Jerkzilla

Yeeees!! Grind it up and shoot it into my veins at mach 2.83!

I think this is a perfectly satisfactory arrangement.

There, fixed.

I'm still bummed out about the Mavs, they would have made this a proper little multirole.

I genuinely thought this thread was about the Mig-21 surprisingly having a storage compartment.

Yeah, obviously, everyone would buy a EC Tiger. I'm sure Polychop know this as well, so I don't think it's a matter of choice. But that Mi-2! There's probably nothing classified and it has that 60s Eastern Block goofiness about it. Money down the instant it's for sale! Even if I'd get ripped to shreds trying to kill anything other than HMMWVs and trucks with MCLOS Malyutkas.

Yes, PLEASE.

I remember you! You came onto the Project Reality mod forums a million years ago with that Ka50 model and maybe some renders of Chernobyl. That beta video of it in Battlefield 2 was pretty awesome, considering there was nothing remotely similar in the game at the time, with the single seat and side cannon and all. Really hope to see more of your work.

No one knows what will happen after the DCS Singularity, when everything will be merged into one installer. Some think that we will ascend to a higher level of simming, others think the End Times will follow, only time will tell.

I feel like one can make the same point about the A-10 and Ka-50. I mean, ground forces never really react to your actions. It's like there's a list of stuff you have to do: find and kill AA, use remaining missiles/bombs on tanks, gun everything else, go home. It gets a bit more interesting when you use unguided munitions only, but even then, you're fighting a completely static and predictable enemy. I think CA was supposed to alleviate this, in multiplayer anyway, but it doesn't seem to be doing it's job yet. I've actually been flying the P-51 much more than the Hog and Shark the past year or two mainly for this reason.

Thank for the guide! I will try this soon, the springs on my M5 broke years ago anyway and I replaced them with rubber bands. I also don't like the way the stick acts near the center, you can feel the moment it stops pushing against one side of the spring and switches to the other.

Nice resource there! What's the deal with the ships rear area? It looks like it went from one configuration in the 86 picture to a different one in the 89 pic, then back to the 86 configuration (more or less) in the 1990 pic? I'm referring specifically to the hole in hull's stern and the port side balcony things.

They'd be way more appealing with highly detailed terrain that actually warrants the small diameter rotor. They just look too agile to fly Georgia's mostly undetailed landscape. Haven't played Nevada yet so I can't say if DCS is there yet, or if it's even close. Also, more detailed modeling of infantry would help drastically, especially since the AH-6 AFAIK has mostly light weapons.

That's literally what I did minutes later after I posted :lol:

I still don't get how that thing is supposed to look. I mena, Saab has this to say about it: And I'm like, where on earth does it project the image? Is it projected inside the tube, so you're looking into the aperture there? If so, you're still seeing it as if it's just a tiny screen but with the added benefit mentioned my Saab, that it's more comfortable to look at? It's just kind of underwhelming if it's just an image in a tube when it has "virtual" in the name... EDIT: Nevermind, I think I get it.