Scrim

Hence the public Russian decision to employ tactical nuclear weapons early on in a conflict against an evenly matched enemy I suppose.

Pretty sure we do, it's just not possible to get high up enough for that thick contrails I'm guessing?

Will this be updated for 1.2.8? It works mostly, but the helmets of the pilots get an orange texture missing.

So is post 1941 history. Not exclusively, but on average very high up. Never understood why some people insist that Russian tanks, planes etc are massively superior to the best counterparts in the West. I'm not saying it's crap, but even the Russians themselves have always been quite clear about prioritizing quantity and ruggedness as the means of winning, not higher technology. Not to mention that big thing that happened in '91, which for obvious reasons put a lot of military research on the back burner still to this day.

Definitely bulls. Most has already been well addressed by others, so I'll just settle for pointing out that you're making a straw man argument about "the series" as I've never said anything about that. What I've quite clearly addressed has been DCS itself.

The "true roots" is about staying true to what you said the game would be from the beginning, i.e. a sandbox sim in this case. Sorry, but the "chasing bucks" statement is utter bull in this case. If anything, it's about making 3rd party modules viable for 3rd party devs who want to actually make enough money to go around. If they can chose between essentially every single helicopter or plane without ruling anything out due to the "wrong" time era, that becomes a possibility. On the other hand, if they are forced to make modules of planes and helicopters they know won't sell because they are forced to stay within a certain era, they won't make a profit, or even make up for the money spent developing the module. Don't act so derogatory about ED and 3rd party devs trying to make a profit from DCS and modules. That is how business works. They don't create this in their spare time as a charity. Of course they have to be able to make a profit.

:doh: So, no one cares about the specific aircraft that I want to fly, but everyone should care about the ones you want to fly? That is what you are saying, since you're ranting about ED not saying "GTFO" to 3rd party devs who aren't doing that. And if I need to spell it out loud, I'll do it for you: I wasn't talking about me specifically. I was talking about me as an example of average DCS players. It is outright stupid to try minimizing the scope of DCS, as the diversity has been a key selling point since day one. If you don't like that, I suggest you take up another flight sim, instead of moaning that DCS is what it was clearly stated to be when you started playing it, and not your own dream picture of what it should be. Regarding civil aviation: Though I'm no big fan of it myself, you're just barking up not one, but two wrong trees here. For starters, as has been stated in the same FAQs that explain the sandbox nature of DCS, DCS is very much open to civilian aircraft. And as for the second wrong tree: How can you say DCS should stick to one of its "true roots" (a root that is only true in your imagination, as has been established), but completely ignore another of its true roots, namely being a sandbox flight sim? I'm guessing it's the same answer as before. It's not interesting to you, so you say it's bad for DCS to include it, though it means you're completely missing the point of 3rd party devs: If you tell them they're not allowed to introduce a module because it "doesn't fit", odds are they'll pack their stuff and take their business elsewhere, not develop one that "fits". 3rd party devs that will hopefully make up a large portion of the modules in a not too long time can be attracted because they are free to develop whichever module they wish. This means they are able to chose whichever plane or helicopter they think are likely to sell well, instead of having to pick less attractive ones because the attractive ones within the era they are forced to stick within have already been spoken for by other devs.

The map I don't give a hoot about, but what planes and helicopters I get, that I very much care about. Tell me, how will I get a P-51D if ED would do something as stupid as to narrow down DCS to '70s and forwards? Now I will complain to the local grocery store that the brown beans I bought yesterday didn't taste exactly like orange juice. After that, I'll tell you of the folly of buying something and complaining that the product you bought isn't something clearly different than what the label told you it was. Or about the narrow mindedness of assuming that your specific taste is the single correct one.

Oh. Thank you for correcting me. See, I thought that I wanted to fly different specific planes and helicopters, even though I just wanted to learn how to fly them. But apparently I was wrong, because you're telling me that I'd be happy with any aircraft, since I'm not obsessed about having nationally, periodically and geographically correct enemies to shoot down and maps to fly on. I fully believed that, so thank you for telling me what I really think. While we're at it, what shirt should I wear tomorrow?

Well guess what? A lot of people do, no one is forcing you to play DCS, and courtesy of the free market, there is more than one flight sim in the world.

So why did you go to DCS then? I mean, it's been very clear all along that DCS is a sandbox sim. I like Arma, so I play Arma. I don't play the new OFP games and complain that they are OFP instead of Arma. Sorry, but why are people complaining about this? It's like painting your bedroom blue, and complaining that it doesn't look green enough. So why did you paint it blue then? Just like how blue isn't the only colour to pick, DCS isn't the only flight sim. If you throw up because the P-51D has a great flight model, but the radio comms and the trucks you're strafing aren't WW2 era, play another sim already.

No, not the OP or the guy I responded to.

No. DCS should be DCS, ergo, well, read the link. It seems like everyone who's complaining about the diversity of DCS have ignored reading what DCS is, because they complain about one of the selling points. Just because you don't enjoy one of the corner stones of DCS doesn't mean others don't. Stop complaining, DCS is based on diversity.

That sounds like a business idea... COPYRIGHT

Well, just about half the people who posted there went ahead and called me an idiot, either outright or very badly disguised when I said it was nothing else than irresponsible rumours and nonsense to write that an A-10C level F-15C was about to be released shortly, so at least one or two persons appear to have believed that. Note: Not provoking people, that is solely directed at those who were claiming that an A-10C level F-15C, and nothing less, was about to be released as surely as the sun rises in the East. No one else.

What is DCS? Why do people find it so hard to read something irrelevant such as say, the product description before they complain about DCS not being narrowed down to a single era and part of the world?

You see that sticky thread, reading announcement in capital letters? Maybe worth reading it.

Well, if you don't mind... hint hint. I'm not exactly sure which mod was causing the orange error skin, I just used the same ones I used in 1.2.7. One for stopping slicks from going Olive Drab regardless of chosen skin, one for gauges, and one with additional skins. Had to remove them and am to tired and/or otherwise occupied to feel like sitting down and trying out what works and what doesn't.

Maybe, but if it's not too much to ask for, I'd rather BST does it, so I won't have to wait for a mod to be updated every time there's a patch. It's enough of a pain in the behind that skins don't work in the 1.2.8 beta.

What about grease pen marks on the windshield marking point blank aimpoints for Minigun and rockets when you go with an armed version? It'd be very realistic, add a nice touch, and be really useful.

Lighter. With a full fuel load, you don't even reach 90% IIRC. Can't have anything, not even smoke, but dang, it's great fun to fly. Light like crazy, and no big gunsight in the way, and no big seat either, so it's got great visibility.

Yeah, but much more recent. I'll see if I can find it. Mentioned that it's under development in this film: Think it was mentioned from official sources later as well.

Yeah, blank please. I understand that the swastika is censured for very good reasons in many countries, no objections. But in choosing between a square and nothing, I'd rather take nothing.

Disagree. If the Pucara air to air kill had been against a Harrier, that'd have been impressive. But it was against a helo on a MEDEVAC mission. Not impressive, but rather of very questionable legality. Neither can I say that an A-10 taking down an Mi-8 is terribly impressive. It's well within the capabilities that you'd expect of both the AC and the pilot. Very much doubt it was ever employed for maritime warfare. Proper AC could get there from the mainland, and the armaments of the Pucara would be hard pressed to cause casualties on the deck crews, not to mention the non existing chances of actually penetrating the armour of any ship present. Or penetrating past the CAP and AA to get to the ships for that matter. I mean, this is the plane that would attack enemies on the ground, and be far more likely to get shot down by them than to actually kill or wound any of them (there is not one recorded British casualty due to a Pucara air to ground strike).

Can't get it working. Not by pressing the autopilot button, switching to copilot and using the flex sight (which isn't responding to TIR btw), nor by switching to a door gunner seat.