Xeno426

To PasteBin! :D

Except it's not a fighter/bomber, it's a bomber/attack aircraft. The F-111 is more a fighter than the Su-24; at least it was initially planned to have an interceptor role (which is failed at).

To view control panels, I just move myself closer to my monitor. Granted, I have TrackIR, which means my view in the cockpit gets closer to the panels and allows me to read them. I also have the slider on my HOTAS bound to the camera zoom in/out function, so I'm never at a loss for what things say.

Move around view? Isn't that the purpose of 6DOF cockpits?

IIRC Russian law stipulates their export electronic suits have to be downrated.

MiG-21Bis is already being done.

+1

But very unlikely they would be that deceiving. If anything, those numbers are exaggerations.

1) Remote desktop control 2) No DirectX requirement 3) All resources go to running the game environment, not graphics or sound 4) Can be loaded onto a virtual machine (many server boxes are set up as virtual machines) 5) Dedicated server programs are themselves almost always free, since you already have to pay money for the server box

I like how you dismiss any and all sources, even good ones, that don't agree with you. I also like how you seem physically incapable of using the "Edit" button.

Don't include the actual codecs then. Force the players to download standalone codecs like LAME, which is something that lots of other programs do. And for the record, Iron Eagle was a terrible movie. :D

The custom unitPayloads.lua is found in \Documents and Settings\%USERNAME%\Saved Games\DCS\MissionEditor\ You can edit it directly from there or delete the whole thing, which forces the game to recreate it from the base unitPayloads.lua in the game directory. You can find information here on how to edit the file. I do agree that it would be nice to see a preview of a custom loadout before saving it, though. Personally, I'd like to see an option similar to the F10 view options but for F2/F7 views. I want F10 use fog of war, but I want the F2/F7 views to only ever show friendly units. As it stands, the F10 view directly affects what F2/F7 can see; with fog of war, you can use F2/F7 on enemy units that have been spotted. By default, F2/F7 should be limited by the F10 view options, but it shouldn't be locked to that.

Instead of double posting, have you people considered using the Edit button?

The db_weapons_data.lua alrady has the NATO designation for most weapons under the "NatoName" heading. It would be nice if there was an option to have that data used either instead of or in addition to the Russian designations. I don't know what you'd do for weapons like the KAB-500L, since there are quite a few weapon systems that the West simply had no designation for.

Doesn't the Su-27SM3 have the Irbis-E as well?

Care to share where you are getting your market analysis? Besides, he never made any comments regarding market shares. How does that have any relevance to your initial statement?

What video? What did I miss?

If I had to guess? Because it's not a dogfighter.

Nope, I said nothing of the sort. So was I. Not even close. Iran has I-HAWK, SA-5, SA-6, and Sayyad missiles, along with many other defense systems, which is infinitely better than a bunch of seals. No, if you want to make a point, bring the evidence with your argument. I am under no obligation to search for the evidence supporting your claim. Now I know you're just trolling. The F-15C and Su-27S are both 4th gen fighters. There are no 5th generation fighters in the game (and it's Su-35S, not Su-35BM).

Nope, I simply offered it as a possibility. In no way did I say that was why it was chosen. Nice straw man attempt, though. Because the thought of America vs the EU is ludicrous, and... Who else would they fight in Europe? The Czech Republic? Belarus? Because that would be such a fight amongst equals. Fallacy of Weak Analogy. Whatever difference there might be between Russia and Iran is still orders of magnitude less than between Iran and a non-existent country with polar bears. You just answered your own question. A 50 year old aircraft, if they added it, would have to go against much more modern Western aircraft like the F-15C, and then people would be talking about Western bias because Russia gets obsolete aircraft. Good luck getting any detailed info on Chinese equipment. And I suppose you have all the same marketing information on China that ED has? None of those are being worked on by ED, making this is a red herring (also there is no such thing as an A-8 ). Most of the 3rd party dev teams are Western, so it makes sense that most of them will be working on Western aircraft, if for no other reason than it's rather difficult to get technical data on Russian aircraft if you don't know Russian. So ED should restrict 3rd party developers? Is there any point to this tangent? I am starting to seriously doubt you've actually played the game, because the Su-27S in FC3 is quite the match for the F-15C so long as you play to that aircraft's strengths and don't get caught trying to fight the F-15C's fight. Refer to upupandaway's post.

While I'm sure a large Western audience affects their decisions, there is still a large Eastern audience and many Westerners that would love to see a high-fidelity Russian bird. The MiG-21Bis is cool, but I'd personally like to see something more modern like a Russian multirole aircraft. I imagine part of the reason for fewer Russian aircraft is the difficulty in getting detailed information about them. Or they're interested in flying within a theater from the stuff that has been in the news for the last several years. Or perhaps Russia isn't really seen as an "enemy" anymore, so the interest in seeing a large European battle has diminished. There are so few military simulation companies around—and I mean actual simulation, not arcade—that none can really be called "generic". If ED does end up making nothing but high-fidelity Western aircraft, they still wouldn't be generic 'cause they'd be the only ones doing it!

That's not what ED has said.

The AIM-9 uses infrared for guidance, meaning it's a passive system, so you won't get any missile launch warnings. At best you will get the steady "painting" tone if the other aircraft locks on to you with his radar for ranging information.

The closest to carrying an R-73 the Ka-50 ever got were a few mockups loaded on Ka-52's. There may have been plans to enable it (or at least add the ability to fire Igla's, as the A2A switch on the collective would suggest) but nothing ever came of it, probably thanks to the financial difficulties in the 90's. Now that there are only about 10 Ka-50's and there's not likely to ever be more, they probably see no point in adding the capability. Kamov still offers it, but the Russian military doesn't use it. Yeah, it stinks. I imagine that if they did add the capability in, the interface would be similar to how Iglas are launched from the Mi-24 or Mi-28. Ebs, how does this change affect Igla employment by MANPADS units? And thanks for explaining what those attributes are for! I had figured out what the last one did, but I didn't understand the first three values.

I wasn't aware that the new modules are even being sold at retail, since it seems ED has gone mostly full digital. In that realm, retailers can go sit and rotate.