M1Combat

"The whole A-10C US fleet was to vanish in roughly one month !" Ehh... I suspect not... But what do I know... That point could be argued for a month... at least :).

"Frankly given that this is the main "annual" update it should have been right at launch." Yeah... still a no sir. for sure there is a "most interesting patch of the year" I suppose but that's a different thing for each person. It's not like 2.6 came out as the "main annual patch"... hell... it came out just after 2.5. A couple years ago. Both were quite significant. Anyway... It's cool if you feel like 2.7 is significant... as it is... and it may be the most significant patch of the year... but there's not a "yearly cycle" where it would be correct to say this is "the main "annual" patch". It just doesn't work that way sir. Regarding "should have been right at launch... Wrong again sir. It hasn't launched. It's in Open Beta. Trying to become "right" for "launch". Thank you. Drive through.

I agree... But the patch notes say they'll have lightning effects etc in the future. It's already in the works :). Also... "Nope no more additional work on any of the weather system or new features until they sort out vibrating clouds in VR. Frankly given that this is the main "annual" update it should have been right at launch." Ehh... No. This is not "the main "annual" update". There is no such thing. This is just "2.7". It is a significant release, yes... but not a "main annual update". Also... If you're playing 2.7... you're playing a beta. So your assertation that it "should have been right at launch" would be correct for when 2.7 gets pushed to stable. And I suspect it will be. Please think more and type less :). Thank you :). You know... sometimes I think the forums should be invite only or something...

"Fly the stick, hit trim and it would.....trim." In general... In the shark you want to Press trim, fly the aircraft to a new attitude you'd like to have trim hold for you, then release trim. the details of that get a little murky depending on your controller (FFB?? No centering Springs??) and which settings you're using in the options page. But you want to press, fly, release.

I ascribe to the "Always do what I told you to do you little SOB" startup procedures :).

On my list now :)... Thanks. The shark is my favorite

I flip the override switch as part of my startup procedure.

What speed is the M2?? If it's a PCI-E V4 drive and on supporting hardware it could make a significant difference...

I for one am glad we have a mental gymnastics team here on the DCS forum I kid... I kid... Look Fri and co... We understand "what you're saying". There's no need to find another way to say it. We get it. We understand the direction you approach the subject from. But ED approaches the subject from a different direction. You aren't going to change their mind HERE... With the Apache APKWS. You have a MUCH better chance of changing their mind with the BS3. You've demanded that they open this very can of worms in that thread even when many people told you and ED that it would indeed be a can of worms and that you and your team (I don't care if you feel like a team or not) would then turn around and throw those worms in the face of ED when you chose to on other subjects. Stop. You've got your answer sir. I know I know... there were two sets of words used. Who gives a flying ****... All of the rest of us got the effing point the first time... I promise you... It's EXACTLY that type of word twisting that causes game devs to clam up and stop sharing with the community. Stop.

Newy... Thank you for what you do. Also... Please don't get run down by this team of folks either from this thread or the mirror BS3 thread. I've told them they're playing with fire on multiple fronts and they just don't get it. We would all love to have a full fidelity F35... All I'm saying is that ED approach the "simulator" term one way, and these folks approach it a different way. They can be very "adamant and single minded" in their drive towards justifying their position. Me... I prefer ED approach AND appreciate the slight movement we got on the BS3. Thank you... and thanks to the team who will eventually make that happen :).

@Relic "Keep your autopilot modes on" Except Alt... It will kill you and I don't mean by running you into a mountain. If you insist on Alt hold on... then don't ever press trim with your blades over 11 degrees ;). I recommend you just disable Alt Hold. It will also try to kill you just after you hear "Warning - Under Attak..." by limiting your control authority to bug the eff out before taking a tank round to the face while hovering. Also... don't hover any more. Never use auto-hover. Manually trim to hover in a slow slip along the edge of a ridge. Skilled tank gunners will still hit you. Don't stay in one place. If you're 1 MILLION PERCENT certain you're in a safe place... then maybe use hover... but I still recommend manual hover. @Frederf Trim release is when the magic happens. Not press. So your time blend would be after release, and the control lockout is also after release. Not press. The idea is to press, fly to desired attitude etc, release, let go of controls so they center.

I say again... "Post 5 - "we have no plans currently for APKWS on the DCS AH-64D " Post 6 - all of them... LOL" All I was trying to say is that ED has a specific POV. The results of their POV were laid out in Post 5. I too would rather have an Apache with APKWS (as I've said) but to do so ED would need to model the Apache with all the later updates. They won't/can't etc... So... Post 5.

I'm not surprised in the least. Also... Attempting to get a thread shut down is not a tactic I'm willing to use. My 1st Amendment may not legally apply to everyone but I apply it to everyone. I may not agree with what you say... but I'll certainly defend your right to say it. That's just how I roll. That said :)... Feel free to justify dismissing me any way you like sir :). That's clearly your MO. Justifying anything you like in any way you like. The BS3 thread laid the groundwork of that understanding and this one polishes it off. I am not losing an argument. I disagree with you. We see the subject from two different points of view. there is no right or wrong here sir. There are differing points of view that justify what each of the sides is willing to accept is the right way to move forwards. In the case of the BS3 ED agreed with you (and me BTW...) based on various reasons that are particular to the BS3. In the case of the apache... those things don't exist. Which is verified by the fact that you're attempting to use other means to justify the inclusion of your requested APKWS. I'm sorry friend... That fish don't bite on this aircraft...

Sorry but I don't have the time to go through the BS3 thread to pick out every justification that was used for the BS3 to make the case there... A small synopsis is... The aircraft was headed in that direction when production ceased. Redfor needs the love. There are pics with sharks with all the things we want (maybe). The shark is already a bit of a fantasy. We would never use this line of reasoning for another aircraft that doesn't fit these criteria. Well well... Here we are... With the same people arguing for the same thing (the can of worms bit... I get that APKWS isn't a russian A2A weapon on a third pylon that was likely never actually in the air) Here we are... eating that same can of worms... That was opened by the same people feeding it to us right now. Yeah... Some people actually can see the future it appears :). Well done folks :).

I whole heartedly agree. But... The apache is not that animal (and I understand that's exactly what you're saying) and in THIS case... what seems to be happening is that the same people that made the case for the BS3 based on the fact that it has wider limits relative to realism are making the case for the same thing in the apache but based on completely different grounds... Grounds they said in that thread they wouldn't use... Because people pointed out to them in that thread how they (and ED) would be opening a can of worms that could not later be closed if they start running down the path to fantasy land... Now look... At us... Trying to get ED on the path to fantasy land :)... Wow... It's like we could see the future back then... Maybe this time travel APKWS implementation isn't so far fetched after all...

No... More that b******g and moaning about adding features from mental gymnastically derived justifications is going to get old to the ED dev crew and it's not unfathomable that, after reading this thread and the mirror thread regarding the BS3, this has the clear potential to piss them off and make them decide it's just not worth opening the can of worms that MANY people told them they would be opening should they include non-verifiably accurate weapons on one module. Ie... "playing with fire" There is potential to burn the damn house down. Feel free to dismiss this point based on my use of the word "damn".

Suit yourself in dismissing my point by whatever grounds you'd like :). I don't care. The point stands whether you dismiss it or not :).

If referring to me... Nah... But go read the BS3 thread. It's the same as this one. With the same people. Asking for the same thing. In the same way. Using the same logic. but there's a difference... And that is that ED was NICE ENOUGH to say "alright... maybe we'll bend the rules just this once so RedFor can have a cool heli..."... And now you see where it got them. EXACTLY where MANY people said it would... With the SAME MFing people doing the SAME MFing thing... Again... So... Where does it stop? Do we ask for lasers on the boats? we're there... Do we ask for Crysis soldiers? We'll get there... Do we ask for prox rounds for tanks? We're there... Do we ask for SuperSonic Airforce 1? We're there... No... What ED does is say you know what... we tried to be nice in ONE way in the interests of fun and you MFers turned around and smacked us in the face with it so FU... No. No BS3... No APKWS on the Apache... No. good day sir.... Yeah... that's the future of entitled little brats whining about this stuff. Thanks :).

"If you think that the APKWS is unrealistic for the block of Apache you're flying, just don't use it and stop acting like its shere existence does you any harm or reduce your immersion. And for those who like APKWS, great have some fun with it." Yeah... But it's just not that simple. PLease again let me clarify... If ED included APKWS EXACTLY as you suggest... I'd be fine with it. However... Should ED update the Apache with all other updates that would have been on all airframes (or just a specific one since they actually simulate SPECIFIC airframes) at 2015 when they got APKWS?? Because... If we're simulating APKWS on the Apache (please pay attention to the word simulate and how ED means it... and no I don't mean in context of the WWI split in tech or their plans for BS3) then we would need to have a known aircraft function/patch/build/hardware level in 2015 that got the APKWS. That's a different aircraft than the one we're getting. It may have the same S/N... but it will have received some updates between the model ED plans to implement and the model that "actually" had APKWS slapped onto it. See... We all understand your arguments. We do.... alright fine, yeah... there's likely a few people who don't.... but whatever... But... You POINT OF VIEW is the problem that makes people argue against your suggestions. It's not the validity that we could hang an APKWS rack on a technical and fire them in such a way that they would loft into the area where they can track a lased target and hit it... That doesn't matter. What matters is that ED has a point of view on the subject. Their POV is that they simulate a specific (or close to it... I think we all need to sit back for just a sec and appreciate that ED is willing to do the BS3 style stuff "anywhere") aircraft and what it actually was. Not what it became. Not what it could be. Not what was "technically possible if you happen to have had an APKWS around to hang off the pylon at some point" or some other mental gymnastics that allow you to validate in YOUR mind that this "should be given to us". You are missing the point. You. Not me. Not ED. Not anyone in this thread that is arguing this way. It is you. You want something to be that is beside the way that ED approach simulation. I appreciate both approaches. Honestly. But... You keep bitching about "I want this and ED sucks because "it's possible and doable and WHA WHA WHA!!!!"... Well... Will we get BS3 or not? You MFers sit here and moan and complain about "Well you did this with your BS3 plans... Just give us APKWS on the apache WAH WAH WAH!!!! and al lof a sudden ED says you no what... No. No BS3. We are NOT opening that can... Because entitled people like YOU don't know when to STFU. Go with the flow folks. You're playing with fire.

"He is using dark mode." that is correct :). That said... Is it the case on this post? I've pasted with "plain text"...

"If DCS go to simulate a unique airframe, in specific airbase, in a specific squadron and all... It is more asking trouble than anything else." No sir... No. It solves all the problems. It says that on May 14th 2008 there was an Apache headed into a mission... It had this picture attached to the dash and on that day the crew chief scratched the paint right "there" while working on the chopper... We're simulating THAT aircraft and it's capability. They even put the airframe serial numbers on them friend... They are ACTUALLY a specific airframe. At a specific time. With a specific set of capability that has been decided based on all sorts of things by ED. In this case... They chose an airframe and time that doesn't include APKWS. Your argument is "completely" invalid in the face of that. It "DOES NOT" matter that in the future at some point that very same airframe may have had another mission and deployed APKWS. It does not matter. Please keep in mind... Again... That I too would rather see a later Apache modeled WITH APKWS. But that's not the one we're getting. Are you REALLY going to sit here and try to force ED to justify every decision they've ever made regarding this subject (to include the BS3 and why we fly old mustangs against new BF109's) just so you can argue and bitch about the apache not having some weapon you want to use?? GO EFFING MOD THE EFFING THING FRIEND!!!!

"Nothing changes the fact that APKWS II is backward compatible and it is irrelevant what software, block, tape, lot etc the aircraft has, as long they can launch unguided Hydra 70, so long they can use APKWS II." OK... Please explain how an apache in 2008 could have used APKWSII?? Without using words like magic or time machine...

You folks are just not getting it. The fact that you can hang a APKWS rocket launcher off of something "does not" mean it should be doable in DCS. You are not understanding the point. This is like saying "Please add super tires to the race car in iRacing"... because the wheels are the right size and in theory someone could spoon them on there.... Yes... It is too. It's exactly the same. iRacing models a car as raced in a specific series. ED models the Apache as it existed in the way they want to AND the way they can get licensing. Guess what... Dallara iR-01 FANTASY CAR Yeah... DCS AH-64D Apache from any time before 2015 with APKWS FANTASY HELI You can't have your cake and eat it too boys... It's either an apache from before or after APKWS. ED has said it's from before. So... It can't have APKWS. It is that simple. ZERO points about what you could have hung from that chopper and fired at some enemy are valid. 0. All that said ... I'd still love to have a later Apache modeled that has APKWS... But not an earlier one with weapons from the future :).

Look I argued for the SC module being the way it is... And I won't argue against the APKWS on the D... Exactly... The super carrier "IMPLEMENTATION" was argued... Not whether or not it would be included at all. We argued "how" it was included in DCS. For the APKWS it's only being argued whether it should be here... not "how" exactly. If they model it... I'm all for it being only available when the ME is set to after 2015... And I get that this is the arguement in the thread... But they've said they have no plans to include it and they have nebulously indicated out apache will be from before 2015... so including the APKWS would make it a post 2015 model and would then need a massive amount of other things to make it accurate. Or... They could put it in the game and let the fantasy folks load them up however they wish... An apache from ~2008 with future weapons hung off of it. Yeah... they could do that. I'm not personally even opposed. BUT... They said they aren't including it. likely because to make it accurate... they would then need to bring the apache up to APKWS timeline spec. I suspect that they are both not willing AND not able due to their contract. Either one is fine for me... willing or able. Let the mod community hang them for you. What wrong with that?

"But don't tell other people what they can and cannot use. " LOL... don't tell ED what they do and don't have to model :). You're welcome. Also... "Then don't use it in your missions, and ban it on your server. But don't tell other people what they can and cannot use. " Eh what... tell them what they can use but also then don't tell them what they can use???