Weta43

LOL Or better still - for those of us that use it as an 80's Soviet war map - don't

Everything else seems fairly self-explanatory - Nice MFD on the left, SatNav on the window but what's sticking out from the roof?

Also - please re-order the layers so that the green of forested areas and the brown of urban areas doesn’t hide the contours.

It doesn't say campaigns, it says pay-ware campaigns: It seems to me that the problem is that paid campaigns are protected 'art' works & this has to make changes to / inject saved states into the protected mission file as it loads. To do that they need the permission of the copyright holders & have them agree on the methodology. Other than the legal issues around making changes to copyrighted works, it doesn't sound like the approach wouldn't work per se. Agreed - seems to be a very useful feature that the community has asked for for a very long time, and in typical community fashion, when it's delivered it's received with a cry of "BUT WE WANT MORE !!! "

It is interesting - if you put those coordinates into google earth the transition from green to sand is just as abrupt, but isn't shaped like someone cut it with a pair of scissors... null They need a dithering tool for the edges

That is F'n beautiful. I know where the campervan fund is getting spent now...

Interesting idea - but then you'd also want to calculate the inertia of the raindrops that you're running into and reduce the aircraft's inertia by a similar amount. Or you could accept that both those are probably within the margin of error on the sim & would probably be adding false precisions.

& have you seen how much space there is in the cockpit? Looks like there might be a lot of seat switching involved in getting it started in SP though

Have you tried setting the dispersal timeframe to 1 sec - they shouldn't get far in 1 sec then will go back to where they started from.

I think we have got a very clear focus on Afghanistan during US operations there, & personally my interests there are for before that period - but maybe not this particular uniform...

just picking the quoted people as examples, not devils, but I love how we can ask for any plane we want, and the question of historical accuracy in terms of maps falls a long way down the list of reasons not to do them ("I would love it if ED and other developers would focus on assets that can do double duty for WWII and Korea "). Suggest a woman pilot, and suddenly we need temporal and geographical accuracy... ("For female pilots to be relevant, we'd basically have to add the whole Eastern Front, including a new map,") Not quite sure in what way this is solved...

Now that there's a multi-select tool, could E.D. get whoever's doing them to just drop a box around the populated airports they put into their release videos and export the selections as templates for users? (drop an infantry on the airport marker and name them with the angle to set it at?_)

Disagree - flying around in the Mi-24, I think it looks amazingly good - having flown around the ranges in the SI here at low altitudes, flying in the mountains it looks pretty convincing.

I'd say it's just not finished yet - go look somewhere like the valleys around Bast or Langar - those are more 'finished' looking, but probably comparable in terms of remoteness & population density / vegetation.

My girlfriend F'n hates DCS with a passion, but I made her look over my shoulder at the Afghan map while flying around after the update, & even she thought it looked amazingly convincing.

Now that's a cup half empty sort of video isn't it?

As said in your other post on the subject, Urgun is a transliteration from another language - there is no 'correct' spelling of the village's name other than ارګون Maybe Urgoon is a better representation of how the Russians say it. I agree with you though that your FOB should be named as the force establishing the FOB named it, & hope they do make that change.

They're transliterations from another language - there is no 'correct spelling other than ارګون

Game / SIM : təmeɪtoʊ / təmɑːtoʊ ... So are you saying that E.D. should insist that the developers of all modules (ED included) should implement every new feature that any of the module developers implement & that no new modules can be released until all are at the same level of fidelity, or that going forward no-one should be allowed to release a module implement anything that isn't implemented in all the other modules ? Let's say someone implements a more 'realistic' approach to modelling radar cross section using their own database of aircraft and aspect - you're suggesting that they can't implement it until every developer's adopted for every one of their modules that has a radar ? ...& the developers of the approach should give this proprietary approach away for free ? ( & If not 'free', who decides what's a fair price - and could you not end up with perverse incentives to add novel capabilities just to harvest the fees from other developers or slow their releases ?) What if most developers think it's an improvement, but one has nearly finished something similar via a different approach & don't want to pick up this implementation ? No-one can use either approach until a unanimous agreement about which one to use is made ? I sort of understand your concerns, but really there's no solution short of not allowing external developers to develop for DCS that guarantees uniform implementation of onboard systems.

Internally, or by me in December? I won't check to see if it's fixed just yet then.

Fingers crossed... Really ? - I've had it a while but just started flying the Mi-24 over it - mostly in the center & W / NW portions I think down low it looks pretty convincing.

Can't talk for the Moza, but for MSSFFBII (assuming you've removed any input curves) I don't have the Tiger installed any more, but once trimmed it wasn't necessary to push the stick manually at any speed. Trimming forward (right, left etc) will move the physical stick forward as for the in game one. For most aircraft forces should be dependent on speed and you should be able to ride the edge of the stall for most aircraft on feel alone. You do have to have straight 'curves' with the full range of movement in the axis set up and the FFB turned on in-game for it all to work correctly though.

They made the Su-24, Su-25 & Su-27 as 3 different airframes not one & deployed them all discretely to the Soviet armed forces because they're supposed to fulfill different roles - You're arguing about whether socks, gloves or scarves are better at keeping your *rse warm. https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2FQ4gKxfBv_7rxuN_E4wZNqj1dBiIdgGmA-cSu_z6sUvA.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D3f9901abb0be528d7eaa8ddd45234f9b9bdc80db

Thanks for the reply,& that's good to hear - I never thought I'd be that duck making complaining posts, but the coms have been pretty appalling on this...

But apparently not enough on Afghanistan to be worth mentioning it ???