Weta43

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 ???

I don't know from your post - what exactly is it about landing you're having trouble with?

I’d pay the price of a FF ED module for a FF ED module of an Su-25A - that’s what it would be… work hours are work hours …the fact that it existed previously as an FC module is irrelevant really. Would you expect to pay less for a full fidelity F-15C because it has been an FC module ?

So are you suggesting that at the point in time they decided they would make the Su-25A a free module they should have stopped bundling it in with new FC3 sales & made new purchasers (you) wait for release of the free module, or are you saying that if ED ever releases a previously payware module as freeware they should refund everyone who paid for it back to release data - or do you mean just back to the date you paid for it ?

It’s a bit of a blast from the past - the Su-25A was the only free aircraft initially the very first downloadable demo of Flaming Cliffs when E.D. First split away from Ubisoft. 1 aircraft, 1 mission. I don’t quite understand the complaining by FC3 owners about the plane becoming free - they lose nothing and get a free upgrade to boot. A little bit of fear of missing out ? My principal issue is my uncertainty about whether making the “A” a free module ends the possibility of a FF version, or brings it closer.

True, but just pointing out that it wouldn't need a lot of 3D work to integrate it in a fashion in keeping with actual practice:

2 hopes: That it’s released as an “FC” free aircraft initially, then later the option of paying to upgrade to full features appears later. That as for the Mi-8 they add an optional holder for the NS 430 for those that own the module - or even add it permanently- a good teaser for the module for newbies. Just wrap it in a box and mount it above the dash as is often seen in the real aircraft

Another week, and still the sound of crickets where news on the map should be ….

It is good news full feature clickable cockpit would have been better, but this is still very good news.

There was a pilot body back in the old days when Ru aircraft shot down Nato aircraft in DCS trailers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1sOakdMAU

It's pretty simple XML though isn't it? mission =

Wouldn't (human) GCI (WTC?) logically sit inside the Combined Arms module?

How? You need 1-2 people prepared to do ATC for every - 50? (100?) people that want to fly an aircraft, and of that 50 probably 5 will care (or will listen) if the ATC is realistic or not. A human ATC module is definitely a very niche product to my mind. Even a full realism AI ATC is still going to be a niche product. I imagine when it's sorted it's just integrated into the engine, not sold as a separate module

It is modelled for all the helicopters, and as far as I know all the E.D. aircraft in general, just not visually (or WRT to added weight either I think). As mentioned above, if the Sim thinks icing conditions exist, it will start to apply 'ice' to your systems until they fail or you turn on the anti-ice.

I hope so, but I suspect the RuAF isn't quite ready to give permission for a high fidelity anti-RedFor PC training aid just yet.

& nothing in the newsletter today, not even a “work continues”. …Although perhaps that’s fair if it doesn’t

Same