71st_AH Rob

Excellent! Yes, the decals would be perfect, no idea why they scrapped it, maybe we can petition them to bring it back.

I tried giving each a/c a parking spot and the FPS went from 1 or 2 to 5 or 6. Also I noticed the it was taking about five seconds for the in mission clock to advance one second. After assigning spots, the clock would advance randomly 2 or 3 seconds at a time. It took about 2 and a half minutes to advance 30 seconds.

Jocko, Love them! Can't wait to see the rest! One tiny request, can we get a generic squadron skin as well that has non- historical placement of the Roundels so we can use the dynamic S/N? Oh, and maybe the tail flash up so the Same/N can appear on the tail as well? Cheers

Looking great!

How about removing them from the warehouse instead?

No, catch me on TS and we can go over it

yes, OB, have not bothered with release for a while

This was fixed quite some time ago

I tried this back in 2.2 with AI aircraft only, I did consider trying the SU-33 but gave up after not getting the AI to work. I thought I read that for the new carrier the alt was 40' ASL for landing. If 0 works no problem. I am working on a mission now but did not get around to the carrier operations last night. Will test tonight I hope. Can this work for multiple carriers?

Nice. I tried this and failed using the Vinson with different variations on the name and random ID that appear after the active aerodromes for the theatre but never tried 100. I even tried the unit name since in the selection screen in multiplayer you see the unit name given in the editor as the airfield name. Only thing I would question is how does the elevation work if you set it to 40'? I will try to set up a mission this evening using this, thanks

Care to share the details?

This should be no surprise as this is the way ALL new releases work in DCS (except for the Spitfire MK IX). New maps and modules are always released to the Open Beta first for testing and then one or two weeks later after any major bugs are found, the release version is updated and the new module or map is also released on the release version. There is now concrete rule on how long this takes, it is dependent on what bugs they find and how bad they are.

Or ED's F/A-18C forum.

Working fine in multiplayer

Edit the warehouse to restrict the weapons that you don't want available on the carrier.

Open with winZip and open the mission file with Notepad++

Nice work!

+1 and normally the updates that are released in the OB one week are only a couple of weeks ahead of being released on the Release version, then they are synced up again for a while.

No it doesn't, according to ED we only make up an insignificant percentage of players.

But the Mirage 50 never fought in the Falkland Islands campaign...

This sounds like the worst decision since the WWII Assets Pack. Will the server owner/mission builder be able to prevent these from being used? Right now by mission design I can keep the player F-15C out of my mission easily and only have it AI but if they make a FC4 F/A-18C will I be able to ensure that only the Full Fidelity F/A-18C can be used in the mission I run on my server? That way we don't get two players flying the same a/c with different FM and SM etc.

That's too bad. It will be a real immersion breaker. I wish that they had left them as "Ship objects" instead of "static objects" so the mission designer can determine how they act in the mission environment. Hopefully like the trains we will be able to turn them off. I would see a campaign where your task is to interdict shipping to enforce a naval blockade that stops oil from moving through the straights as part of economic sanctions that escalates. For that we would need ship objects.

Yes, an admin can take action and not only is it almost impossible to troll with SRS, why would someone? Most of the worst trolls use TS and don't even own the game being used.

You have always been able to arm the B-17

I think that Rolluptito has hit the nail on the head. In my squadron of 38 active members, only four or five are still flying DCS and the majority have stated that they will not be coming back to DCS because of the communication. I can provide some specific examples when I get home but in general it has been statements along the line of "they are working on it and there will be news when there is something to report" only to find out later that they have not been working on it but have been working on something else that now takes precedence. Straight forward, honest transparent communication would go a long way to regain trust from the WWII community.