Scrim

Yep, the derp is still strong with this one. The actual question is, how much would they just have to guestimate about the latest versions? And no, a few manuals isn't enough to make an even half decent module. But then again, common sense is not common here. For example, your answer to the question "when will the AH-1G be released" was a rant about it.

What? No one ever said they went with the G version due to a lack of documentation. Again, what?

So, a question regarding the module: Will there be an English text version cockpit? As much as I'm looking forward to playing around with the Mig-21, there's just no way that I'm going to learn Russian in order to understand what I'm doing.

For what? Syntax: The Kiowa was on ED's or Belsimtek's to do list recently published IIRC.

Air to air missiles, now cannons on fighters are obsolete. Drones, now manned flights are obsolete. Etc...

If Belsimtek fails to live up to what you "need", then don't buy the AH-1G, aight?

I agree that some more updates would be desirable. It doesn't have to be "we've finished X and Y, now we're doing Z", but just small things to let us know they're actually still alive. Right now I can honestly not say that I think any other 3rd party devs other than Belsimtek, RRG and the guys making the Hawk are actually still developing anything for DCS.

Are you talking about IRL, or in DCS? Would be great to have someone with actual experience say something about that, like with the rocket recoil.

What F-15? You mean the F-18? I've read of both, but the F-15 really doesn't seem to have made much progress. As for the question, Soon TM.

So, limit the Beta access to a minority of the community, based solely on when they bought one of the modules, and disregard the fact that since then many more have started playing the game who are just as dedicated to DCS? Yeah, for some reason the "let's give the old breed a treat" doesn't sound very nice to me and most others, who didn't buy the A-10C in Beta.

There's not been a sound from the developers that things are back on track, so it's foolish to act like they are.

Do you truly not comprehend the difference between "privacy" and "censorship"? The latter insinuates that there is something that you have a right to know. In this case, you have no right to know anything. For the developers to drop all demands for privacy and make public something that is so infected that they have halted all production just so that a bunch of people who's primary interest is the release of the module and not the resolution of the conflict (it's only natural, why would people not involved in the conflict put it above more modules? We want it resolved, but only because it's in the way of more modules) would only turn it into a forum popularity contest about who's right, and most likely piss off the developers even more at each other.

Can we go ahead and drop the faux philosophical "you know, if you'd tell us EVERYTHING, it'd work out fantastic" arguments? We all know it's nothing but thinly veiled requests for the developers to tell you everything, and acting like airing your dirty laundry in public is a good thing won't exactly make a release any more likely.

Yeah, for some reason I don't think throwing money at them will solve the problem. What's there to get worked up about? That the MiG-21 may not be released? Yes, something to get worked up about. What the team is doing to get past their issues? No, there is nothing for us to do there.

Disabling TrackIR aiming works now, at least in the 1.2.7 version. Only issue is that if you disable it, your only option to aim with the flex sight and door guns is assigning buttons to push, as there is no axis to aim the flex and door guns.

Dirt?

The middle 2 slots, it lets you pick M60 or M134 door guns.

DCS is a flight sim, so the main focus is to produce as realistic modules as possible, not to provide modules of planes that are balanced against each other. Doing that wouldn't do anything else than narrow down the market, as we'd just end up with things from the same small eras, as opposed an even small amount of planes and helicopters from different time periods. ED and all the 3rd party developers do indeed stick with the genre; They are producing modules for a pure, very realistic flight sim, not an MP game where the simulation aspect goes in the backseat. That's the beauty of DCS, it's not tied down to any specific era or conflict. If it had been, I doubt it'd have been alive today, seeing as how the competition is very large, and contains much more. I, and I suspect most others, love DCS because of this. One day I can sit in a state of the art A-10C, dropping laser guided bombs on enemy tanks from thousands of meters up in the sky, the other day I can go low and dirty with 2 bombs and 6 .50 cals on a P-51D, or the flex guns and rockets on a Huey. That's the spirit and selling point of DCS.

I can't say anything about the X52 Pro, but until recently I was using the X52. It didn't cost terribly much, and generally it was quite good, but after quite little use the center movements of the stick just stopped registering. It had a sort of dead circle in the middle, where you could just push the stick and get zero response. I also noticed that the resistance along more well used axis' would provide less and less resistance quite soon as well. Ever since I bought the Thrustmaster Warthog stick I've never really looked back. The one thing that I miss from my X52 is the slider that was conveniently placed on the top of the throttle, which I used for zoom. The TM throttle has no slider placed like that, due to being a replica of a real throttle.

Eh? If the laser guided ones don't have a camera, I DGAF, because I'd be using the TGP to look for the target and designate it. But yes, Mavericks can, as long as you look at the screen, seeing as how they have a camera.

I know, but I sort of reckoned that it had to be independent back when the A-10 was designed due to the lack of the current sensors. Now though, I feel it'd make sense to integrate it into the modern systems. Know about ground stabilize, but that breaks every time I move the aim again. What's Force Correlate Mode, and how do I activate it?

There's Mavericks that don't require using the TGP, slaving the Maverick, turning on autopilot and cursing at the Maverick until it finally locks on, at which point you're about half a meter away from the target? I WANTZZZZZ!

What I'm wondering is slightly OT, but why has nothing been done to upgrade the Mavericks with the C version? I just feel that they're a pain in the ass to use compared to any other weapon, with no continuous ground lock or such. Only being able to get a ground lock when not moving it around doesn't really help.

Serial #: 17742. Location: Gothenburg, Sweden.

No. The Huey autopilot is there to substitute a proper copilot, and being an airframe built with at least two people manning it, it's needed. The P-51 has no copilot, nor is it that hard to just sit down and get acquainted with all switches and buttons on the ground so that you know where they are once you're in the air. If you do find that you need to look around for something mid flight, trim the plane so that it flies straight enough.