AG-51_Razor

Agreed!

So was the F-4 Phantom, what's your point?

We are able to assign a specific a/c to a specific catapult for use when starting on the runway, it doesn't seem to be too much different to be able to assign specific parking spot to a specific a/c when starting on the ramp.

Hopefully, by the time the A-7 drops, HB will have figured out the issues with the various catapults on the Forrestal. Additionally, it would be cool if they (HB again) followed through with their commitment to bring out the Sara.

All said above is true but, once someone in the map/terrain community gets their thumb out and decides to build a map of the Korean peninsula, the inpetus to get a -4 out the door to go along with the Skyraider, F-51, F-86 and Mig 15 will be significant! Don't be a buzzkill and take my dream away with logic.

Boy! If I didn't know better, I'd be inclined to think that this particular FAA Corsair was attached to VF-51 aboard the CVL-30 San Jacinto Thanks for the one stop shopping of videos

AH Men!! Being able to pass gas to my squaddies would be epic, whether it's from a KC-130, an A-6 Intruder or an A-7 Corsair. It's just one more bit of reality we will be able to simmulate in the world of DCS!

Part of this issue would take care of itself if ED would, as they said they would so long ago, just make the clouds as hard to see through for the AI as they are for us humans.

You are correct Gunfreak but keep in mind that, just because there are one or more flying airframes of the plane you wish to see in DCS, that doesn't mean that the data necessary or required to replicate it in a simmulation is readily available. There is a tremendous amount of work involved with instrumenting a plane with the necessary sensors required to record the data you need to come up with a flight model for a simmulation. It's not only very difficult to do, it really fargging expensive in terms of equipment rental/purchase, engineering services, computer time and possibly most of all, flight time. I worked for a company that investigated the possibility of developing a simmulator for a helicopter we were operating and the flight time alone was going to be around 250 hours!! I have no idea what a warbird costs to operate beyond the cost of gas at around 100+ gallons per hour but for the helicopter we were trying to get a simmulator built for, the direct operating cost per hour was around $5000.00 so you can see how it can get pretty damn expensive pretty quick to attempt to grab the data you need for a decent EFM or PFM or whatever they call it in order to come up with a flight model that half the population of DCS will scream bloody murder about because it doesn't agree with their own assumptions of what it should, or shouldn't be able to do. It's a hard nut to crack.

I'd be willing to bet on the A-4 coming to DCS as a FF module. Fingers crossed!!

I absolutely couldn't agree more with this thread!! The Korean peninsula is a most versatile map. It was fought over during WWII, then the Korean War and now, it is the possible location of the next big conflict. This would be a mission builder's dream come true!!

I believe that ED should allow the Mission Builder to decide what velocity and direction the wind is blowing for every level that is available to make changes to. The surface wind does not mathmatically determine the wind at any level above by some formula. It's actually the other way around but there are so many variables that even today meteoroligists are hard pressed to give an accurate forecast of what the winds/weather will be just a couple of hours from now! Let the Mission Builder decide.

I'm not aware of ANY module that has ever been released, from ED or any 3rd party developer, that wasn't "early access". You might just consider moving onto something else that is closer to release, like maybe the F-15E. That is, unless it comes out less than absolutely feature complete and without any flaws. Good luck with that.

Those are planes from VF-17, the original Jolly Rogers. I believe that #29 was assigned to Ira Kepford.

I couldn't find a logical thread to place this in so my apologies if I missed it somewhere along the way. I want to say thanks to the developers for toning down the light bloom from the tankers' navigation lights during nighttime tanking operations while using NVGs. I just noticed this yesterday and confirmed it tonight during a squad MP mission. Not having ever done anything like AAR, much less during the night with NVG's on, I can't say one way or the other how realistic is was before or is now but I can say that this new version makes the NVG's much more valuable (useful) and I have to say Thank you for that!! Please keep up the great work y'all are doing on the core of the simulation. It is noticed and very much appreciated.

I withdraw my complaint sir.

I would not consider the Samuel Chase, the Liberty Ship in the WWII Assets Pack, a deep draft vessel but I have found that it has a fairly narrow corridor between France and England through which it can be placed without getting an error message saying that the water is too shallow and is not able to be placed in the Dunkerque harbor.

I got a big kick out of it! Thanks ED, for keeping your sense of humor during these dark times. It is apprciated!

Thanks Razor!! I don't understand why that skin didn't show up in my search. Anyway, that is exactly whay I was looking for.

I just got through searching those user files and found just one of a VERY fictional Zero skin. Not at all close to a Ki-61 skin. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3315579/

I respectfully disagree. First off, I am hopefull that the majority of their work on the plane is finished and they are just tidying up the boat before release. While I fully understand your sentiments, and you are correct about the Corsair's carrier carreer during the war, I am really looking forward to the challenge of learning to land it on a carrier. In fact, I might go so far as to say that, without the carrier, I probably wouldn't buy it. I mean, I already have the Jug so what do I need with another round motor plane in the hanger??!! It's the tail hook man!!! I would be inclined to mirror your comments with the caveat that I would prefer they just release it as is without all the time and resources "wasted" on lighting for both the carrier and cockpit since in reality, the Corsairs spent very little time flying at night and even less time operating off a carrier in the dark. And finally, regardless of how you or I feel about it, they are going to do what they want to do and we'll get it when they decide it's ready, hopefully sooner rather than later.

It is a beautiful airplane! It would be a first day buy for me

I would not rely on any published Real Life statistics on any on the planes in DCS to compare how they will match up in this sim. I would say that the only true measure of how they would stack up against one another would be to fly them in the game side by side and see how they match up. The RL stats were influenced by such factors as fuel load, ammunition loaded, instrument calibration, etc, etc, etc.

Well, I'm glad we finally got that sorted out!

I too would much prefer to have an A-6 in the game however that airframe is quite a ways off in the future and is not going to be an ED module. The S-3B, on the other hand, is already in the game as a tanker, currently undergoing a significant graphics overhaul and is in the hands of ED. It is for those reasons that I chose the S-3 to pick on. It just seems to me that if something as significant as making a player flown airframe capable of passing gas to another player flown plane, the S-3 might be the one that ED could do it with most easily (in the least amount of time). The weapons systems you mention, HARPOON, SLAM-ER, Maverick and LANTRIN are also already in the game so I don't see the disadvantage there. And as for the ASW role, the Viking was pretty much out of that business for the last 10-15 years of it's service life. It's just a pipe dream anyway. It probably won't happen in my lifetime.