Kid18120

A very specific type of tree :) It's nice to see ED adding some variety to things we might not even notice while playing!

I suspect Israel to be guarding their tech really closely

I voted YES even though i'm a 100% of the time a MP player. I voted yes because i do understand the need for in SP but it would also be great for MP, though it would work slightly differently: instead of a "usual" save function, we'd need to save the position and status of AI units and objects so that we could "save" at the end of the night, re-edit for a subsequent mission with different flights and objectives and resume with the battlefield in the same state as the previous one. This would be huge for long-term campaigns in MP but also a huge amount of work i suspect

The actual "control" is handled just by pressure sensors. The stick moves very slightly just to give some kind of feedback to the pilots but has no mechanical connection to the FCS / control surfaces as far as i know

You can make it work for non-VR but you need to ALT+TAB into and out of it. It isn't ideal but i use for quick-reference stuff like a threats charts, airbases charts and a frequencies table for the mission. I also have everything either printed or hand-noted around my desk but sometimes i prefer to have it on VRK

An awesome read that should be mandatory for any pilot including virtual ones :smartass:

Just go to "X:\whateverPath\DCS World\bin" and right click DCS.exe and select "copy", then right click and "paste shortcut" on your desktop or where you want to put it

Users being this nitpicky is the exact reason ED doesn't share with us as much as they should / want to and have to resort to a carefull selection of what to share how and when.

Then you should only use DCS with a full motion cockpit because mouse inputs instead of physical interaction along with the absence of actual motion feedback. Being too much on the "purist side" only deters from the overall experience

I recall reading somewhere Mr. Wags saying they will work on the ballistic missiles FM after the F16 release

The object is definitively there, so it's probably just a matter of folder structures being changed with later patches. Check the folders inside a default ship and replicate the same structure on the mods, should suffice.

There was an issue recently fixed with the drag index (or maybe the weight? i can't remember) for the triple rocket pods mount for the A-10C reported and fixed right away. ED needs data to fix stuff. The said issue was fixed after someone filed a proper report like "Object X has the issue Y because by performing test Z the result differers from manual ABC. By further investigation the issue appears to be that the object X has the value $whatever wrong and should be $whateverRight". People just complaining "The A10 feels XYZ instead of ABC" isn't going to cut it, just as it isn't going to cut it the usual "there's probably this or that wrong".

Alright thanks for clarifying.

Keep in mind that the wake tends to spread out laterally and wash down vertically the further away you are from the origin. This was illustrated in a video on youtube by ED (i can't provide a link right now but a search for "DCS wake turbulence" should suffice). I don't know how much of the whole system is already in place on DCS though.

That's good news, definitively better than nothing but said unit would still be able to move and fight whereas it shouldn't. Would it be that hard and time consuming (genuine question) to add a functionality where if the unit reaches a x% of damage it just will "deactivate" ?

Which is a really good explaination and most of the community already knows that. The issue here is why the hell won't you (ED) put a workaround in place, while waiting for the proper DM updates / rework, where rockets (or any other weapon that may be affected) do more overall damage to actually kill the tank? We can't mobility kill nor incapacitate ground units right now, so it's either a complete kill or an apparently 0 damage. We'd rather take the complete kill while waiting for the DM updates since a mobility kill it's in fact still a kill and puts a tank (or whatever else) out of a fight. It has been done with mods, though very rudimentary since the system for weapons damage isn't really that straight forward to us, why can't ED make it an official workaround while waiting for an actual official and definitive fix?

Se non sbaglio "TR" sta per "TRapped" o "Trap Rail" . Per la parte aria-aria invece la denominazione dovrebbe essere "CATM" o "Captive Air Training Missile"

Gameplay Settings i believe

Honestly i'd be more than happy with just the currently available in FC3 planes (SU-27, SU-33 and MIG-29) to be upgraded to ASM with clickable pits. I don't think we'll ever see anything more modern of those we already have due to Russian laws being.. well... Russia!

I'm guessing it all comes down to older FM not being reworked to accomodate new tech (A10C for example has an older FM compared to the MIG29's) and newer FM still not including such tech (i.e. F18 ). I think ED will standardize all of their FMs to include the same major tech developments but this will indeed take lots of time and work, plus it's probably not high on the list of things to do right now

Little OffTopic from me but you (or any VR user for the matter) should give a try to VRK "VR Kneeboard" by AMVI_Rider. There's a thread in these forums ( https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=246970 )

I actually think it should not. In the real fighter you can feel it through your body, like a "bass kick" in your back, plus the extra acceleration. In the game you obviously can't replicate such feeling so there needs to be a "workaround" for it. The subtle sound is a pretty functional way of simulating what you would feel.

I'm typing this reply after reading through the first 2 posts only. I'm just going to throw it in here for the sake of making a point ( @NineLine ). About the part where you say This is perfectly undestandable and i think everyone here in the community understands it. The problem is that a lot of data is not available (at least not with actual numbers and graphs) especially when it comes to weaponry still being used and developed. As such, when info is not available i believe ED should "estimate" those missing parts rather than not having it at all. If you don't have actual flight data for a LOFT profile after firing an AIM-7 for example, it would be much better to have an estimated simulation of it rather than just having the missile fly straight like it has been untill the recent rework for the Hornet.

The main issue i think actually lies in between the 2 sides of the "argument", at least in my opinion. I'm one of those who prefer "milsim experiences" rather than the more "casual public server", therefore i joined a virtual wing and grew up with them learning and participating in their activities for the last 12 years, putting 99.99% of my flight sim time into it. The few times i join "public servers" even with any of my wingmen and plan out a proper mission to achieve whatever objective there is on the server, we end up facing the very big issue of having players on our team that go for that "casual experience". I fly the A10C almost exclusively and most of the time i find myself over targets with no CAP, sometimes someone (usually 1..) doing SEAD (thanks F18!) missions but that's about it. In the end i need to achieve my objective for the night, deal with SAMs which is not always possible) and also be on the lookout full time for the sneaky russian hunting in EO (kudos to you who manage, i can't for shite! :D ). That's why i stick almost the entire time to my wing's private server in the "ops nights".

It will most likely just be the same as the US with just dedicated skins