Buzzles

So, lemme get this straight, you've been reading for years but not actively contributing, and now come along to preach to the "community" about how they should act and respond? You've had all those years you've been reading to jump in and start being the change you want to see. To guide people and discussions, to correct and to teach, but you did not. Instead you'd rather just decry "the community"at large but still distance yourself, not get involved and not try and improve it? G'luck on that high horse of yours.

Are you directly removing them from the /mods folder on your pc? Try removing them from the Modules page within DCS first. You'll probably finding DCS thinks you should have them (did you install them during free trial?) and as they're enabled it's prompting you to install.

No, it's doable to have specific terrain kneeboards. Example here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=209730 I haven't tested if it's possible from SavedGames though, probably going by the specific ref to the kneeboard folder in the Caucasus terrain.cfg.lua and the new structure. Prolly need to replicate as 'SavedGames/Mods/terrain/[terrainname]/kneeboard/' if it follows the usual savedgames overrides.

Yeah, that's definitely not how it works. Also no.

The authors are completely free to contact ED and offer their work to them. It's happened before, normally with skins.

I already know all of that, but you've also reinforced my point by pointing out you need both, data and SME's. I totally acknowledge they'll be no way to for us verify it, but even then I'm not letting my wishes for a new cool aircraft outweigh my skepticism over its accuracy. No-one wants fantasy modules, right? So again, re-read my actual question, as I was asking for confirmation they have access to the correct data, considering by their own admissions, said data is classified. I am not asking for access, to be doubly clear.

Oh, I get that. I don't doubt their personal experience in flying it. But personal experience begets bias, and also the simple human factor of misremembering or simply not being accurate with our senses. There's enough posts on the other dev sections quoting a pilot saying one thing, another pilot saying another, charts say something inbetween etc... and other various other similar things. The amount of posts on this forum that get shut down with "show the hard data please" as responses to posts that have started with "I feel the FM is wrong doing x" is telling as to why people aren't the source of truth, so I'm suprised you lot, especially two long term posters, are fine with TrueGrit potentially doing it on feel. If they have access to the data, great, there's not a problem. That's the question I was asking.

It's definitely not doing nothing when you consider the cost of actually running the platform too. Serving the hundreds of millions of users isn't cheap or easy.

So you'll be making it up then? Or is that a "they're classified but we do have access, just obviously can't share"?

The argument they're hinging on is trying to prove that Apple's/Google's platform == an open public market, and therefore they're facing unfair barriers to entry. I think they'll struggle though, for the same reasons zhukov032186 states: it's a private platform. Just to clarifiy though, Epic got themselves kicked off Google, as they broke the TOS by putting their own direct purchases into the app. They knew it was against TOS, but went ahead anyway. It was a planned move. Lawsuits don't appear overnight. The lawsuit is really all about the fact they want to cut out the 30% "scalping" and have all the microtransaction money for themselves. It's pure greed. I hope Google and Apple actually disable the apps on people's phones with a message "disabled due to pending legal action", as that'll hurt Epic more. Either way, this thread'll prolly get 1.15'd.

Gonna call it now: after years of threads, threats, hints and half truths, they've finally done the best aircraft in the world, the AirTractor: (old forum joke for those not aware)

Yes, ED have said and have slowly been fixing up old models. Yes for point two, they also accept model donations if it's up to standard (and you can prove it's yours).

There should be a couple of stickies for the plane wish lists tbh, as they're the most frequent ones. Would require the mods to put effort in to merging threads into them/locking though.

Not really. No sense spending all the money and dev effort reinventing the wheel if it's available to use right now. If anything, as Jester uses ED's API anyway, it's a vested interest to use on an inhouse module to ensure if they make changes to said API, Jester still works.

If that was true, how are you posting on an internet forum, whose servers are hosted in Russia? Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Cross_Cable and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasman_Global_Access 2 main comms cables, going to USA and Aus, through which your internet connects to the world

That's a non-argument though, considering for a simple AI entry its basically: Chassis lua file in the database/chassis Vehicle lua definition file in database/vehicle/ifv New 3d model Updated entries in other lua dictionaries, namely db_units_cars.lua Not denying it's work, but it's a 3d model and some small lua entries. It's not even a new unit type, at abstract level it's no different from the Humvee that's already there. It's really not too much to ask for.

I genuinely don't understand why it's apparently so difficult for ED to add a Technical, considering all the other assets they've added over time and the fact the Insurgent faction has been in DCS effectively forever, as it would give mission builders a nice little boost. It's been requested for years. Unless ED are planning some dynamic system to give variety, I really don't get it.

Just on this, ED have said in the past (and it's backupable by searching), there's a veritable treasure trove of data on the German war birds knocking around, mostly down to the fact they were captured and documented extensively during and post WWII, and that info was kept. Allies' own planes...not so much. A good chunk of P47 data was destroyed in the 1987 when the Republic's corporate archives were destroyed, that's documented, handily there's enough of it left around + flying examples that ED could work around it with CFD. The Mossie is a great example of docs not being kept properly for Allied planes: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/06/discovery-lost-ww2-mosquito-plans-will-allow-wooden-wonder-fly/ That collection may be the only complete set.

G for sure, most common. Although I'd not complain at -C, mostly for Vietnam usage.

Regarding the comments on learner aircraft to fill the gaps: I'd be down for ED giving out the L-39C for free tbh. I bought the module for the ZA and 99% of the time, pick it over the -C. So if the -C was dropped to free, but the ZA stayed as a paid module...I've lost nothing really, and it's an old module now and sofar ED's only dip into 2 flyables per module. That also said, I don't think the Su-25T serves its purpose as the 'FC-style' plane as part of the free set anymore, and imo any and all free planes should showcase what DCS's is really about: clicky pits (and the associated systems!), so either the Su-25T should get a full blown clicky-pit upgrade or be replaced by something that is. Regarding the Hawk T2 as a general separate module...sure. It's a popular aircraft IRL, and there's currently no glass cockpit trainer aircraft in DCS, so it has a niche to fill. Can't say it'd be top of my list though. I'd imagine the newest T-45C would get better traction though as an intro into carrier ops (as that's ED's other passion project) plus it's also a glass cockpit trainer.

I agree with zhukov032186, performance benefits between nvme and sata are not important for DCS which does the vast majority of loading from disk into memory during mission load, and basically does 0 writing. Sure, nvme might shave a little bit of time off the initial load, but we're not talking much. For perf, if you're on 16gb of RAM, you'll get a boost going to 32gb and that's where you should spend your money. Obviously doesn't apply to OP as he's already on 32. Now, *IF* DCS ever starts streaming terrain data from disk rather than loading it all in at mission load, then you'd maybe see some benefit, but that'd depend on pre-load radius, and then you'd only notice if you were going extremely fast or rapidly switching locations (f2 to friendly/enemies) and that data hadn't been pre-loaded.

Look at the date that video was added to YT. It's as old as a the hills. It was just Dolphin doing an experiment.

They did state by the _end_ of 2020. Not defending it being broken, but pitchforks should be saved until mid-December at the earliest.

Hopefully that'll come with the new DM, or be an easy addition to it.

On the flip side, while the -A engines are under-powered at SL, when fast (and I think up high too, might be wrong on that), they'll actually take the -A to a higher top speed than the -B. It's just a different thrust profile, ignoring the other issues. The engine gods giveth and the engine god taketh.