MiG21bisFishbedL

I'm skeptical, to say the least, but anything to make DCS more accessible while not compromising on fidelity and depth is definitely worth discussion at the very least.

Hard yes.

I actively recommend against buying either, just because they're without peers and have so many longstanding and unaddressed issues. They are not worth a purchase.

It absolutely does. It isn't perfect, but it's a temporary fix. 1. Put down a MiG-21 and name it. Let's use 'Fishbed' as the name. 2. Under the 'Triggers' box, make a new one. Set it to 'MISSION START" for event. 3. Under the 'Actions' box, make a new one, Set it to "DO SCRIPT' 4. Put this in the DO SCRIPT text box below the 'Actions' box: trigger.action.setUnitInternalCargo('Fishbed', 1600) This adds an additional 1600kg of weight to the Fishbed. I've seen most recommend 2000, but I find that really makes the Fishbed lazy. Play with it to ascertain your own preference, but the sweet spot is between 1600kg and 2000kg. You'll have to do this for every Fishbed in a mission, but it beats trying to fight the communist Magic School Bus.

To be the stick in the mud, but how would we execute that? DCS' lacks ranking, things to award, etc. This almost seems like it'd be something the community or communities within DCS would have to push. Which, frankly, I think would work. If done right, of course. The typical youtube click farming how-to crafters would not be a good fit for that.

I'm tempted to fly out and get pictures of the section in Topeka.

I had flashbacks to the overly bloated adminmods on any Half-Life game server.

I kind of wished that you didn't. That's so damn bizarre! I'm curious to know what was causing that.

Same, I'm seeing higher temps, as well. I also have a throttle limit set in my bios at about ~95C or so. I'm not too concerned, but I would like it to be looked at for sure.

Considering that 30% goes into the support of Steamworks (which picked up the slack for many games when Gamespy went down years ago, free of charge), development of the software that makes it infinitely superior to any comparable service, expansion of features, the advent of new tech both in terms of software AND hardware, as well as excellent customer support and protections, and many other features? No. No, it is not 'scummy.' Not by a long shot. The only reason it became a talking point is because Tim Sweeney, noted scumbag, planted that line in an effort to gather support for Epic's own vastly inferior platform at a time when it was even more barebones than it is today. This is perfectly demonstrable when you compare the fates of the 1998 releases of Half-Life and Unreal. You can still purchase Half-Life without issue. It saw a switch from World Opponents Network to Steamworks fully in the mid 00's, has been updated to function with modern monitors, and STILL receives software updates from time to time to fix issues. Unreal has to be acquired through a fan site now as Epic has delisted them from sale. Any updates have to come from enthusiasts taking their time out from their days to develop them. EVERYTHING has to be done by the community. I guess it's cool Epic gave oldUnreal the blessing to distribute the ISOs, though?

A Pre-IOC Panther would be disastrous. If we're expecting a production F-35 and we get something like AF-01? That's like asking for a ribeye and then getting eye of round. Yeah, it's identifiable as a steak, but is it the steak you wanted?

I hear you out and, frankly, good taste. If we had the recon versions, that'd lengthen the window of time even further. I wrote something about it not too long ago that put it all the way into the 80s for EU operators. That'd be awesome. But.. hear me out: https://www.fairchild.af.mil/News/Features/Display/Article/763107/the-lost-mission-fairchilds-bombers-and-the-ficon-project/ Yeah. For max insanity.

It should still work for sometime to come, but like with Windows 7? The end will arrive. That said, by the time it does? We're looking at 2-3 years minimum. There's a good chance you'll be seeking a new system out, anyways.

Costs are a big part of it. When fighting an insurgency, which is the mission Skyraider II is intended to, the game is cost effectiveness. Why waste oceans of fuel and a Maverick to hit an insurgent compound when you can sip fuel and do the same job with a well placed APKWS? This is for an environment without almost any ground to air threats. It also uses the P&W PT-6A, which everyone and their mother operates. In addition, it enjoys a huge level of part commonality with a sizable fleet of aircraft that's already been operating since the 1990s. Another reason is that Air Tractors can operate from any strip. I've flown civvie Air Tractors and they're as rugged as it gets. They're also responsive and fun to fly. And one more huge benefit is the loiter time. It's up there at near 8+ hours or so. So basically, this is what you want on call if you're a SEAL team infiltrating an area hostile non-state actors are holding. This is not something you want to blunt a Russian push into Germany with, but something you're going to cover special forces extracting with a VIP.

The US ANG Vipers in question were the F-16A Blk. 15 designated "ADF" That part of the program changed relatively quickly. Even before the first As and Bs entered IOC, a lot of those working on the program noted that the aircraft would benefit greatly from the BVR capability. Soon after the F-16 first started arriving at units, it became clear it needed that capability. So much so that you can basically assume that any Block 10 and onward are AMRAAM capable owing to their strengthened wing construction. The F-16 was one of three airframes the AMRAAM was tested on, even. It just didn't achieve IOC on the Viper until January of '92. In fact, the AIM-120 didn't even achieve its first IOC until September of '91 on the F-15. This has more to do with the AMRAAM, though, as it encountered delays throughout the 80s. I imagine the reason only a few Vipers got Sparrows was because this fighter was supposed to be the combat backbone of TAC; It probably seemed like large waste of time, money, and resources to mount the downright ancient Sparrows on their new tactical fighter when the AMRAAM was lighter, superior, and was not too far away.

Pucker factor of ten.

Insta-buy for me.

The Apache also had some performance issues, as well. But, those got ironed out in a reasonable time frame. I expect the same will happen to the CH-47, but it's surprising to see it take so long.

You have stared into oblivion. It has stared back.

I always go with 'no news is good news' especially in the wake of the theatrics that lead up to the F-4 and F-15 the two previous years. Besides, 2024 didn't heat up until May, in that regard. Back end improvements don't receive fanfare like a module release does.

This would be really nice to simulate UN Peacekeeping operations.

100%. Given the outstanding issues ED has to address, it really doesn't need to be creating more issues. The good will that would be created if they just listened here seems like an easy W.

Well, at least the three people entering will be happy.

Frankly, I don't suspect we'll get much more than the "project managers have the best view" but I do not blame a single livery maker for stopping. This is utterly ridiculous. Whoever decided this was the way forward was objectively wrong and the solution? Just reverse on it. This'd better not become a pre-cursor to skin monetization. That's when I stop buying anything ED related or adjacent.

Not so much defined attempts as it was ED telling us that the Russian MoD didn't want to play ball. They've sourced their important documentation from elsewhere.