Jetguy06

If you're curious about the stick, I'm mapping the trigger normally (I can't remember if the Hornet has a two-stage trigger or not), the weapons release button normally, trim hat normally, the DMS will be my castle switch, TMS Up will be my event mark button, CMS will be for weapons accordingly, the pinky switch will be for NWS/whatever other function it does in the real jet, and the paddle switch will be for autopilot and NWS. For the Warthog throttle, I'm not yet familiar with the Hornet's throttle layout, so I'm not yet sure how I will have it mapped.

IIRC, they said something about updating the ATC in 2.5. But to what extent, and exclusive to ATC or including chatter of others in flight? That is yet to be known.

Bahrain. That's the island I meant when I asked about Manama. Will it be added with the expansion, or will Bahrain and Qatar continue to be low-res?

I posted a while back in the DCS Wishlist thread, and I still think it holds weight... I think ED, or a 3rd party developer, should develop an A-4 Skyhawk. In my humble opinion, a C-E variant. Like Robert said above, any module is going to take time, but given the difficulty in finding documentation, and that difficulty probably being the biggest difficulty, I think the A-4 would be a perfect balance. Here's why: It's a recent-enough aircraft to have full documentation, knocking out the big(biggest?) problem above. It's also old enough that most (all? did the C-E models have a radar?) of the avionics are analog, and simple, much like the F-5. That knocks out precious time and effort needed to code modern computer-based things like FLCS, since the Skyhawk doesn't have them. Although the A-4 may have had an INS... please someone correct me if I'm wrong. Then, there's all the fun stuff... She looks great, she's fast (though subsonic), very nimble, she can carry a massive amount of payload for her size, much like the F-5, and she's AAR capable. And the coup de grâce, she's carrier capable!! I think she's one of the next logical steps for DCS. But that's just me.

Because the real SA-2 sites could only guide one airborne missile at a time. Shoot one missile, guide it to target, and if it misses, shoot second missile. If it misses, shoot third, etc. There shouldn't be more than one missile being actively guided by one Fan Song/Spoon Rest in the air at any one time.

I have read their previous posts on their reasons for developing it, and I understand their reasoning, even if I don't agree with them. I also understand that I failed at trying not to sound like a whining toddler, and that is entirely my fault. I'm simply blowing off steam, while trying to keep it as much of a controlled burn as possible. My apologies for any collateral damage in the explosion. As someone above stated, I'm one of many who are simply confused by the choice. I have no doubt the Eagle is a great aircraft, and I have the utmost confidence that Magnitude will bring the highest standard to this particular aircraft. I simply believe that a purely civilian airplane has little-to-no place in a combat simulator. I won't be buying it, but I also hold no animosity nor want to insult anyone who will buy it. Again, my apologies for being a whining toddler. I just needed to vent.

This particular problem has been driving me nuts with the Harrier. I'm crossing everything on my body possible (and a few things that aren't) in the hopes that this will be fixed in the (hopeful) patch update on Friday.

I honestly am glad the Eagle is so far along and this close to release. Not because I will be buying it-- I won't be-- but because once it's released, those resources will be free to develop an aircraft that, IMHO, actually matters in DCS. I'm certain I'm not the first, nor will I be the last to say that there is a massive list of aircraft that could be/have been developed in the Eagle's place; UH/SH-60 Blackhawk/Seahawk, F-111 Aardvark, F-8 Crusader, A-4 Skyhawk, F-100 Super Sabre, Tornado, a whole list of WWII aircraft (I'm not interested in the WWII birds, but they at least still have a place in DCS)... Or even military trainers; Beechcraft T-6 Texan II, T-38 Talon, T-45 Goshawk, T-34 Mentor, or Magnitude may have picked up Razbam's old T-2 Buckeye. And this list goes on and on and on and on... I wasn't happy they went with the Eagle as a choice of aircraft, and I'm still not. But since there's no longer any hope of it not being developed at all, the best I can hope for is that its development is finished asap, so more deserving aircraft can be brought in.

I say June 1st, hopefully with the Persian Gulf map on the same day.

+1

Wow!! Great stuff. Thanks for the info!!

Where's Manama? The island just west of the Qatar peninsula? Or would it be added later as the extension is developed further?

I didn't pick up on those patterns until I started looking up all this "new" info online. Great stuff!! Indeed, someone was using their noodle.

Yes, but the NATO reporting names I mentioned are only for non-NATO aircraft, i.e. Soviet, Russian, and Chinese aircraft. NATO aircraft are still known by their official names; Thunderbolt, Hornet, Crusader, Skyhawk, etc.

Same here!! I'm still a little short financially of pre-ordering the Hornet, but I've already preordered the PG map, and I can't wait to fly over an authentic desert battlefield in the Hawg and Harrier, at least.

They did. I was just speculating off my gut feeling that maybe they would surprise us with an early release of one and/or the other. In hindsight, it was probably those convenience store chili dogs I ate. They give a surprisingly similar gut feeling before the porcelain blitz.

So, I was giving a friend of mine a general rundown of some modern military aircraft, and all of a sudden, a pattern emerged... NATO names for Russian aircraft all start with the letter of the type of aircraft they are... Fighter/Attack types all start with 'F'. 'F' for "Fighter." Fagot, Fantail, Farmer, Fargo, Fencer, Flanker, Fresco, Fulcrum, Fishbed, Fitter, Flogger, Foxbat, Foxhound, Frogfoot, etc. 'B' for "Bomber." Bear, Blinder, Backfire, Blackjack, etc. Even helicopters!! 'H' for "Helicopter." Hind, Hip, Hokum, Havoc, etc. And then it all made sense why... So if someone says the name of an aircraft on the radio, the type of aircraft is in the name... oh wow!! I'm 28 years old, have been a military aviation enthusiast since I was in diapers, and yet was never taught this tidbit of info, and didn't catch on until a few days ago. Jeez, I feel slow...

Personally, I feel like this update (bug fix) will be released on Wednesday, since they posted about testing the new build on Friday, with no update released. The Persian Gulf map will almost certainly be released on a Friday, since ED seems to release just about any and all new products on Fridays... so maybe on Wednesday the 9th, small release for bug fixes, but Friday the 11th would be for something big. I'm like you. I can't help but feel a disturbance in the Force that makes me believe the Persian Gulf and/or Hornet EA are really really close... though the Hornet will probably be later, as Wags still needs to do an update video on some system or another after he returns from Moscow. That will probably happen Friday at the soonest.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=151478&page=14 According to their last post here, they are testing an update now. ED only releases updates on Wednesdays and Fridays, but to my knowledge, it has never been ED's policy to announce a regular update before it is released. They will make an update public when they're ready to. Basically, if there is no update on Wednesday, check again Friday. If still no update, check again the following Wednesday, etc., etc. It can be frustrating, especially if a module you own has something major broken, but I'm confident that ED is moving as fast as they can to get bugs squashed and updates released to us.

Edwards AFB would be a great addition to that area too. It's a relative hop skip and a jump away from NTTR.

Not certain about the others, but #2 IRMV bug has already been acknowledged and fixed, and will be released with the next update to DCS 2.5.

At the time, I wasn't looking for a squadron or wing, but was hoping for a more realistic experience than I had. When I began looking for a wing, I mostly stuck to Google and Youtube.

That was the one. I miss flying with those guys.

I also want to add that, although I have flown online a few times, I have yet to find a squadron or wing that is realistic enough for me. I was a member of a wing in "the other sim" (I foolishly went too long without flying, and didn't post a request for a Leave of Absence) where we did almost EVERYTHING as per USAF SOPs. Briefing, comm checks, startup, taxi, departure, formations, ops checks, frequency changes, formation changes, AAR, FENCE checks, method of attack, brevity, rendezvous, coordination, recovery (we did overhead breaks, tactical recoveries, and a few more as the situation required), taxi back, shutdown, and debriefing were all as close to USAF SOP as possible. Just thinking about it gives me good feelings in certain parts... To get in, after you're assigned an IP (Instructor pilot), you fly six IQT (Initial Qualification Training) flights, and must pass them to become an active member of the wing. Leeway was given if you made minor mistakes, were rusty, etc., but if you didn't make the cut, you could try again, but you'd be starting from scratch at IQT-1. The bar was certainly set high. In DCS, I've seen nothing but Youtube videos of hodgepodge gaggles of mixed aircraft types going after who-knows-what target, in non-standard formation, broken brevity when brevity is used at all, etc., etc. I've also experienced Hauptmann Dummkopf (I'm making up a name, for those that don't catch the sarcasm) come out in a Fw-190, while I'm in a Hawg, go screaming out across the airfield.... not down the runway, or even a taxiway, mind you... just over the surface of the ground, and take off with no radio communication, and several more crazed antics by those that just aren't as into realism in the virtual world as I am. By all means, if anyone can point me to a wing or a squadron that is actually realistic, please do. And the more hardcore the realism, the better :devil: Anyway, THAT is why I stick mainly to offline. I can be as realistic as I want to be, without having someone else out there potentially ruin it for me as has happened in previous online sessions. Happy hunting!!

Gotchya. Thanks for the info and the help!!