ever cooked the A-10C climbing out at full power ?), about switching tanks etc, etc. Yes, WWII aircraft have simpler weapons delivery systems, but engine management & navigation (+ TO & L) are generally more complicated.

How do you know the status of the module ? The fact that no statements have been made is not evidence one way or the other regarding progress. If you think back, no one knew the mustang was even in the pipeline until the beta testers were nearly done with it.

Heretic !

Did you watch the spread on those rockets ? :)

I noticed that Wags wrote : Does this mean that the Data Link will be extended from SP to MP for Su-27/33 MiG-29, and that they will also gain whatever capabilities that are currently missing, but that are similar to those the F/A-18C gains ?

A bomber ? There's a DH Mosquito coming ;)

I went to compare Google earth with the map. As it turns out, the way most of the canals just stop close to the shore in DCS is the way most of them stop IRL. Re the actual rivers - I don't think it's that the water textures are missing, I think they've been modelled as dry (they look like the dry braided river beds here up close) - which isn't so surprising. One of the dry rivers that runs to the shore I compared is on the coast of the mainland by Lavan Island. I know it's desert, but I wondered if the river might still have water in it. It turns out it only rains there 8 days a year. I guess they decided that if 90 % of the rivers are dry 90% of the time, it's more accurate to have all of them dry all of the time than to try to model two different kinds of river (wet & dry) or to have them 'wet' all the time.

:-/ To catch these aspects ?

See if you can find an archive of Overscan's guide to Russian Radar (or something like that). He has a lot of data on the actual operational limitations of the MiG-29S radar. Be careful what you wish for...

You're right, the p doesn't stand for precession, but p-factor still doesn't happen with a stopped prop: