Flagrum

He is only talking about the Hind.

Afaik you can define radio settings, like frequency, for every unit. For the role as jtac, only the jtac action settings are relevant. Think of it as a team: one Humvee - the driver has his own radio and the jtac on the back seat has his own, portable radio.

Sounds more like ED News instead of Community News. But that's probably just me ...

... then CheeseCake sneaks in and leaves a mysterious posting!

When I am in the mission editor, I can save the mission whenever I want. Not sure, how smart the devs have to be to be able to do that, but ... whatever.

"Community News", eh? Rather fake news *face palm*

Interesting idea, tbh. To add to the discussion: a free (or cheaper) trainee license and a instructor license (costs similar to current regular license?). The trainee then can only fly when connected to a trainer license. New players can get a trainee license easy (i.e. for free), but can only enter aircraft controlled by a instructor license.

The BLG 66 is used by Razbams M-2000K and now by Aviojets C-101cc. Browsing through the .LUA files, I saw that the weapon is now defined two times, independently from eachother. This is ... suboptimal? I.e. the way the submunitions is dispensed differs from the "usual" US CBUs and therefore require some special coding (I suppose). This would have to be done twice - and that in a way that the end results do not differ (i.e. BLG should behave exactly the same, no mater what aircraft it was dropped from). Therefore I kindly ask Razbam and AvioDev - and perhaps ED - to find a proper solution. For example, making the BLG 66 a standard DCS weapon that is used by both modules. (see also here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3734184#post3734184 ... + sorry for xposting)

The BLG 66 is used by Razbams M-2000K and now by Aviojets C-101cc. Browsing through the .LUA files, I saw that the weapon is now defined two times, independently from eachother. This is ... suboptimal? I.e. the way the submunitions is dispensed differs from the "usual" US CBUs and therefore require some special coding (I suppose). This would have to be done twice - and that in a way that the end results do not differ (i.e. BLG should behave exactly the same, no mater what aircraft it was dropped from). Therefore I kindly ask Razbam and AvioDev - and perhaps ED - to find a proper solution. For example, making the BLG 66 a standard DCS weapon that is used by both modules. (see also here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3734185#post3734185 ... + sorry for xposting)

Why do you have your stick sending key presses instead of mapping the DX button directly within DCS?

Afaik it is somewhat hardcoded in the DCS basis install which type or coordinates are used for which country? coalition? aircraft? At least the mission maker has no say in that, though.

"Player" skill is not bound to be set to the flight lead, you can set it to any aircraft in your flight. I.e. you can already have an AI fly as lead and you as player fly as wingman. But it's use is probably somewhat limited as the AI does not really know the role of a flight lead - i.e. does not communicate with you accordingly, etc. ...

Which manuals are you refering to?

That is probably scheduled for DCS 5.0

Basically all modules. Some older modules, like the ones you mentioned, are part of the base install of DCS. ED started to use CoreMods only after those were already in the sim. But you still have all the AI stuff for those as well, but just so nicely separated into one sub-directory.

Size is the same in my install. And yes, it is necessary. CoreMods contain the AI stuff of ALL modules - so you can fly together with them, even if you don't own the module.

If you have to enter the code anyways, to match the actual setting of the weapon, why not use that for reducing unnecessary redundance? You are suggesting that the PRF is set in the mission editor (ideally for every single LGB separately!) and then just to have it entered again in the cockpit. What does that add in terms of realism, playability or immersion? The only potential downside to the "cockpit setting sets physical LGB setting"-approach, as it is already used in the A-10C, is that it adds a level of flexibility that does not exist in RL. But there is a easy and elegant solution for that: don't exploit it.

There was only one patch since Subferro confirmed the bug with his two .TRKs, about ten days ago, and that was the 2.5.4 patch of this week. But I will re-check it anyways.

He gave his interpretation of what the manual says, and that does not contradict it. Or am I missing something? Just the manual + comparable experiences + common sense.

Azimuth Steering Line. The azimuth you are supposed to steer to - and for that it does not help if it swings 180 degrees in front of you, if you bank the aircraft a little ... that wide range the ASL moves, can never really coincidence with the desired release point. The release point, for unguided stuff, is always somewhere between you and the target, right (maybe crosswinds nonwithstanding)?

+1 This is important ...!

But a pilot can only be as effective as the gun is. See also here please: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=198156

Don't EWR units provide that similar-to-AWACS functionality?

And yet the documents state "80% within 5mils". And about centrifugal forces as such - they act on the projectile only as long as they are inside the barrel. It seems possible, that this may cause some sort of of off-center trajectory in relation to the barrel bore line, but it would be the same for every round fired (within mechanical tolerences). Remember, it is only one barrel fireing at a time and that barrel is always at the same position when it fires. So, that effect may need some CCIP windage adjustment, but would not explain a significantly larger dispersion as such, imo.

I think, this is a duplicate to this here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=198054 (which is already in the bugtracker iirc)