SmirkingGerbil

Since it is a wish list thread, and that is what they serve. Yes!!!! But it is so nice to get this cockpit refresh. I am sure the VR folks will rejoice!! My favorite bird, the first one I mastered decently. Such a nice cockpit to lounge in, as you limp home, as opposed to the fasties - if a missile even looks at you cross-eyed you either die, or are blown out of the sky.

Well, then, I guess I am resigned to dreaming of these systems while we wait. :thumbup:

OMG please stop with all the wonderful talks of Turbo/Superchargers, Intercoolers, overboost, this lever, that lever, regulators, flaps, cowls and so many engine management switches I could swoon. She is going to be a magnificent beast if managed properly, and you guys are killing me with all this nerd speak! Gimme my P-47 already!!

Thanks rrohde!

Will Do Skate, thanks for the tip!!! :thumbup:

Meh, always use AMD, always will. Just upgraded this weekend to a Ryzen 7, did a mild TPU boost, and the RAM memory and CPU memory processor speeds are spot on. CPU vs. Input Voltage timings and over-clocking have always been hit or miss. When they test the wafer/die they just punch them all with voltage and input freq to see which ones can hit it, and bin them accordingly. Runs great and way more affordable than Intel. Noticed an immediate improvement in DCS for nothing more than a board and processor upgrade.

I understand your sentiment; however, this is a component of the world that will up realism for ALL aircraft. "Low hanging fruit" from my viewpoint, an easy win. Enhances experience of all modules whether Early Access, Beta, Released, in development etc. I used to do all kinds of thermal modeling, which is similar to fluid dynamics at least from a Finite Element Analysis perspective. So our FM developer is a Gawd among Flight Nerds in m book. :lol::lol:

I loved the wake turbulence video and the effect it will bring to flight. Tell your FM guy I owe him a beer, or two, maybe three.

Thank you for this Silver - I always turn to your posts to get a general idea of overall projects, and potential new rumors. I lurk on your posts, just like the change log posts and Weekend News Posts. Between those three sources, you can stay abreast of pretty much everything happening.

NineLine. Your points on toxicity regarding game comparison's is spot on. Been gaming since the 80's, what exists now in the gaming world as what is "deserved" for plunking down a one time, non recurring fee for a product that is continuously improved is surprising. I paid once for the A-10C, and it has been a phenomenal experience far longer than many other games I have paid for. Many other DCS modules have granted that same extended enjoyment time over periods as long as 8 years. I have "buried" more games after less than a year that I care to admit to, money better left in my pocket. Your explanations regarding focus, bleed over, and how one area will enhance another are not lost on everyone. Explaining the dynamics of development while enhancing older modules, graphics engines, and introducing new ones to fund all of it are reasonable and logical. Just an old patient BOOMX'er 2 cents FWIW.

And thank you, TFC, ED, DCS from the bottom of my heart for that!!!! Been here since 2011 (Started on Steam). You folks always deliver.

"Freeaboos"??? Born and bred, cornfed Murican here, guess what my first module was? KA-50 Why? Because the Russian's have always built rugged, dependable beautiful aircraft. A Mig-29 is far more fetching than a F-16 so I share your desire, but I guess since I am a "Freeaboos", I am not allowed to like Russian aircraft???:megalol::megalol:

Not sure how many here were donators for when the project first kicked off, guessing all who are following this thread are, as am I. There are plenty of stickies where you can read about how ED and DCS stepped in, and without them assuming all the debt and project load, this bird would be in some desktop trash bin. Still remember those heady days of emailing Luthier and trying to find out what was going on. He and I actually corresponded a bit, and he was trying to be helpful for sure. Just went back over my email files, and found that last update from IIlya on 3/24/2014 . . . and my first backer donation on 9/24/2013. Personally very appreciative that at some point, we will get the module I (and others) funded, and that it will be brought to life to the exacting standards that ED/DCS/TFC demonstrates time and time again. I can wait. Plenty of awesome modules from that initial startup, such as the P-51, Dora, and Kurfurst to keep me busy. Along with the KA-50, A-10C, and F/A-18.

Which Campaigns? Which Missions? Could be that you have TO Trim mapped, and a trigger in the game is centering all your controls for take-off. EAC enabled/disabled with Gun armed will also change pitch, and move your stick. Might want to check the triggers in the Mission/Campaign, or if you have double mapped TO Trim button, or EAC/LASTE buttons. All of these will cause the stick to move to change the attitude of the aircraft for take off or arming of the GAU.

LOL, no worries. I am just a Hawg fella, and hard for me to reorient to new acronyms for similar systems.

:megalol:TGP . . . TGP . . . TGP, what the heck is a TPOD:megalol:

I will take real world experience over reams of anecdotal evidence. The GAU is a tank killer, due to thin points, angles of attack, and weak spots. Granted, an A-10 GAU firing at shallow angles to the sloped front glacis of an MBT isn't going to do squat, but a 30mm AP DU round that skips of said glacis and pens through the turret ring, causing internal damage and killing the crew as it spins off the walls of the cabin - is still just as effective as hitting it with a Mav, or a 155 artillery round that just flips the tank over. The reason the GAU can make this claim is because it is mounted in a purpose built airborne chassis, which makes it unique, and thus a "tank killer". Mythical yes, but for good reason. All the anecdotal evidence in the world is meaningless to a tank crew as they endure a gun run by an A-10.

Any update is appreciated! Even if it is just hold the line, till developments mature.

Nice, you made a model of the Russian UAV! Not many pics of that floating around.

Glad it worked and I could help! It is the end to end things that will get you every time. :thumbup:

Why is it stupid? Just like any other Air Quake server, if it is not to your liking, then don't join?? OP is just making a suggestion, and like any server, the end user can decide if they like the settings or not. Obviously a server running such demanding restrictions would only appeal to those of that mind. So Air Quake run and guns can stick to their environment, and for those that like restrictions on assets, to try and render a more disciplined environment can work together on such a server. No need to call it "stupid", you can just avoid it if it doesn't appeal to you.

A tad short on info, but here is something that worked for me with a similar problem while using Discord. You will need to open your sound management software, usually supplied by the vendor that made the drivers for the sound card or onboard sound built into Motherboard. In the sound management API or vendor software, select something similar to "Each output device on it's own output channel" vs. "All combined". That gives you the ability to use the windows volume control API or sound bar manager to adjust volume independently for multiple feeds. I.e. DCS has its own sound bar slider, Discord (TS3) has its own, external speakers own slider, headphones own slider. Once I did this, I could set volume appropriately for each device, and all sound sources worked properly.

Agreed, coming from mods like "Project Reality" and "Squad" or others based on ARMA - penalties for losing aircraft, vehicles, or skilled personnel forced - absolutely required - coordinated online play. Seriously enhancing immersion. I don't think we need some of the duration the OP posted, but making a A-10C unavailable for 10 mins can seriously wreck your plans if someone just throws it away because they didn't use it tactically.

Jumping on bandwagon. Never been disappointed by any DCS module, all worth the wait.

So I am going to speak to some general things, as to why Dual Stack may not work. I am not aware of how your ISP operates, or if you have already spoken to them, and made arrangements. But a few things would create issues as follows: 1.) Your ISP would have to assign you your IPV6 address, just like they would a fixed IPV4 and they in turn would need to enable dual-stacking. 2.) Does your router actually support dual-stack? If so, did you work out a dual stack arrangement with your ISP so they could forward or advertise your IPV6 IP? 3.) In my experience, only a few ISP's actually support dual-stack, and the one I directly interact with ATT, is only doing this over BGP (a routing protocol), so is your ISP exchanging routing information with you, if so, which protocol and how are you establishing neighbor relationships? 4.) Is your ISP just saying "here, this is your IPV6 address" is it static/fixed or DHCP? Also, if you were assigning a fixed IP whether IPV4 or V6 to your server, how are you NATing it to present it to the Internet? 5.) The folks you want to connect to the server will also need to support IPV6 in some manner, or their ISP should allow them to use "concatenation" to convert their IPV4 to a IPV6 stand-in, are they doing this - via the "portmapper" application that was mentioned, as everyone would probably have to be on the same service to map within a providers backbone? Again, just some generic questions, as I dual-stack, but strictly in a corporate environment, on large Internet Backbone links, I am not sure how SOHO ISP services would offer this to a end user home or small office connection. Just a list of things to think through or check. May not be applicable.