Aries144

Yes please! This would have a massive positive impact on multiplayer play and would, in one move, solve many gameplay problems that have no other solution.

I bought a broken one on Ebay a few years ago for cheap. The right toe brake didn't work. I pulled it apart and found that the wire to the right toe brake had snapped right where it emerged from the rudder assembly. A year later, the other one snapped. I understand this is a common issue with them, or at least it was when Saitek was making them. I think the problem was the original wire type and lack of slack, as it used a stainless wire braid that was pulled tight against a 90 degree bend and would flex every time the rudders were moved. Mine haven't broken again in 2 years, and all I used was some wire stolen from a gutted USB extension. I simply ensured some extra slack was left where each wire emerged from the rudder assembly. As far as use, I found it beneficial to remove the center detent. It makes the center a little sloppy, as there a bit of wiggle in the center with no spring resistance, but I find this to be better for helicopters in DCS. For fixed wing aircraft, I add a little software deadzone in DCS' controls for each aircraft. I'm completely satisfied with mine.

Clearly, the analogy was intended to convey the perception that the maker was attempting sleight of hand to deceive the purchaser. Why did you attack and dismiss the delivery instead of addressing its intent? I don't see how any honest person could consider ARBS to be either NOT a major system or it's current implementation anything close to complete. Do you? What even is a good faith argument? lol

There are 3d printed plastic (and maybe 3d printed metal as well?) replacements for this part sold on Shapeways. That should solve the issue.

Propeller, Excellent work. I want one. :)

That's utterly preposterous. If development continues, then why the need to declare it feature complete? Why the backpedaling attempt to draw silly semantic distinctions between complete and feature complete? ETAs have nothing to do with this discussion. "Your house is feature complete!" "But the hot water heater isn't hooked up." "Yeah, but technically, the house is feature complete because the top half of the water heater is in the house." LOL Ok man. This is a semantic shell game.

This isn't about impatience, it's about honesty. Calling the Harrier complete means Razbam, and by extension ED, are under no obligation to bring it from what we could charitably call a product preview state, to something that resembles a complete module. This is a textbook example of a bait and switch. We were promised, and paid for, detailed system modeling on a full price module, not a pretty 3d model with Flaming Cliffs level systems accuracy for a discount price. We've paid the full price, now we're seeing Razbam and ED calling the module "complete" and hand waving away concerns by stating 'we'll get around to it later, if we have time and if we feel like it.' That's not how business contracts work. When you get paid up front and take too long to deliver, the customer starts getting nervous. When you tell the nervous customer that you're just going to call the unfinished work "complete," but that you'll totally come back later and finish it... exactly how should the customer react? Major defining features of the Harrier, which are to be expected from a full price module, aren't simply incomplete, they are modeled in a grossly oversimplified or totally incorrect manner. Calling that complete is totally unacceptable. Further, something is wrong at Razbam. Whoever is making their 3d models is excellent, but whoever is doing systems modeling has shown a shocking lack of ability to understand and model systems, even when similar systems are clearly show implemented in existing ED modules and explained in detail in source documentation. The bomb fall line in AUTO mode is an excellent example. It took Razbam years to finally figure out and address this. Why was it wrong in the first place? Did Razbam defend its behavior as being accurate, only to later correct it? Clearly, the systems man couldn't understand the concept or else wasn't skilled enough to program its behavior properly, and clearly either the boss didn't care that it was incorrect, or also didn't know better. Somehow, something went wrong there and is still going wrong with the systems model man and whoever his oversight is. This must be addressed or it will continue, with ED's reputation in an already niche-within-niche market suffering further damage as a result.

The FC3 aircraft are 1980's era, other than the F-15C, which seems to be a mishmash of 80's avionics with Aim-120Cs and 90's era radar performance. I think the solution you're looking for might be to add the Aim-120A. It would be a great matchup to the early R-77 we have. I really wish we could get more modern Russian aircraft, especially full fidelity modules, but it doesn't seem likely. I think the only workable solution may be to move our time period back to something ED feels comfortable modeling, like 70's/80's. That's a really exciting era for military tech and much more balanced than the 90's.

The creative minds at Oculus all got Zucked and left. I just had to repair my CV1 by buying a new cable for it. The cable is unrepairable (because of hair thin wires, the way they are wrapped, and a proprietary chip in the plug), is unubtainable from Oculus, and cost me $140 used from Ebay. I took very, very good care of my cable and used it 80% of the time seated. It still broke. Screw Zuckerberg and his narcissistic megalomania.

Great post Rocket. I would love to see more modern SAM defenses implemented and especially would like expanded player control of the longer range and more complex SAM units.

I can't recommend it highly enough, especially at the reasonable price Miles is asking. If you have VR and fly DCS, your setup isn't complete without PointCtrl.

lol. You aren't wrong. It has also limited the selection of grips light enough for use with force feedback.

In addition to having groundcrew add or remove the AAR probe, would it also be possible for this to be a check box in the Mission Editor? That way, the aircraft could spawn in game already in the desired configuration. Thank you for your consideration. :)

Any news?

:D

Ragnar, man of excellence! Thank you. :)

I'm afraid I have to disagree. The J-5 was the VPAF's most used fighter in the American/Vietnamese conflict. It was also the first Russian-designed fighter to feature an afterburner and an interesting evolution from the Korean war era Mig-15. It's absolutely essential for any Vietnam/American War scenario and is useful for any of several low intensity conflicts from the 1950's to the 1970's. It would also be relatively simple to develop. Conversely, the J-8 is uniquely Chinese and interesting in its own right, but has not been featured in any major conflicts and is also significantly more complicated. Deka mentioned being burned out after the JF-17 and ready for something simple, so I suggested this. Lot's of bang for a relatively minimum effort. :smilewink:

All we need now is to convince ED to make Integrity Check server-based so we can make the dynamics run the way we think they ought to without having hours of people's playtime spoiled by a lonely sadistic rich kid with his daddy's wallet and CheatEngine. Have the client's game download any different weapon config files from the server and place them in a [servername]config folder.

This is a really exciting development! I love SAM systems. Playing with SAMs in multiplayer is the entire reason I bought Combined Arms. Slingloading out a SAM system in crates and then using it to defend a base is a ton of fun.

That would be the J-5A :D

J-5 and Mig-17F are almost identical.

I never had an interest in 1960's or 1970's aircraft- until I broke down and bought the F-5E. Then I flew on a multiplayer server against players flying Mig-21Bis at low altitude through the canyons between Sochi and Sukhumi. Now, the visual jet combat of that era, with limited missile effectiveness, is my absolute favorite. I've since bought the F-86, Mig-15, Mig-21Bis, and Mig-19, and I want more variety in aircraft there. :)

In a previous post, it was mentioned that Deka was considering a simple module. We need the J-5/Mig-17 for US/Vietnam war scenarios, and Deka Ironwork is just the team to make it! I hope you'll consider it. :)

Wonderful news! I have a special interest in the F-20, regardless of its comparative capability in DCS. One of the cool details is that, despite only making 3 aircraft, they were not considered prototypes. They were full production units, intended for demonstration. Additional units intended for sale would have had no changes. If I come across any info, I'll gladly pass it along!

Please disregard. User Error. When you hot start a JF-17 now, the radar is set to both standby and silent. I neglected to notice the radar was set to silent. Derp.