Gierasimov

Last night I let loose 6 of them and offset 45 degrees right when fighting Ace level J-11. It seemed to me it went for TALDs initially and I had a bit of breathing room. Needs more testing I think as it was too late for me to watch the track.

That is a good thing. That's why I put those three things there as well. To see them modelled one day. I know that the fire physics / dynamics are planned (or maybe even actively worked on), as ED wanted to bring fire bomb to the Hornet. We'll see. But if ED terrain tech allowed for land to be 'reshaped' based on physical interaction, it would be the next level mind-blowing tech. Searching online, one could find such a tech available for the entire globe but this isn't the place to discuss here. Yaeah, simulation would be nice foundation for the rest of DCS aspects. As said, I am with you.

As far as I remember my \ radio menu does not work when I am airborne in Hornet, only on the ground. When I use transmit switch F10 is there.

Check for correct freq and use Comm1 or Comm 2 transmit buttons as assigned in controls. Do not use \ this menu is for when you are on the ground. Hornet does not use simple radio.

Hi I don't think there is. Would be a function of an analogue axis. It would be hard, if not impossible to code for the keyboard: 2x buttons = fast (full) deflection - kicking the rudder 2x buttons = steady deflection curve with hold mode - thing you are asking for 1 x button = reset to center position When you are mobile, do you play keyboard and mouse only or with a simple joy at least?

"The developers can use this information as inspiration to accurately reflect real-world information that could permit mission or campaign creators to add natural disasters." This is asking a lot from a game engine not capable of simulating fluid dynamics, not to mention land mass and tectonic moves. Baby steps - let's have the earth flying, craters and napalm dynamics first before we could even dream of full blown simulation of a world, DCS World. Earthquake can be simulated with DESTRUCTION ZONE trigger, draught - kind of fly over desert, and flooding (like the one from bursting the dam open) would apparently kill modern PC hardware. I fully support the idea. I doubt it will ever happen though - there is just to much in progress right now, and current limitations are severe.

Just occurred to me... Why was this thread moved to DCS core wishlist? Current Fulcrums aren't core. Interesting choice of forum section, given it started in Chit-Chat.

True. Hey, in the other Su-17 thread BN was a bit active as we started to step on thin ice a bit and here is one bit that I think sums it up nicely "If a 3rd party gets an official licence to create the Su-17 we will let everyone know, but that is not the case currently."

Sold. Thank you and congrats to the buyer.

That's a proper plot twist.

@YoYo noted @lunaticfringe lol mate, chill, read again what I said mate if you want, but take it easy, I already said you might be right. End of story.

OctopusG is one man show, is it not? SVKSniper tired to deliver this as a module and not as a mod. If his work cannot be contracted in joint - venture, then the waste of the work is like slap in the face, given the fact that ED insists on telling us they read everything in this forum. OctopusG - IF they are making Su-17 for DCS, should be looking to join forces to bring the jet together. I was following this project and perhaps I overreacted. Maybe you are right though. Maybe OctopusG is more than one person, and maybe they are suited better to deliver Su-17 as a module. It's OK I guess, whoever has got the better cards, wins.

So, if Octopus is teasing Su-17 chrome cockpit on their fb, assuming it it DCS module, then what's under the Xmas wraps?

Either way with BS3 still in progress, there won't be any news. Let's see what gives after BS3 releases some time in the future, not so distant one would imagine.

Seriously it's like slap in the face. I feel sorry for you man. Let's hope ED can clear this up, otherwise it would be unbelievable waste.

Now. This is depressing: Can you imagine that ED would let skilled one man show to be trashed for another one man show?

This is correct information, however it was not confirmed through the 'newsletter'. Yet.

Its official source no doubt there but why not say "out next DCS module" and not just "next..." That's what I am talking about. Just to cause a stir they said what they did.

I believe.

This whole thing started with Simon Pearson, ED spilling the beans about Fulcrum A coming to DCS. While ED newsletter did not provide any 'official' announcement, they still said it would be a project after BS3. Few days ago, Simon said Tornado is planned. Again ED denied. I see a pattern here. I wonder what does the next 5 years future hold for DCS...

Fitters are close to my heart, but dropping few renders like that and not saying if it is a module, AI or even DCS is not nice... Kind of like ED employee saying Tornado is planned (sounding official) only to have another employee deny it... If we need, to wait for Octopus news, then why dropping the image before the news? We are mostly passionate about DCS without extra 'unverified tease' Bad taste Octopus.

Wait. Is Sniper working with Octopus? Would be really silly if those were two separate projects, would it not?

Carrier Air Wing Four - Tomhawk. Is this intended or should it read Tomahawk?

Updated price

1 - NO 2 - NO 3 - TRUE