MethWolf

No; its pretty clear he means that you won't have to own it to host a server running it. You will have to own it to join a server running it, unless something changes.

So are you planning on restricting servers with CA to only players that have purchased CA? If not, what differentiates CA from the Nimitz, either from a user or business standpoint?

This is exactly it; I'm participating in this discussion because I want this for free but because I do want to pay for and use it. And there's no way I will, nor anyone I fly with, if it gets implemented in this way.

Arguing that the reason for this is "immersion" , then admitting that the real reason is "we think this will get us the most cash" after several others point out how nonsensical the "this inhibits trolls" argument is, sounds like a textbook case of a bad faith argument to me. I think you are incorrect that this is the best way to make money on this module, but you saying so isn't condescending or disingenuous the way that telling me that this is the way to protect module owners from "trolls" is.

This makes your previous "scenarios" comment seem in bad-faith.

This is the most obvious solution beyond just considering it included in the $80 price tag of a carrier plane: carrier doesn't respond to you on comms and you can't catch wires or hook up the cat. Shame all of this work on a carrier ops is gonna go to waste when nobody buys it.

Pretty much this; DCS is really unstable to play online, even on small group coop stuff. As much as I'd love to see the big servers work well, I'd be a pretty happy camper if i could play with my friends.

autistic

You didn't have to hazard a guess, though.

There are afterburner effects, just not the ones you get on the player aircraft. If they are missing on your computer than there is something wrong in your dcs install, but it looks like they are there from your screenshots. They are just much fainter than what you're looking for. Like Cobra said, they are the same fx on all the ai aircraft. I made a screenshot comparing the fx at night on an ai ajs-37 (i don't own the viggen yet) and the ai f-16. When i was writing this post i thought about it and went ahead and added an ai mig-21, which is an aircraft i do own and is activated. As you can see, they are all the same effect and none of them are the fancy looking stuff you see in screenshots of player craft. I don't think changing this is high priority for any of the devs right now. It might be an awful lot of work for something that isn't broken, but who knows.

thanks for posting thanks

or you don't understand: he gave reasons why a mig-23 might be an attractive model to develop for. These speculation threads aren't really any more useful than the wishlist threads. And, for the record, if it was based on facts it wouldn't be speculation.

You getting angry at a two year old post written by a guy who was banned a year ago, chill out.

New maps only require 2.0, which has a built-in map browser and the like. They wouldn't have to release a new branch for every map, 3rd party or not. That said, afaik no third parties have indicated that they'll be putting a map out before 2.5 anyways. Normandy/Straight of Hormuz won't be issues to release before then to 2.0

to back that up... https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2937728&postcount=2093

I'm confused- do you mean, a module that you can play as ground support, or one that adds ai ground crew? if its the latter, what happens on servers with players that are a mix of haves/don't haves? If you have to have this to join a server that allows it, my answer is a resounding "no" what exactly is changed? we haven't seen what ground crew does/can do yet, and so this also would color my answer pretty seriously.

L-39 guys: how does control hand-off work? are both players joysticks somehow active? or is there a button to determine who gets the controls? Whether or not its worth it to buy the L-39 to train with someone isn't the topic of this thread. People will decide on their own whether or not its worth it to buy for this purpose.

did you guys post it to the bugtracker, or are you just posting it here because you didn't read the OP

This is certainly possible with a little bit of LUA or joystick scripting on all aircraft, and many aircraft have this built in already. Exactly what are you trying to do? Which airplane?

First of all, the F-84 isn't a trainer; it was a fighter bomber that served with over 80,000 sorties in the korean war. as for It's a historically significant aircraft that would mesh well with our two current korean war era fighters. It was produced in the thousands, is fully declassified. There are at least airworthy survivors of the thunderstreak available, if not the thunderjet. Plenty of non-airworthy examples available in museums. Finally, simple in concept certainly does mean simpler in execution, at least for DCS modules- this is why we have so many simpler aircraft and so few fourth generation multirole fighters. It's a lot easier to program a trainer or a mustang than it is to program an F/A-18. I'm not really clamoring for an F-84 (or more korean war aircraft until we get a stable of AI ground and air units, a map, and better smart scaling) but it's the wishlist forum, the least you guys could do is find some a legitimate reason to be a dick to this guy for wishlisting an aircraft.

idgi

People obviously like them and they aren't detrimental to when they are in the proper (wishlist) forum. No need to delete, ban, or katamari.

I agree these don't belong in 3rd party forums. Discussion about what we want is fine, but "x dev make y" is getting annoying, especially when people seem to be confused as to which dev made what. Setting up a katamari is a good way to make any discussion impossible. You might as well delete them. But we already have a place we could move these threads... That said, does this thread really need to be in the Belsimtek forum? edit: and does this really need to be a fake poll? I think we should ban polls in general from the forum, they're useless even when they are set up well. edit edit: and it looks like the mods have already been moving this stuff there.

They have not announced that they are working on an F-16 and I would very much doubt that they are.

You can intercept antishipping and cruise missiles in DCS already with the current air-to-air missiles- they are like any other air target. They (typically) have a small RCS, but they don't evade and most of them aren't all that fast, so they are usually pretty easy to take down. You might actually be able to shoot down pretty much anything that flies, SAMs and AAMs included, provided its slow and close enough for your radar to detect. IR missiles def. pick up other missiles when the motor is burning.