Buzzles

I genuinely don't understand why it's been so heavily weathered. It's representing a WWII bird roughly as it was in service, so it'd probably look fairly fresh considering the planned lifespan of them in service. Unless of course, ED are going through with their redevelop plan and this is representing a post-war bird still due to its features, and they'll give a newer cockpit to the actual ETO WWII version.

Nukes are a bit pointless in DCS. They'll be always disabled on MP servers for obvious reasons, and even in SP, outside of the occasional novelty of the big boom, they offer nothing for missions as it's simply a fly over and drop mission. It's not exactly as if you need to hunt for a target and/or be precise.

If you're working on this module now, who is finishing off the M2000 and Harrier? I thought Overstratos' team was supposed to be a seperate team for the -19 and -23?

If you go searching, you'll find a dev post saying a manual makes up only a fraction of the data the devs need to build a module. There's likely to be more info on the F-105 around though, simply as it's newer than the P-47. Anyway, people have been asking for years for a F-105: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=164571&highlight=f-105 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=164572&highlight=f-105 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=207067&highlight=f-105 It's not happened yet, so I'd imagine none of the current 3rd parties are interested.

I mean, sure, it'll certainly look that way unless you've bothered to look for the last dev post only a couple of weeks ago: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3596125&postcount=12

Where's the option for "Neither: Hold off on making new stuff and improve/add-to the M2000 and Harrier modules" ?

Didn't need to look past the title image to know it was an Airforceproud95 video. :thumbsup:

So, Heatblur are doing an AI A-6E to come out just after the F-14 (hopefully this year) and pending license agreements they want to make it a full module too. I assume this now means a Highlander-esque fight to the death between Prowler and Cobra is going to occur? :P

I like how it's still marked "No Bug" when Akatsuki's picture shows there's a problem for some people and clearly refutes Sith's picture. If people are seeing it as bad as that, it probably does need looking into.

It's a UTG, it's a two seat trainer. I'd rather actually have a full fidelity single seat Su-25 of some type if any Su-25 work was to be done.

Mossie data? Definitely not lost. Last year some enterprising chaps found a full suite of factory drawings for it.

I can't speak for msalama, but for me it's full modules or nothing. Even though I do want to play with the Su-27 (and -25 for that matter *hint*) I'm waiting on you guys to bring out a full ASM Su-27 :) Same applies to the Mossie, I'm very interested in it as an airplane, but if it only comes in SSM flavour I will not buy it.

I'd imagine visually the standard of models and textures would need to be on par with the new ones ED are adding (In Dev screen shot gallery is a good start place).

In the DCS Huey, you can* start up, not turn on the generator, go for a long fly, land, shutdown, and then fail to restart due to a dischared battery. Is it a necessity? Of course not. But it is nice to have and a showcase for the systems modelling for a module. You can also do similar in the P51D and Mi8 iirc. *(well, could at one point, not tested in years)

With all due respect Sith, while I don't disagree with that reasoning if it's going fast, the video shows the aircraft doing a large slide at around ~taxi speed at 0:15->0:20. Does that seem right to you?

Definitely an issue with your install or your hardware. Have checked for double bindings in controls as a first step? But honestly, phantom keypresses are normally failing hardware, do you have another keyboard to test with?

Still commenting? This topic is now over. M3 are adding a clean screen: http://leatherneck-sim.com/summer-2018-update/

Definite no for me. Lots of other more interesting aircraft that should come before this imo. Edit: @Razbam: what's the thought process behind this looking at this aircraft as a potential one to develop?

:lol: As if something like this would change ED's plans, based on a few vocal people's whims.

As you're building a new 3d model for the -S, I take it you've now finished the model for the -P?

Sith, I know you mentioned it in the post, but I think you'll still need add the following in big red letters: "This is not a guarantee or a cast iron promise. Patch days will be missed/postponed as and when needed by the team" otherwise I can forsee "where's the patch! the sticky said every other week!11!! rage rage rage" threads in the future.

In case anyone is wondering thanks to the non existant title or description (yay for great bug reports!), it's a damage model issue, the video is showing a Viggen flying normally, firing missiles etc... with one entire wing missing.

Yes. DCS is currently still primarily CPU focused, so CPU first. I'm in process of swapping from an FX-8350 to a Ryzen 2 2700x, so I'll warn you that RAM prices at the moment are extremely high.

Against AI, yes. They use a different flight model and well...cheat. I'd suggest braving the WWII online servers and go against players.

Guys, it'll be fine. F-16 was first shown as WIP in what, 2011? 2012? Then postponed. Fast forward 5 years and it's in active development again. While I'd personally prefer the F-4 first, I'd imagine that the F-16 is going to be a fairly quick* module to develop due to all the work they've done for the F/A-18. *ie, ~ 2 years, not 5+.