Bananabrai

Genau so. Mal auf 5.000ft gehen, Landekonfiguration herstellen, und dann so einfach mal fliegen, ein Gefühl dafür bekommen, Höhe halten, dann mal ne konstante Sinkrate halten... Dann auf RWYs üben, dann auf einem langen Carrier final usw. So wie es zum Teil halt auch in echt gemacht wird. Und "ganz einfach auf einem Carrier landen" ist halt auch so Sache. Ist ja nicht umsonst so das echte Navy Piloten andauernd Pattern üben, genauso wie die Air Force Piloten aller Welt. Ich lande die Hornet immernoch ungerne und schlecht auf dem Carrier, dabei läuft es mit der Tomcat und ihren älteren Flugsteuerungsanlagen viel besser bei mir. In DCS nehm ich mir mal die Freiheit und sage einfach: "Jedes Flugzeug ist halt auch Typ-Sache". In echt können die Piloten sich halt die Flieger nicht immer aussuchen. Will damit sagen, vielleicht ist die Hornet auf dem Carrier nicht dein Ding. Oder du kneifst die Backen zusammen und übst bis es geil läuft, beides valide Wege

Probably the same reason the german F-104's liked to carry their bags on the tips instead of having them under the wing in 2-bag-config?

Noice, want it even more now

@birkenmoped Moin, ich hab ein issue mit dem skin. Wenn man ihn ohne weapon pylons nutzt. hat der fuselage kein dirt layer mehr, der tail boom alerdings schon noch. Wenn du lust und Zeit hast, könntest du das fixen? Ich liebe deinen Skin einfach und nutze ihn immer wieder für meine missionen.

Reading this makes me sad. Thanks for clarification!

2? I knew about the GR-95 (?) with ALR-45 (was it that?)

Depends on how it is put into the RWRs database. As always spike or always nails

Bei den "Modulen" 'NS430 für Mi-8', L-39 und C-101 (hab ich welche vergessen?) geht es nur darum, dass das NS430 dann auch als 3D Modell im cockpit integriert ist, wie ein Instrument. Ich denke aber das sollte auch in der Modulbeschreibung dabei stehen. Wenn du nur das NS430 kaufst, kannst du es in allen Flugzeugen trotzdem als 2D pop-up à la FSX öffnen.

Moin. Den letzten habe ich hart verpennt, Zeit hätte ich ja sogar gehabt^^ Ich bin auf jeden Fall wieder dabei.

I was able to tests this very short while hosting from my game instance, which is still not working. The lamp posts weren't even removed for me as the host of this instance. (Which worked in the past, it was just not working for clients, so in that term it kind of got worse) Besides, to rule out errors, which exact method were you using to remove the objects? I used a spot with a long 4 lane road on the Syria map west-south-west of Nicosia, Cyprus. Trigger "On Mission start" with the action of removing map objects (objects only, not trees) I forgot the precise naming of this action, I cannot post a screenshot atm. I also want to test this with dedicated server again at some point.

Jein. Soweit ich da insight habe (connections muss man haben^^) ist es schon so, das zumindest ED was sagt, wenn jemand anderes ein proposal an ED gemacht hat. Weil wenn erste leaks oder sowas kommen, dann gab es in der Regel zwischen 3rd party und ED schon Gespräche und dann weiß man, dass das jemand Anderes auch vor hat. Will sagen, evtl. hat sich M3 schon entschieden die -17/-22 doch nicht zu machen und das OG zu überlassen. Vielleicht wurde das von M3 nur noch nicht gegenüber uns kommuniziert. Nur meine 1,9 Cent, aber so hab ich es mitbekommen.

Hey @Kortana, I think I will test it this weekend, I can give an update. Nevertheless, it's already a good message for me, as I have dedi server running soon (too much spare hardware ^^)

Bin eher ein blauer wie ein roter, aber die Su-17 und -22 fand ich eigentlich schon immer ganz cool. Bin gespannt was daraus wird, hatte letztens auch irgendwo ein screenshot vom pit gesehen.

I think you are right, some time around BS2 should be when Tiblisi and Vaziani were introduced, FC2 didn't have those from the start. Well anyway, I just wanted to say that it has not always been like that. It was expanded. And it has also been graphically improved at some point some 5 years ago I think. Can't remember exaclty, but it was around the time just after many skin packs for the map were released by the modding community. I guess ED then said at some point "we should rework the terrain at least up to the modders skin pack standart". Of course back then it was not even up to the state of the NTTR, but I remember we have been told that ED wants to focus on other payed maps and finally on a different free map, which we have now in form of the Marianas. And there will still be some work to do, as we get a WW2 version of that. So I suspect there will be no more focus on Caucasus for a long time or for ever. I would even say, they will probably rework the NTTR rather than reworking the Caucasus, as it also shows age and there is money to earn with a rework. Other than that, I heard an interview a year or so ago, that the ultimate goal for ED is to have a World map, but that might be at least 10 years or a lot more in the future. So there might me no focus in maps at all from some point on, or have them as "high res patches" on a MSFS style satellite based world map, but that's just my personal speculation now (and kinda wish). Only thing I am hoping for in terms of for example Caucasus, but currently ED is not showing any signs of this, they could make a community competition to the modders and have them rework it and release the best proposal. I think this could only boost moral of the modding community, the A-4E shows that people really can and want to produce some good stuff that stays free. Really hoping ED is open to some of these suggestions/wishes and is reading topics like this, I think people have great ideas.

Does it work now or not? I kinda got lost. Would be awesome if this "remove object" now works for MP.

Well, there is still a pretty brutal civil war in Syria, it is just not very present any more in media. And it was on media while Syria map was developed. Otherwise for me it is ok to leave Crimea as it is now in the game. I would like to explore it and see it, as I never played Flanker and only tried LOMAC once. But I am fine with not having it, if some are not ok with the political restrains. Apart from that, I am playing DCS since the first iteration of flaming cliffs (was it 1.16 or something?), in other words roughly 2007, without a gap. The map has not been always like this. I don't remember the year, but the very eastern part was added later, including Vaziani, both Tiblisi airports, Beslan and the other NE russian base. So it has been expanded. I think with that expansion also came an expansion towards the west, but just as very basic terrain and having the entire black sea (as I remember a time where the black sea was cut of at the west end somewhere). With this I also remember all the NDBs were added.

Dieser Titel triggert mich so sehr... Wieso Butterbrot?

Hi, as we don't have the C-160 Transall in game, I was wondering if someone would like to make a GAF skin for the ingame C-130H. This one would be perfect:

Der Kuriosität halber, weiß eigentlich jemand wie es um MAC steht? Nicht das ich plane es mir zu kaufen, ich nur FF, aber irgendwie interessiert es mich doch trotzdem immer mal wieder. Ich könnte auch sagen: Frage für einen Freund^^

No idea what the missile thing is about, as @Bremspropeller statet, R550 (Magic 2 is all aspect). Or I am missing the point. Every radar in DCS will always either under-perform or over-perform. Just a small example why that is the case: TOR radar is made for ground mapping, hence the name GMR. Nevertheless it could be used for air to air STT, with different bar and azimuth settings. In Holloman on a good day you could see some targets almost up to 60 miles, in german air that was a lot less, up to 30 max if I recall it. DCS is not taking any condition of the air into account afaik. Other story: you even have massive differences between AC that are the same, say a squadron of F-15C in the same software suite. Some radars are not working at all, some always have false tracks, some work very good. So in RL you also have over- and under-performing radars. In DCS it is just uniform and in perfect conditions. That might change in some 10 years or more, but for now I think it is as good as can be made with performance impact etc. I also think the Viggen radar is over performing getting ground returns of units vs. static objects vs. terrain features of the map, but I also think that is currently a limitation of what is doable and that might change in future. I wouldn't use the word hilariously though.

True, the F-16 also got the full integration of AN/AAQ-13 and -14, but the confusing thing for me was always that both are sometimes just refered as "LANTIRN pod"

range of roles and equipment it carries = user-friendly? Interesting approach. I would call that very multi-role capable, but the hornet is not very user friendly as I would say it. I like the Hornet cockpit better, but I think the F-16 has a way better HMI (Human-Machine-Interface), in other words, USER (= human) friendly. For the reasons above, SPI+SOI idea and DMS switch

I always found this LANTIRN designation to be a bit miss leading/messy, because for different platforms the integration was up to a different level. Correct me if I am wrong, but the -14 only got the TGP part of it, the F-16 got the TGP and the FLIR part of it, the F-15E could carry all parts of it (TGP pod, FLIR pod & TFR pod) A podded solution should mean that the main radar should be fully usable while the TFR pod is doing its stuff, expect there is some interference going on. In the Tornado for example there is the CSU (central suppression unit), taking care of intereference between emissions (for example your RWR is not seeing your own radar emissions, etc.)

Mehr hab ich leider nicht, also wenn du ne andere Quelle suchst muss ich passen.