Weta43

It's much better than the old version on my phone, & if you squash your window horizontally to as narrow as it will go, it's fine If you full-screen your browser on a monitor - I preferred the old version. Shame you can't swap between layouts depending on the platform you're using.

Maybe because I live in a country that uses the sensible and intuitive metric system, maybe because I started with the Su-25 & Su-27, but to be honest I don't really love operating US aircraft (...), everything's in imperial (Knots - I mean - are we sailing ?), and the HUD and Avionics are never intuitive ;)

Slightly O.T., but that's some pretty violent downwash effects the've implemented in that video - but I guess in a FFS having the trees thrash around adds to the immersion i& mental workload n tight landings near trees

Also again ... If it tries to jump diagonally across the CL of the stick, swap axis in the FFB tune.

Remember too - you can't have curves with FFB in the Ka-50. If you add curves to the stick, they're not added to the FFB, so when you release the trim, the stick tries to move where that place is in the uncurved FFB schema

No, I just meant DCS.Ka-50 II like flaming-cliffs II

They're doing a Ka-50 II, not Ka-52

& how do you know that ? Because you've seen it, or because you read a post by someone else that also hadn't seen it which said it was so ? (& now someone else will use your comment as a source for another post, leading to the establishment of a fact).

Depends if you're after appearances or outcomes. In reality, in a rockets run on some soft targets reasonably close to each other you should be able to kill a few things on a pass... Without fragmentation, you have to either hit even a soft target, or hit very close to it for it to die (& if it doesn't outright die, it will continue on as if undamaged until it does). Without dispersion, you get a higher density of rockets on the ground, and so in the target area get a reasonably good kill pattern, but over a much smaller area than you'd expect. With dispersion, you'd just get (essentially) nothing happening but smoke generation over a bigger area. The odds ofanything being killed would be very low. Dispersion without fragmentation would look more real, but have an even less realistic outcome than we have now.

Isn't it how big the expected target ('s return) is ?

See all that bit in capitals ? The action of installing the module on their computer will simultaneously erase all the bits in capitals above from the brains of 25% of everyone that downloads the module. They will then create 95% of the posts made on this and every other forum they can find complaining about how the module is unfinished, full of bugs, and they were ripped off by E.D. ( & that they now feel a messiah like need to explain to the world that E.D.'s entire business model is finding people that can't read a disclaimer & somehow tricking them into agreeing to pay for and download an unfinished product that clearly has a disclaimer on it)

2 things to considered: 1/ That maybe having looked at it maybe E.D. (while recognising that it's better than what we have now,) feel the architecture of Jester isn't structured in a way that makes it suitable to serve as a starting point for their long term goals. 2/ If they've been developing their own A.I. in conjunction with their plans for the dynamic campaign/RTS engine, it may be more work to re-start that integration with Jester than to simply finish what they've started. Asking for Jester may look to E.D. like giving pain killers and an Elastoplast to someone with a broken arm. - It might make them feel better right now, but it doesn't fix the underlying problem.

Depends which AI. Fighters, ground attack aircraft, air defence, armour, infantry, ships ? Generally it affects how quickly / at what range they detect you, how long it takes them to react when they do, how 'complex' the reaction will be, and how well they use their weapons.

^ yes, we use dd/mm/yyyy here, but files are always yyyy-mm-dd (optional .hh.mm.ss) then they sort correctly. 09-Sep-2021 would avoid any confusion though (even for the Japanese here :-)

I'd love an "A", but as far as newer variants go, there's always the Su-25KM (scorpion) - it's wholly Georgian (not Russian), with Western style upgrades (So Russia wouldn't mind the avionics being reproduced, and it's not giving anything away about current Russian avionic capabilities), & Elbit might even be up for the advertising....

I'd buy it...

:) & following on in the same vein (& without wanting to be - though perhaps failing at not being - a smart ass ;) ) - it's really more a case of "as intended", than "Correct as is", if the reason there's no route following is that something which exists IRL "is and was not implemented"...

If you're heavy, don't turn and brake at the same time (release, adjust, re-apply)

This ^ isn't in any way addressing the issue, it's just casting shade on the OP. The issue hasn't changed across all the 2.5 years since this thread (,or all the other threads on the subject) was started. I think E.D. could probably get the voices for free if they asked for volunteers, and it would be a day's work for E.D. to set up female voices for their own aircraft (Change the code from pick between Russian / NATO to pick from Russian male, Russian female, NATO male, NATO female, make 2 duplicate folders with the voices, and and batch copy the relevant files.) Other developers could then either follow suit, or sit with the status quo - have the entry.lua define if there are 2 or 4 sets of voices. Why not ? It's less work than MP multi-crew, and there are probably an order of magnitude more women playing than MP players that would regularly use multi-crew. Seriously - leaving aside not wanting to give in to liberals, (& a fear of girl germs) what other serious argument against it has been raised ?

Maybe we'll get it after we get a Chinook. After all, you don't need something to carry broken down Chinooks until you have a Chinook to break down.... iW_IxNLNvrY Seriously though - it would add some serious lifting power to MP battles / co-op with CA.

It does seem like it doesn't it ? Why get so upset about the idea not all the pilots being white men ?

Think I can see some skin-tone here on these guys (it's OK to look - no female forms to trigger anyone): Maybe here ? : or here: both these guys: Harder: Easier: Easier again: So my partner just got home, so I'll go hang out with her, but that's enough to show that the ethnicity and gender of the pilots is often obvious, and mostly white and male. Hope no one finds the idea of that changing too upsetting, but E.D. should really get onto it.

I'm not sure how far you got. The trk files are actually a zip of the mission, set up and 'action' Change the ".trk" suffix to ".zip" & unzip it. You can edit the 'mission' part of it, re-zip (Ironhand does it quite a lot to change aircraft in tracks) As far as I know you can't edit the 'action' part of the file though. It really is a binary.

So we have most of the countries in the world as factions, we have white, black & middle eastern characters in the various ground forces & white and black pilots, & that was all necessary for adding realism to the world. … but 51% of the population is completely missing, and the idea of adding it in some way causes outrage for some people - 'triggers' them so badly… Add the voices - it's simple, and an idea that's time has come.

You necroed 2 threads in the same day so you could whinge about people wanting representation in the game ? Interesting priorities indeed. It's long past time E.D. should have done this - It's not difficult, it's not even PC or a sign of being a 'SJW', it just reflects real life...