DimitryNZ

QUESTION 1, Would you buy an AV-8B Harrier Module A = I'm quite frugal, but this would be a definite pre-release purchase. QUESTION 2, How long do you honestly believe before the Harrier will be introduced? B = Likely sometime mid-next year IMHO, based off what I've seen with DCS modules over the years. QUESTION 3, Are you more excited for the AT-27 Tucano that is supposed to be released by the end of this year, or waiting some more time for the AV-8B? B = AV8B. I personally do not like trainers IMHO. Not that I doubt that the module will be good, I would rather have a unique VTOL with a strong armament. Question 4, Do you see the AV-8B having a place in DCS World? A = Yes, its ground attack armament and ability to land almost anywhere fits within DCS. Question 5, Do you really hope RAZBAAM will soon turn a large amount of its research and development into the highly complex AV-8B? A = Yes. Seen the amazing pics of it on facebook, although it would be great to hear some progress on the code itself and possibly an updated timeframe if possible.

Будет ли возможность оборудовать или использовать подвижный 12.7mm или 23mm турель для ми-24, в частности, для мульти-плеер? Извините, если мой русский не очень хорошо. Благодарю.

First off, apologies if this has been suggested a lot before. As you may already know, the F/A-18C is an impressive multirole aircraft that many western nations are presently using. The common F/A-18D (for those that don’t know, is the 2-seat F/A-18 with a pilot and a rear Weapon System Operator) would be a useful auxiliary for the upcoming F/A-18C for weapon and flight training missions for both land-based and carrier operations. In addition, a rear WSO would help lessen the load on the pilot for fast supersonic anti-ground/sea strike missions (which would be fun alongside the 2-seat air-to-air F-14A/B in the future). IIRC the F/A-18D has the same radar and for the most part avionic systems as the F/A-18C so I believe the aircraft would be a popular product/seller (which could be sold as a bundle and/or separately) while not requiring a completely new flight model, radar and avionics systems (with the exception of making it multi-seat of course). I welcome any thoughts on this suggestion. Thanks.

I guess it to be 756. Thanks for the giveaway and may the best psychic win :D

Thanks for the generosity of a giveaway at this time of year. Cheers and have a merry Christmas and a happy new year. DimitryNZ

F-86, thanks. It's great to see the community doing giveaways such as these. Goes to show how strong and connected the DCS community is over other genres/games.

Whilst it is still in service (mainly now in a few Middle Eastern and African nations), the current SU-24M2 variant (one of the main Russian variants still in use) has significantly different weapons and avionic systems. In addition, the aircraft is also being rapidly replaced by the recent SU-34. Then again, there are already many great modules that are and have weapons and avionics systems that are far more recent than the possible SU-24M that have been made for DCS (i.e. KA-50, A10C, SU25 etc), and with VAEO making the 30 years more modern Eurofighter Typhoon (although the impact of the current classifications is debatable), I can't see why the information should be so hard to come by.

True to an extent, but would the speculated/debated Viggen be a more realistic aircraft to come out then the SU-24M as they are both cold-war era aircraft with advanced systems.

In addition, the seating arrangement is side by side as opposed to the F14's front and rear arrangement. This is good as that means the pilot can watch (and interact with) the weapon systems operator's screens/systems and oversee their every single right and wrong move :smilewink:

These statements also largely fit for the SU-24M as well. I believe that the SU-24M would be better than the Viggen or Tornado IMHO. Why? The aircraft is late 60's (initial first flights) - early 70's era with its avionics, systems, sensors and armaments dating in the late 70's - early 80's period. This means that the aircraft, unlike aircraft such as the Tornado, shouldn't be as classified and thus would be more realistic due to the age and global use of this aircraft (as numerous developed and developing countries used/are using this aircraft). In addition, the variable wing 2-seat supersonic attack aircraft would fit in well in the Caucasus map (as countries such as Ukraine are still using it) and can undertake anti-ship, ground, air and radar missions. This aircraft would dominate attack/strike missions with the help and escort of the other 2-seat F14 air-to-air fighter.

Questions regarding the NTTR map resolution I amongst many others am excited to get my hands on the Nevada NTTR map along with DCS World 2. As the devs have aforementioned, the map will have varying polygon and texture resolution so to avoid frying our CPU/GPU's and not break the internet with a super high download size :D My question is, is there any plans/capability for a higher polygon and/or texture resolution in the future from ED when better hardware and space requirements become more mainstream. If not, is the map open for ground and object mesh/clipmap/polygon modding. I am aware that the current Caucasus map has several higher-than-normal-resolution texture mods but no base mesh mods (which I assume is an engine limitation???). If model/texture modding is possible I am tempted to work with a friend who currently resides in Los Vegas to help make a higher resolution mesh/textures mod in the future (in addition there's a tempting sale on some Titan Z's near where I live). TL;DR Is there any plans for a mesh/texture update for the NTTR map in the future when the average hardware is better? Also is the map open to ground/object texture and/or mesh modding? Thanks.

Would love to fly my way through NTTR in a Hawk or M200C. Nice giveaway and best of luck to everyone (including myself hehe).

Can you drag and drop steam DCS files to non-steam DCS? First off, apologies if this question has been asked before. I'm currently converting from steam DCS to non-steam DCS and I've seen that most people deactivate and uninstall modules from their steam DCS and then install the modules from the DCS store and reactivate them that way. My question is, is that entirely necessary? I tried copying the module files directly from the steam directory and then pasting them in my non-steam Eagle Dynamics folder and the modules seem to work fine. Am I doing anything wrong or is this a fine way of converting? Thanks.

The A-7 is a great attack aircraft, but I'd prefer an AV8B+ Harrier first as it can use the HARM, Maverick, Harpoon and AMRAAM missiles and do the same operations that the A-7 could, while also being S/VTOL :D

Running fresh new Windows 10, 64 bit, DX 12, latest drivers. Gotta be up to date!