Buzzles

You're definitely reading in to it too much. c0ff fixed a bug which only affected people messing around with core affinity. Details here. Or it was to fix this sound engine issue. That's all.

The 'start up' missions already do the highlight part. Mig-15 module also has a helper that does exactly what you ask. It's the only module that does atm.

A 'milestone' if we're talking technical aspects of planes we don't currently have could either be functioning side-by-side co-op (which is supposed to come to the Huey, so unlikely), multi-position aircraft (ie, not everyone is in the cockpit), or a new aircraft with player controlled 4 engines. I can't think of much more player related technical milestones that are linked to an aircraft. Unless it's a winch and SAR ops with a new helo.

Honestly, a clickable Mig-29 of any vintage will be a buy for me. It'd also be a fairly solid match up against the current crop of blu-for. Sure, it's not exactly better or even really on par, but it is not so far behind that it's gonna get eaten for breakfast.

Aside from the Mig-31 is a pure intercepter and it can't dogfight with any of the current blu-for aircraft anyway (so it's not truly "balanced" if that's what you care about), as others have said: the issue here is you're on servers that don't restrict the weapons.

I recall the same, so I'd say your memory is correct, both on the rename and the response from Razbam about it.

The past couple of days have seen updates to the DCS updater. The updater updates itself first, then tries to update DCS, which atm there's no new update for, hence the message. It shouldn't happen any more.

Oh, I concur. 8 hour cargo runs would be tedious. Good thing we don't have the maps for that. However, combat drops, paratroop missions, slightly unrealistic but feasible cargo runs through/edging danger zones to friendly fields/locations etc... All totally doable on current maps and potentially fun. Tying it into multi, like the RvB servers, and have it actively influence the warehouse system currently available in DCS would definitely result in people having to fly transports through combat zones.

Seconding other people: This. Is. Not. News. There's even a couple of screen shots from about a decade ago with an (now) old model if you dig around. We've always know they were doing one and had it on the backburner.

Correction: Sith/Nineline said he assumed Chizh was speaking about the Su-27 specifically. It was not an official statement saying it was only about the Su-27. However, reading what Chizh wrote, I figured it was pretty clear he was being more generic about Rusfor aircraft in general. Better to assume they can't do it and be pleasantly surprised if they can, than to get people's hopes and expectations up with guesses and rumors.

Does anyone know the impact force required to cause a detonation of the round? Just thinking with ED's more in depth modelling, some shells might simply not explode if they miss anything substantial in the airframe.

If someone makes a DC-3/C-47 official module, I will definitely buy it. Other cargo/transport aircraft would depend if I find that particular one interesting.

Backface culling is thing. Stuff that isn't being rendered won't impact FPS in a noticable way.

What are you still arguing for Baz? ED have acknowledged it's out of wack when you land out of parameters and are going to look at it. Beating a dead horse at this point. Wait until we get a fix.

If the version of the F-15 we're getting is circa Desert Storm, and not a 2010 version, then as people have pointed out it can't ever have a digitial UFC, making this poll pointless :huh:

The auto tracking inside the targetting box isn't the issue. Occasionally the shkval just goes wonky and will just go to the left or right until it stops. It's not tracking. Literally just goes to one extreme and then stops.

Did you check it's still set in the control menu? You've not mentioned if you did that or reset the controls there. Also, try deleting the Yak-52's user controls to reset it (specifcally keyboard diff files): C:\Users\[username]\Saved Games\DCS\Config\Input\Yak-52\keyboard FWIW, a skin won't affect this. So something else has gone wrong.

Nope, long term bug.

In before the mods wake up and hit this thread with a 1.15 violation :lol:

The little bit of right stick is the normal method, and how you should do it. Alternatively, keep the stick centered, and when you get the tail up apply slight forward pressure to keep the 109 on the ground (two wheels) for about 5-10 secs past the point where it'd normally want to take off on its own. You'll pick up enough extra speed that when you ease it off ground, the wing drop is less apparent. Trade off is more time on the rudder to keep running straight on the ground. The key is exactly what Shagrat says though, ease it off and don't pull back.

I can't do AAR. I've never tried. That doesn't mean I want an aid when I try to learn. The internet adage of 'git gud' does apply in this case though. It's a simulator after all.

ED staff have mentioned it's on the cards and are building up to it. They've been slowly making changes for all the prop birds regarding engine modeling, next thing up will be the flyable Mosquito with 2x prop engines for us to play with. I'd imagine it'd be the next core feature for engines after that.

It's a shaky argument to stand on though, if you're going to stretch it to equipment upgrades. It might have been modelled in 2013/2014, but there's a potentially a vast difference between an airframe than came off active duty a couple of years earlier vs one that came off 25+ years ago and has been in a hanger/museum ever since. As no-one apart from LN know exactly which airframe it is, it's a fair bit of assumption and speculation happening as to what the particular history is.

Is there a chance? Not really, no.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, the fuel gauge in the Mig-21 isn't a normal fuel gauge. It's not checking levels in the tanks. It's a "starting value - fuel flow" gauge. Hence why you set it with a knob.