sirrah

I understand your point of view, and I'm sure you also understand mine My post wasn't that negative by the way. Yes, there was some frustration in my post, but it's just passion speaking.

Sorry BN, but none of the feedback given in this thread is "new". If any of this feedback ís indeed new for ED, that means ED hasn't been listening/reading well enough. Most of the feedback here has been asked/wished for many times in many different threads and sub-forums. That's why I used the term "backfire". But to end on a positive note, I'm happy that now our feedback is noticed

Sorry @BIGNEWY, but ED should have known this "give the user files some love" news, was going to backfire Here's another feature the community has been kindly asking for ever since the user files were initiated: "Allow the content creators to receive notifications, when someone replies to their user file"

Meanwhile.. Ugra reading through this thread:

Seeing you have only 4 posts on this forum (welcome ): Have you ever considered being more active here on this forum? There's a sub-forum for each module and thousands of active forum members willing to help you for free. Paying someone via Discord to "train" you with DCS, sounds like an awful plan to me. There's more than enough YouTube tutorial video's out there for all modules, and the people on this forum will eagerly help direct you to these videos. There's also many very good step by step pdf guides, if you're more into reading than watching. After that you'll be proficient enough to join a virtual squadron and do a further deep dive there for free with likeminded enthusiasts. Not saying you're being ripped off, but you definitely don't need someone to teach you the basics (and more) of DCS modules in one on one sessions, especially if that person is asking money for it.

Let's face it, we're all here with hope that Ugra will notice and pick up our own personal wishes That's what makes these kind of speculation threads so much fun

Completely agree with what you say here. All these bases (including Bit, Spang and Ramstein) should be included. Anything less would be a slight disappointment imho Oh and let's add Hopsten to that list while we're at it (German F-4F's)

Or maybe just start with optional brighter director lights on the tanker. (I know they are quite dim irl, but everything is better than immersion breaking overlays imho)

Ah ok, I missed that feature somehow Nice

If I understand it correctly, the OP wants to have the infantry already embarked on mission start. I don't think this is possible. Perhaps with scripting it is, but maybe someone else can chime in on that.

Having just one Dutch (Volkel) and one Belgium (Kleine Brogel) airbase modeled, would already have me insta buy this map. Even if the scenery around those bases is just modeled generically and basic.

Ah yes tnx (I did check the FAQ post, but somehow missed that interactive map)

Sorry if answered somewhere in this or another thread, but did ED give any clarity on what we can still expect for the North part of the map in terms of additional scenery detail? (I'm not asking for an ETA, as I've been here long enough to know we won't get that ) I was kinda surprised to just discover that Mosul Int. Airport (Camp Diamondback and FOB Merez) hasn't been modeled yet.

Came here to ask the same. "In order to follow our DCS updates..."? What does this mean? Anyone?

@BIGNEWY or @NineLine, please ask the website developer to add Iraq to the user files section. (and while at it, please also ask him/her to include this to the "new-module-release-checklist", so that the community doesn't have to ask for this with each new module release...)

Very nice YT channel this one: https://youtube.com/@cider-c?si=b6_x4GyY5yOAzvP_ (Radio comms included and no cheesy background music)

Sorry if posted here before, but for those interested in the Cold War era, go check out this documentary: "Turning Point: The Bomb and the Cold War" https://m.imdb.com/title/tt26227818/ (Watching it on Netflix myself)

Wonder if it's also possible to just use a finger on the touch screen to select and/or lock something. Using a slew control on the throttle seems like a lot more unnecessary fiddling around and waste of time. But I suppose we'll probably not know for sure for quite some time.. Given all this stuff being classified as it is.

C'mon Nineline, nobody's expecting 100% 1:1 modules. The concerns expressed in this thread, are that this F-35 will be like >90% made up. I don't think it's fair to just do as if all existing DCS modules are similarly "made up" purely from videos and assumptions. This is a unique move ED is making here with DCS. Is it truly so strange that some dedicated community members have some concerns? Please don't just put us away as negative nay sayers.. we just care for DCS

F-35 maintenance crew in my country is pretty much left in the dark on about how everything works in this aircraft. I spoke with a friend of mine early this week (an ex F-16 and later F-35 avionics guy) and he said they were told so little about the F-35, it just wasn't fun anymore to be in maintenance. Lots of maintenance crew leaving our air force because of it. The type course was only 3 weeks (so.. pretty much nothing was shared..) So, just like many others here, I was extremely surprised and totally confused on why ED suddenly moves from creating study level modules (backed up by declassified documents and SME's) to a "guesstimate" level module. Sure, it's "just" a sim/game in the end, but at least before today, the modules in DCS were based on actual available/declassified data and SME's that could actually share valuable information. I fear that this new venture by ED (creating modules based on assumptions, videos, some self-developed computed data models and perhaps a few nice ex pilot stories with no in depth classified info whatsoever) potentially moves my beloved DCS in a direction I wish it didn't go. Not a rant. Just my 2 cents..

Very cool indeed