Frostie

Because making enjoyable events is tough work and ironing out format, map making and rules is in the experience. It also takes a level of understanding from the participants to engage in the overall picture instead of viewing events as win at all cost exercise. Its not expected but making the event enjoyable for all is just as much the communities responsibility as it is the event organisers. For me it was pretty obvious due to the airframe selection on both sides that attacking farps is not a bonus objective and pretty much detrimemtal to the event. The outstanding reason being blues extremely limited capability to do so and the relative ease in comparison it would be for 8 Ka50s to decimate a simple farp. This is not a criticism of players actions because from their position it seemed a postive decision stop blue and seal victory it just needs highlighting in future that this is or is not part of the plan.

Next event needs a ruling on attacking home plates, it's a bit of an easy victory for Ka50 otherwise. I think we've been pretty fair sticking to the gameplan in previous events but it was inevitable the gentlemans agreement was going to get lost on some and they would go on to stomp the enemy farps.

Think of how the Ka50 datalink works with a flight of 4 Ka50s, you get a LoS feed back from your wingmen be it AI or other clients in both sp and mp. This is part of the Flanker datalink that only works in single player with AI from the same flight, it doesn't work for clients in a multiplayer mission editor created flight of 2 or 4. Clients (players) get no datalink from their flight. This is a fundamental feature of datalink.

You made 2 PS5 threads is this because you'd need two PS5s to run DCS?

Considering ED deem A-10s with Russian skins an acceptable option in DCS, I don't see the downgrade of payload to simulate an earlier version as something to be concerned about. Ultimately it adds options to mission creation without any critical negatives. I put this thread up here early doors as it will be a request raised by many in the future. There is a clear reason why it shouldn't be added but while it doesn't irk me if it is not added, knowing the mp communities enjoyment of SARH era warfare it's always great to let as many platforms enjoy as many scenarios as possible.

It is just a request, but yes you're right, we should only make missions for the public to enjoy from 2007 and beyond. Anything else would be scandalous, screw enjoyment and making the most of the product. I'm so sorry I will now conform to type by inserting the customary stick up my ass.

Please ED consider adding AIM-7 to the F-16 payload list, it was at least carried by the adf. It's a must for mp mission period creation.

51 Frostie - Kamov

If you join a group and you don't believe in their values then you can just leave. You're view on how squadrons are run is absurd, a large number of squadrons skirt around regimental structure because we are all in this for fun and nobody wants to spend all day in work just to go back to work in DCS. Most squadrons are set up to create a teamwork environment and to help members integrate in to the squadrons chosen way to fly, the biggest investment going on here is by the guys running the squadron taking their time to develop and train keen members. If they invest so much time in creating SOP's and training missions, arrange trainings and events then surely they reserve the right to dictate how things go. It is not a place for egos and show offs but for team players, those who enjoy improving themselves through teamwork and having fun.

I'm sorry, something has come up and i won't be able to attend.:(

I don't think you're understanding. The K in MiG29K (K = Korabelny, Ship-Borne) is Russian origin the same as the S in 29S. The C in MiG29C and A in MiG29A are of NATO origin, for example I doubt you'll find the MiG29 marked up as MiG29A in Russian documents.

I'm not so sure about your first point. MiG29S (9.13) is FulcrumC hence MiG29C. MiG29 (9.12A) is FulcrumA hence MiG29A. English speaking variants is is either MiG29 + MiG29S (Russian) or MiG29A + MiG29C (NATO).

The proposed update for the Su33 (Su27K) was the Su33M (Su27KM). Earlier on this was based on Su27M, later this developed into being based on Su27SM or Su35. It has never materialised due to funding. Su33M will never happen unless either India or China make an agreement to purchase the export variant Su33MK. India have gone for the MiG29K and China have their own design for a Chinese Su33. This leaves the MiG29K being the sensible choice as the premier Russian carrier bourne strike fighter and upgrading the Su33 unviable. https://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-33/su-33.htm

<51>Frostie Su33

I'm really sorry guys but i failed to show up, thought it was on Sunday. :doh:

You can clearly see at 2:39 the range scale is set at 20nmi, which would put the shot at between 4 to 5nmi.

It's not about being anti 9X, it's about favouring the odds. Aim9X gives weaker pilots an easy win. How many events have you hosted? Have you followed any of the previous events? Have you practiced the different payloads against some of the historically best pilots in this event and gathered data to conclude what is fair? If any of these are true then you will know all about how successful the F15 has been in these events. But the answer is probably no so you're coming here trying to force your own agenda with no substantial experience, how is that any less biased. The rules are set in place for a fair fight if you don't see this then don't join, coming here with such disrespectful manner to the organisers is not welcome so kindly go play your own game. After the event is concluded it will be evaluated and questions can be raised but to do it now and claim bias etc. is stirring up a playground attitude and not welcome amongst mature adults.

<51>Frostie - Ka50

DCS netcode ain't the best for large population servers. Long running missions, large unit count, missiles in the air, high pings, ai movement are amongst many things that often create lag in DCS, hacking is the last thing on most DCS veterans minds.

This may help but you've probably already read this. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=155048&page=2

Also maybe try unplugging you hotas and try using the A10 with just keyboard, something you've bound with your hotas may be interfering.

The A10A doesn't have a nose wheel steer button, it steers no problem straight after start up. It would seem Chaser needs to check his control bindings in the A10A controls. Check the axis bindings and uncheck those not used on your stick etc. as feefifofum states. Go to controls, drop down box select 'A-10A' other drop down box which says 'all' change to 'axis' to check bindings. Some tutorials

Frostie Su33

Sorry but I may not be able to make this.

51 Frostie MiG21