Paradox

Some winters in Northern France are very mild so it's not unrealistic for the winter to just be a colder, wetter autumn.

Yeah Belsimtek said that if you can find any detailed information on how Maverick integration worked on the export F-5Es then they would consider adding the functionality but as of now it's not a capability we can have. The US F-5Es were almost evaluation only birds so they didn't get a lot of the fancy toys that the export ones got. The Singaporean ones are particularly impressive.

I've seen some offtopic posts before but... checkers?

While I would never lay down as much vitriol as the man above: The Thud is an essential aeroplane. If we ever get one it will be from RAZBAM though, they've got one in FSX and I believe they're aware of the interest.

The sooner this is all brought under one install the better. I'm sure ED are working hard on it.

I agree and take exception to the idea that the number of DCS customers who use multiplayer is so small that our thoughts don't matter at all @cichlidfan After all why are we on the forum if we don't enjoy human interaction in games?

The A-10C has the most complex systems but is the easiest to actually fly The Mirage is the simplest, systems wise and is a very capable fighter but if you want air to ground capability it will disappoint you The Viggen is probably the most difficult to fly although quite easy with practice and is very capable in the air to ground role while having simple but... Unconventional... Systems. I would actually recommend the Viggen since it can do air to air rather simply a well as being an excellent strike aircraft and is fun to fly and learn. None of these aircraft are actually all that difficult to learn really though. If you put your mind to it the A-10C's systems will come together to for you sooner than you might expect

After initial slight disappointment over the specific version (GR7 is just my favouritest thing ever) I'm SO in now. I'm impressed.

I guess I like the idea of it but I don't think I would buy it. Maybe as a novelty

The detail certainly seems to be adequate for a low detail section

I was told that the GBU-12 requires a wire connected to the bomb from the pylon to extend the wings when it drops from the aircraft Only the front 4 pylons support that on the Mirage 2000C

Regarding designating a point on the ground as SPI using the HUD We find on the A-10C that this is entirely independent of the TGP, you can do it with it turned off or not mounted on the plane at all

Can this version of the Harrier designate a target optically via the HUD and set it as SPI like on the A-10C? So you can designate a point on the ground for a GBU-38 to hit? I don't actually know how that works from a technical perspective on the A-10 I assume it's the GPS/INS system that allows you to do that

Yep, you either cannot feel the feedback forces at all or they're so strong that you can't move the cyclic whatsoever (at least in a controlled manner) in the event of a hydraulic failure

Fair enough! Maybe later [emoji3]

How fleshed out is the England side planned to be? A fully realised Portsmouth and Southampton would be an excellent target for future Ju-88s..... Obviously Winchester must be included. Not least because I have a race with my friends to see who's house will be included in DCS first!

I wonder if this might be on the horizon after 2.5 is all settled and integrated. Though I suspect the priority would be more on the Straits of Hormuz map than an expansion to Caucasus.

Why do MiG-15s now have to commute from Maykop? Seems to me like they would be much better off based at Sochi with all their friends

Being an icon makes it iconic :smilewink: hurrr Actually that sardonic answer does have its roots in some logic in that things like the huey are considered iconic by many Americans because they appear in so many films and they do or did fill American skies in the years following Vietnam when they all came home snd got sold off cheaply to private operators and police forces Similarly the Mi-8 in Russia occupies a similar place. For British people Spitfires are the living image of the second world war, everything we learn in school about the second world war is told through the lens of the Spitfire For Swedes that were around for its heyday: It's the Viggen. Due to its sad lack of export I'm not sure if many other people really got to appreciate it for what it could have been outside Sweden.

Yes clearly it's very clear cut, simple and well understood No need for change at all

I don't necessarily think it should be a top priority or anything but it's not very respectful to watermanpc and others like him to insinuate that this is a problem of his own making.

Tunnan, Mystere and Hawker Hunter are all great ideas for DCS modules in my opinion

Right but you're posting in a thread which we've all seen before wherein a member of the community (in this case for over a year) hasn't been fully apprised of the overcomplicated system we have Does that strike you as reasonable? I've seen dozens of threads like these and they're totally unnecessary and only add to the confusion for prospective new customers. And the only reason they exist is because the system we have is opaque and bothersome Even Yo-Yo was on record once as saying it was a nonsense as I recall.

This is exactly what I'm arguing for And ED already does check the quality of the FM, they tell devs that they are required to develop at least a believable FM before they grant the licence.

Thank you for the measured reply, I think I agitated myself a bit there! Yeah well there's the sticky wicket isn't it? I don't know what would be better As far as the consumer is concerned I think there only needs to be a distinguishment between SFM and AFM like it was before. And really maybe not even that, SFM seems to be a thing of the past now except for the C-101 which I suppose will get an EFM at some point. The ideal is to get DCS to be synonymous with flight models like the A-10's MiG-21's, Huey's etc etc so that we won't need the designations at all. I agree that we don't exactly have that right now with some EFMs seemingly better than others, though naming examples is outside the scope of this conversation I think. For the developers it's probably even more complicated than what we have to endure! So maybe the current system is a compromise so that both customers and developers have *some* idea of what the other is working with? Either way, I believe that the current system is unhelpful to the customer and should be revised by people that understand community management and marketing better than I do. Conclusion: A simple assumption that all future modules will have PFM quality flight models unless stated otherwise seems to be the best system to me. I'm prepared to be disagreed with on that point though, it might be even less helpful in practice