upyr1

Some people like me need help getting good.

Sounds like you created your own launcher. As stated before in another comment I don't know if I would use the launcher or not. I just want the option fir those who want it and the option to not use it for those who don't.

I don't know why you would or wouldn't want a launcher and frankly I don't care. If you don't want to use a launcher for any reason then you should have the option not to do so. My comment was just in response to someone who created their own launcher.

I wouldn't be surprised. It's a shame he didn't do it.

Mods aren't a headache for ED, they are a potential headache for users. As they are not official ED or third-party projects people use them at their own risk. So if an update breaks a mod, oh well that's none of EDs concern it is up to the mod community to fix them. If you had actually paid attention to the ED forum BTW you will see there is a modding section https://forum.dcs.world/forum/69-dcs-modding/ Why not make the launcher with a built-in option to start other programs?

We need a tail gun My issue was when you said the B-66 and A-3 were basically the same plane and later compared their relationship to the F-4B and F-4C. Whether or not the A-3 could be used as a stand-in for the B-66 at least as AI is a different story they had different noses and slightly different wings however as far as the AI is concerned I don't think the AI flight model is detailed enough to model the differences and it would be frustrating if we got a completely accurate EB-66 as it was a horrible POS that was more likely to crash from a flameout than get shot down. Having said that, depending on the cockpits I'd love to have an A-3 and B-66 module. I remember this back in the early 2ks, I'm wondering who did the SAM simulator I'd love it if they could turn this into a DCS module

I am familiar with the history of the B-66 my dad was an EWO on an EB-66 shortly after he graduated from the USAF Academy and before he went to medical school. Comparing the A-3 and B-66 to the F-4B and C is not an accurate comparison. First the B-66 and A-3 had almost no parts commonality and second The F-4C wasn't known for having flameouts on take-off. The B-66 was heavier with less powerful and reliable engines they used the same engines as the F3H while the A-3 used the same engines as the Buff An A-3 in USAF liveries would be a way more reliable plane.

I'll state the F-20 is low on my cold war list, however if there is enough information for an official module and its done by some new developer I'd have no issue

the A-3 and B-66 weren't the same aircraft they just looked the same. The Destroyer was a death trap with barely functional engines that were known flame out on a regular basis that the usaf ditched asap becuse the engines were deadlier than the north Vietnamese air defenses while the Skywarior was a reliable aircraft that barely missed desert storm.

Except fir the EF-4C the Phantom did most of its weasel work in the 1980s and 90s.

This is part of the reason I would love to see ED improve the user file section and have an official mod-manager.

We have the MiG-23 and 29 on the way and the fitter might use it as well.

I would like to know more about the launcher. A quick launch option would be nice though

does PImax hand tracking work?

We have the B I would love the D though.

The DCS naval environment is lacking quite a bit. The real question is what will provide us the most coverage

Yes please

Working LCACs and the ability to spawn units from the gator fleet. Also the 1980s refit of the Iowa-class battleships for fire support. Whidbey Island-class dock landing ships Also an lph livery for the Essex class carrier.

Confused look in F-4M Phantom FGR.2 I thought the RAF and FAA got their respective Phantoms at the same time.

I was flying as a RIO for the first time, it's hard to see the tacan when the lantern is installed, can we have a button to hide the stick?

You are not the only one, ideally I'd love to have a mission editor that connects to the file section and enables you to do online collaboration.

I know you are focused on Cold War aircraft, but it is important to remember that the DCS timeline covers almost 90 years and includes both air, land, and naval assets. We need enough variants that using historical mode there is no gap.

While I am not a pit builder, I have to agree this would be a nice option to add. Since the way things are right now you'll need 2 switches for a covered switch. 1 for the cover and 1 for the switch. If you have the cover on your physical cockpit then why make 2 steps in DCS?

The OP is trying to reduce the number of electronic components and possibly is using the cover on a physical switch

It looks like we're getting more ships acording to the 2024 trailer, anyone have ideas on what all is lined up?