DD_Fenrir

Not necessarilly. Sure I could give you the exact target coordinates, you fly to the basket, drop the bombs then back home for tea and medals, and yeah, you'd be right. But next time we don't have the exact coordinates, we have a general area we know the target is in. The enemy have a medium range SAM that is going to deny or at least restrict medium-high altitude delivery; low level SHORAD so you can't just scoot in low and visually acquire, and cloud cover to restrict the ability to search with a targeting pod at longer ranges. The challenge now is no longer weapons employment but instead in finding the targets and finding a good attack window which minimises your exposure to the threats. That sounds fun to me.

Then you are doing it wrong. Without a video or track file example it is going to be very hard to give you critiques and advice, but immediately it sounds like you are attempting to land at too high an airspeed, or alternatively, dropping in from too high an altitude with too high descent rate.

One would suspect that they have a schedule of planned additions and amendments that has been laid out well before we even knew the map was even a twinkle in Orbx's eye. This project plan will have been laid out to provide as efficient and economical workflows as possible to ensure best use of the teams time; it is likely that they will be adhering to this, expanding the airfield provision and adding scenery detail to meet this timeline, before revisiting the areas of concern for revision, like your aforementioned original airfield textures. They have said they would, just be patient.

Just from that screenshot I can tell you're too coming in too high and your gildeslope is way too steep; the ball is there, it works, it's just off the scale at the top. This is also why landed at very high sink rate and broke the gear. You need to come in lower at a shallower gildeslope angle.

Christ. It's ironic, don't you think? All these emotional over-exagerrated expressions, insults and superlatives to criticize Jester being too cartoonish, emotional or incompetant. Amazing how many of the rest of us get on with using him - quite succesfully by the way - whilst being cogent of his limitations. And I'm talking Jester 1.0; we're doing ok whilst not even benefitting from the improved coding of J2.0. Of course it's SOOOO easy to program an AI that's integrated into a virtual avionic system and aircraft; surprised you haven't done it better yourself yet. And to attempt make him a vaguely human character rather than a DCS equivalent of a talking teasmaid... simplicity itself. But of course, I'm sure you could do that on that on back of a knapkin in your lunchbreak... Suggestion - take your own advice and dial back the emotion; try to show some respect to some of the hardest working devs in DCS and learn the difference between feedback and criticism. Right now, you're being a douche.

Here we go again. SharpeXB assuming because he doesn't need it no-one else does. What is so breath-taking is that you are so staunchley self-obsessed that even when presented with another persons alternative perspective your automatic response is to counter it, no apparent effort taken at all to adopt that perspective, even momentarily, to establish any legitmacy to their counter argument. And god forbid you could actually acknowledge any reasonable concessions to the other persons position. Cos after all, you're always right...

Thanks for coming in to a completely unrelated thread and pushing an irrelevant agenda no-one in here is looking to discuss. Well done you. Bravo.

Er... maybe you misread the post title. Feel free to create a new thread outlining your particular wishes there.

You have a short memory it appears. It has been explained to you already not just by me but also by HB reps as to the artistic reasoning that has driven the choices in sounds. Their product, their art, their choice. I don’t understand why this such a difficult concept for you to grasp.

I can also recommend: Tumult in the Clouds by James Goodson American Aces by Edward H Simms Yeager by Charles E Yeager Malta: the Thorn in Rommel’s Side by Laddie Lucas Flying Start by Hugh Dundas One Man’s Window by Dennis Barham Night Flyer by Brandon Lewis

1. Trim - having any aircraft well trimmed for the phase of flight you are in will benefit your ability to maintain airspeed/distance regarding your lead. It'll mean less deviations from the proper course and altitude; given that with each deviation you travel further than your lead for any given distance, meaning more airspeed required by you (and thus greater power required to compensate) you'd be surprised how much a well trimmed aircraft helps in this regard. 2. Lead your Lead - if opportunity allows, always take the inside of your Leads turn - you'll need less power to stay there and it's a lot easier to stay in position; staying on the outside requires extra power you may not have and a moments misjudgement of the correct angle of bank or power requirement can very quickly leave you "sucked" (the state where you're lagging behind the position you should be) and struggling to catch-up. When you are first attempting to initially join your Lead, don't forget to use geometry to close the distance wherever possible; if he's in a turn, don't just put your nose on him and follow him around, fly a direct intercept path to where he is going to be. You'll be amazed how quickly you can affect a re-join with as little as +10 knots overtaking speed if you apply the proper lead and fly the geomtry rather than chasing his tail at +20 or +30 knots. 3a. Reference Points - The abilty to discriminate displacement trends, and correctly identify whether it is a power correction that is required or nose position correction (or both) cannot really be taught - you need to know/have specific reference points you are looking to maintain on your lead; there should be at least two that in combination help you figure out when you are in the correct positions, laterally, vertically and longitudinally. From these you can work out whether you are too close, too far away, too far forward, too far aft, a combination of these or transitioning between them, relatively quickly. But practise is required. 3b. Little and More Often - the sooner you are able to identify a displacement trend the smaller your corrective inputs will require to be, and the less you will deviate. Thus I refer back to point 1. Smaller diplacements means smoother flying = less work to maintain formation. Eventually these become instinctive, but it takes time and, again, practise is required.

The mountain he references is a standalone hillock, well south of the mountain range, and also south of the Inguri River - it's around this landmark the Marines and the frontline are arrayed. You're supposed to head south on the Western side of this hill, getting low as you do so, turning back to the Northeast as you come around it's southern end. Use PAL, the Hind is low, if you leave the radar in PD and expect Jester to find him, you're gonna be SOL. If you lock something up at very low level, ignore Jesters declaration that it's a friendly - he's getting IFF indications from friendlies at a higher alitude and much longer range that happen to be on the same bearing as the Hind. IIRC the Hind is some 8-10nm from you and not a million miles away from an SA-8 site so go in quick and smash him with a Sidewinder or Guns - AIM-7s are very unreliable against very low flying helicopters - ask me how I know...

As usual, a lot of histrionics from over entitled drama queens who haven't committed any actual investment (save some over-wrought emotions). I keep hoping they'll finally generate the self-awareness to realise the effect that that their impatient petulant whinging actually has on bringing the F4U closer to release. Here's a little clue: NONE

Kickstarter backers participated at entirely their own risk. Luthier promised to deliver DCS aircraft modules with out finding out even if there was sufficient data to allow them to be modelled to the standard DCS demands. He gambled and you brought in on that gamble. The fact he lost and yet ED picked up and decided to honour even part of that debt makes you a darn sight more fortunate than a lot of other Kickstarter backers who backed other projects and saw no return on their <ahem> “investment”. I’d say be happy you got something, even if it wasn’t all that was promised by a party whose credentials have been found to be lacking.

Or we keep a very wary eye on the airspeed and cycle them back in before we damage them. Takes skill. Sometimes we get it wrong but sometimes it's the only way to survive a merge with a well flown Hornet/Mig-29/Su-27. Whatever it takes. No allegedly about it. In almost every interview about BFMing the F-14 he references his use of the 'Big Boys' during BFM. How popular his made him with the crew chief's of his squadron is open to debate.

My bad, didn’t see which sub-forum we were in, apologies.

It would seem you fundamentally misunderstand how DCS Liveries work in the multiplayer environment. No livery is transmitted or received over the net traffic - there is no bandwidth budget spent at all on coloured pixels. All that is compared is the description.lua. If one on your machine matches that associated to a skin being used by a fellow server user, it will load apply the texture file from the livery bank on your machine.

Funny how different people interpret the same thing differently - I always used the vertical green marker at the bottom as the reference, counting the red ticks in reverse, i.e. 10, 20, 30, 45 and 60 degrees from the centre out. Works both ways though so I'll remember your way when it's approproate. Thanks!

Because it’s a cosmetic, superficial issue; it does nothing to compromise gameplay functionality or confer unfair advantage in multiplayer. As much as it piques your indignation, ultimately that’s all it does. And sorry to break it to you, your disdain doesn’t mean a lot.

New pilot models, updating legacy 3d models of assets, re-compiling the game engine to leverage multi-threading technology, recompiling to use Vulcan, ongoing development of a dynamic campaign engine, upgrade of Fc3 aircraft textures and the ongoing development of the new GFM to improve AI flight dynamics. All the above would rather prove you wrong.

What the heck are you prattling on about? Nothing has changed at all. The CH-47 is being released into EA exactly the same way as every other module preceding it; the “dumbed down” F-5, F-86 and MiG-15 just add scope for the entry level DCS participants and take nothing from the owners of their FF equivalents. You’re finding phantom and spooks where there aren’t even shadows. Go take some Ritalin.

Blimey, you do like to talk about male appendages a lot don't you? Your obsession with them seems to be keeping you blind to the point, which has been repeated to you ad nauseum: this is about attempting some form of historical coherence. The Bf 109K-4 with MW50 brings performance figures to a Normandy scenario that no actual Jagdwaffe piston engine fighter could achieve during the Overlord and Battle of Normandy period. The Allied aircraft meanwhile are running at historically accurate performance settings; this incurs an ahistorical advantage to the 109. The ideal solution is for ED or a partner to make a Bf 109G-6/14 with options for MW-50 (and even then, not all BF 109G Geschwader would have been equipped with the MW50 modded variants throughout) so we can simulate the correct model. Or ED or their partners develop a 1944/45 West Wall map, in which you and your member would be entirely at liberty (and given your apparent penchant for them, no doubt be rigidly excited) to access 109Ks equipped with MW50 and fly them against Spitfires, Mustangs and P-47s running their current rating. However, it should also be noted that during the Spring of 1945 all RAF 2nd TAF fighter aircraft converted to 150 octane and had their rating boost ratings uplifted accordingly, so don't be surprised if some other similarly genitally challenged Allied types start calling you out on your apparent dimensions again. Since these things are currently unavailable, restricting use of MW50 is the only - note ONLY - option left open to those attempting some level of historicity. Don't like it? Well fly somewhere else. Or get good. I know plenty of 109 pilots who do stellar work in apparently "castrated" Biffers. The fact that you don't has nothing to do with the volume of your package, but more with the consistency and quality of your grey matter. Figure it out or find somewhere that panders to your need to have a performance advantage over your opponents in order to win.