umkhunto

Not picking up the M2000C is your first mistake. It's brilliant.

Well, if we want to be pedantic about it, the release of the Hornet gave us the Stennis, which is the most detailed carrier that's ever been in DCS, and was an upgrade. (Just go look at the poor Vinson.) The Forrestal wasn't even announced by the time the Hornet was announced. However I don't think this is best place to get answers about the Hornet's features. The Hornet thread might be a better option for such an inquiry.

Actually, that would be perfect for MP. For a change, we would stop seeing 3rd and 4th gen jets mucking about at 50ft, and rather be at 20 000+ where they belong.

https://streamable.com/9ba2a https://streamable.com/83kp1

Oh of course. The Rockeyes come from the 60's and are basically just like a shotgun, whereas the CBU-97/105 is practically Skynet. But still have good results with the Rockeyes on the Hornet and Tomcat and it still brings a smile to my face when I get it right with them. :)

BS2 was the exact same thing, as BS. Not a single drop of additional content. Nothing. It was inexcusable. I would object. Vehemently so. The developers are being paid for every drop of work they do. Why do folks think people aren't being paid? As I stated in an earlier post the vast majority of capex on a module is in the actual development of the module. Once the development is done, you have limitless inventory of said product, that you could conceivable sell until the heat death of the universe. They don't have to spend another sent acquiring units for manufacture of the product to sell, only on "warehousing." After that, especially in the case of something that has been for sale as long as the A-10C, it's nothing, but nett. No additional capex is required to supply the module. People still buy it in droves, to this day, and will continue buying it. An update to the bring the module up to date with the current engine, does not justify it being a paid update, and ED knows this, which is why they aren't charging for it, as they haven't charged for the updates to the WW2 planes' updates either. Costs are recouped from every module sale. Old and new. Every now and then one of these threads will popup in these forums, where there a couple people that seem to think ED is in financial trouble and their business model isn't sustainable. If that were the case, wouldn't they have adapted their business model by now? If it isn't sustainable, it probably would have shown in past 20 years. If they provide sufficient value, people will pay. They don't have to twist our arms, nor do they need to be anti consumer. I have bought several modules for myself and even gifted some. Anybody that's a fan of flight simming in general, doesn't have a problem with paying, and nobody just wants stuff for free. However, what everybody wants, is value for what they pay for. Charging to have their stuff fixed, is where I draw the line. If you truly feel ED needs more sales, then buy more modules. If you have all of them, start gifting people modules.

Actually, I think Gyrovague is the TWS auto man.

If we could get TWS auto finished, I would be so happy. Help us 104th_Ironmike, you're our only hope.

Tell you what, I'll extend an olive branch. The moment DCS becomes good software, I will be 100% a-ok with a SaaS model. Until that time, they should not make people pay twice for the same product, like they did with BS2. It was the exact same thing as BS. Maybe you weren't around then to fully experience the fury from the community then. It was deplorable and utterly anti consumer move for them when they made people pay twice for the Ka-50, with no added value. It was a paid upgrade so you can play in multiplayer in 1.2 ED have stated several times, that the modeling rework on modules will be at no additional charge, and rightfully so. The problem several of you have, is you think if you tell ED you will pay for it, they will do it quicker. That's not how this works. It will not speed up the process. If they want to charge for an update on the A-10C, it better mean we get an A-10C, with it's engines fixed, FM fixed, updated avionics version and HMD. That is worth a paid upgrade.

An important thing to remember with the MK-20 and CBU-99 is their HoF is fixed at 1500ft. The HT setting in stores management only purpose is to set the DUD cue. It has nothing to do with the HoF. So when you set up your Rockeyes, you need to always set your DUD queue to 1500. Next important factor is your delivery profile. Dive at your target with at about 25-35 degrees of nose down pitch, then release between 2500-3500ft. Once you start doing that consistently you will get much better results with the Rockeyes.

Oh? I guess it's time to dust off the Viggen.

A-10 also lacks the A2G radar that can detect ships in SEA mode, which the F-16 has.

They can recoup their costs somewhere else. Software is not like making a table. You do not need to make a profit, on every cent you spend, to be profitable. No raw materials are required, no warehousing is required. Just office space, and development costs. You develop 1 unit of a piece of software and resell that single unit infinitely. This differs from physical things, which you have make multiple units, to sell multiple units. They will get their money's worth, since the A-10C and the Ka-50 are not off the shelf, are they? No, both are still available and people do still buy it. So ED is making money hand over fist on these 60USD modules, for development costs that have been recouped years ago, several times over. Thus, any work done by keeping the modules up to date with the engine is a drop in the bucket financially, compared to the full development of a module from scratch and will pay itself off with future purchases of said module. No. Horrible Idea. You're right about one thing though; making software is not like making cars. It's completely different and you can't price software in the same way make cars, nor can you run a business in the same way to sell software.

Wha...? Bwahahahaha!

Man, didn't realise so many have so much trouble with the HUD.

Runway damage doesn't mean anything to players. It's only client side and all you need to do is disconnect from the server and reconnect, then the runway is fine.

Absolutely not. Unless there's actual addition in value, like bringing us up to a later software version and HMD. They've update the WW2 birds' cockpits, they'll do the A-10C and Warthog too.

Doubtful. Not that matters though, runway denial weapons have no practical use in DCS. Damage to runways are client side, so if a runway has a hole in it, you just rejoin the server, then the damage is gone.

Though the ISP of the C is higher, the 3 seconds extra burn time on the Mk60 gives it a massive EM advantage over the C Mk47. Within 16nmi, the C is superior. But beyond 20nmi, the Mk60 is the better choice. Against players, the C might be the de facto better choice, simply due to the fact it is smokeless.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Imo much of the F-16 stuff was faux outrage on the heels of the carrier dlc announcement. On one side you have a rabid bunch of nerds that love DCS, who were firstly triggered about the carrier dlc, then you add to that a fanatical group that worship the F-16, that has probably the longest history in combat flight sims, which will have the inevitable result of being compared to that other sim we're not allowed to name. I too would have liked tripple Mavs, but if it's not part of the version we're getting it's A-OK too. I rarely fly with more than 4 Mavs on the A-10C, because it handles like a pig in that config. I don't care about JASSM, nor do I care about Harpoon. (Air Force birds have no business flying over water anyway, the Hornets will take care of the sea.) I'm excited about the F-16, because I will have a platform that can carry big boy CBU's faster to the AO faster than 220KIAS and can't wait for a proper HOTAS. (Stupid Navy pretend HOTAS.) I'm 100% certain, that's what the majority feel as well. Hoggit might appear toxic at a glance, because criticism isn't silenced there. You can't just sit in an echo chamber where you never look in the mirror. And if being critical, is now been seen as toxic, well in that case I'll just keep being toxic. It would be a pity if Nine stops engaging there.

The Brits still have the English Electric Lighting classified.

If you think Jester is OP, oh boy do I feel sorry for you when you into a Tomcat with a Human RIO.

It's not just you. Gifs is what made me notice that some years ago. Utterly ruined my childhood when I saw it. ;(

Pack it in bois, we got ourselves a genius over here.

Not sure if people are truly butt hurt or troll...