Weta43

No desire to have them swapped, much prefer the Su-25T

Hi, This: This Angolan helicopter is an Mi-35, not the domestic Mi-24 that the coming DCS.module is supposed to represent. It actually says that in the image URL: mybroadband.co.za/news/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/fapa-daa-mi-35-with-pilot-from-Tom-Cooper-collection.jpg Which means that this is likely to be an Mi-35 too: (Yes, I saw the caption, but like the recent poster promoting the US armed forces but actually showing MiG-29's & soldiers carrying AK-47, copy writers don't always get the labels right ) And on the subject of photographic evidence... This is a Jag with a small block Ford under the bonnet: & here is an E-type Jag with a 350 Chev under the bonnet. The fact that there are real photos of the cars with these engines doesn't mean they were factory fitted. Once sold operators are free to make whatever alterations they want to a car, or a helicopter. Including swapping the engine, or the RWR.

I think they're alien spaceships only if by 'aliens' you mean 'Elon Musk', and by 'spaceships' you mean 'vanity projects'.

Only if I'm very gentle with the collective, and the heading channel of the AP is engaged. nK5s16BbvqQ

Classic ;)

If the farp works within 100m, and there's already a ATC vehicle (it just doesn't work), can you not just swap the 3d model(s - colision etc :-) from the single farp for that from the mobile ATC & leave it as a static class object not a vehicle (OK, it can't drive, but so what ?)

So if it's not " the most realistic " which is the more realistic consumer grade flight SIM of the Ka-50 that the DCS.Ka-50 falls behind ? From memory, it pushed computers pretty hard when it was released, what's possible with a computer now wasn't when you paid for it.

They don't want it to be dumb[/], they want it to be realistic, not some Frankenstein cobbled together out of other aircrafts' spare parts to fill the role of air-quake dominator You got what you paid for when you paid for it. If you want them to give you the fruits of their laobour, you should expect to pay for it.

Wouldn't it make more sense to (away from actual airports) - tie a simple ATC AI to an ATC unit provided it's within 250 m of a FARP / uncontrolled airbase. - let a fuel truck refuel you anywhere (& that be replenished if connected to a warehouse) let a truck allow re-arming within 250 m of the aircraft(, and replenish if 1000 m of an ammo dump) - Have a kind of temporary building that's a repair shop & allow repair if you're within range of that.

From a programming point of view, a seed value and algorithmic / procedural generation of weather is simpler

Yes, that was my point... ;-)

Oh come on. Everybody knows - it's so obvious - that if only they'd fitted FLIR and an RWR to the Ka-50, it would have had one ! What's with the obsession with the fact that it didn't have those things, when if only things had been different it could have ? ... & if it could have, it might have. ...& if it might have - well that's almost the same as saying it did have. ...& the fact that we don't have any images of FLIR & RWR on Ka-50 is almost certain proof that they were in fact fitted, because no one has an image definitively showing every one of them never had either of these things fitted at any point in time !!! Case proven - please fit them (& please also put an igla in the cockpit for the pilot to fire out the window - it's perfectly possible - prove it's not).

Because before a realistic 'real time' implementation of weather can be done first a 'realistic' representation of weather has to be done & then that has to be able to change dynamically. If they're going to spend time coding, spend that time making: 1/ a realistic representation of different types of weather 2/ the possibility to have the weather states change between types dynamically (as for the current dynamic weather, but with more control and better representation of the weather types) 3/ Once they have both those working well, and nothing left to fix on the user controllable weather - then they should think about the added complexity of trying to drive that off real time data. Real time weather might give you some variety if you've got no 'mission' to do, but if you get in the SIM & are unable to carry out the mission you intended to do because the current real life the weather in that area makes it impossible - it'll get old really quickly.

Yes, there are Igla sitting on the ground beside the Ka-50 You could sit an A bomb on the ground beside a Ka-50 - it doesn't mean the aircraft could launch it. E.D. removed the Moskit from the Su-33 because the real aircraft could carry it - but not launch it... It regularly appeared carrying Moskit or with them sitting beside the aircraft at shows: ..but it couldn't use them.

I think a larger portion of the user-base is more likely to look at their inbox than the forums, and if they see anything interesting, will go to the trouble of updating.

Except that the newsletter goes to people's inbox, which means that people who don't visit the site to see the change-log still get to know what's happening (& believe it or not, some people play the sim, but don't visit the site every day/week).

All it really needs is to be able to change the skin through the liveries part of the loadout page, and - isn't there already a line in the mission editor .lua about test loadout for vehicles (= false) ? Maybe they'e creating that as a more generic cross class ability rather than something that's specific to aircraft, & skins for FARP will arrive as part of a generic change, rather than as a piecemeal change just to FARP.

Oh now you're just letting logic get in the way of a good gripe - shame on you !

For the same date as the 'map' shows. I'm not big on the geography of the area in the map - apart from the UN setting no-man's lands in 2000, which borders have changed since the Golan Heights were occupied in '67 ?

Anybody got a staff group picture from E.D. ?

You can see it climb while in a hover in the video above.

Thanks, very informative.

"Now in Syria map its the same" The borders are marked in orange in 'ALT' view of the Syria map Mission Editor. (& obviously show if you swap to 'Map' view)

… a pig that flies at 180 kn ...

Can you point us at the post before the part you linked to, because the bit you linked to isn't sourced at all. If MiiG engineers compared the results of the calculations used in DCS with their own company wind tunnel testing, presumably E.D. gave them the copyrighted, (encrypted in the app) calculations used to generate the FM, and MiG approved the time & expenses & use of the wind tunnel data associated with the investigation. If E.D. & MiG both sanctioned it, it will be published somewhere, and a link would give the quote's conclusion some weight. Otherwise it's really only hearsay, or personal opinion of the same type as the earlier comment from an actual MiG-29 pilot who said if you allowed for the lack of haptic feedback, and the short sticks we mostly use, landing behaviour in the DCS.MiG-29 was/is as he'd expect...