Jarlerus

Not a full module, but still: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=163181

+1 I agree that these menus can be made much more usable.

Hear, hear!

^+1

Switzerland would, IMO, be an strange choice. making a Swedish map makes some sense, as it would have probably been a very hot spot if the cold war had turned hot. Switzerland, AFAIK, would probably have been spared in such a scenario.

Ok, so what I can see the F was probably already in service during the end of '42, so I can change it to that. :thumbup:

Excellent =) I like these kinds of responses ^^ For the P-51, I have adjusted date of entry accordingly. As for it's service life, I've left it as is, as AFAIK it's difficult to precisely know when a specific version was actually taken out of service. For the P-47, I've adjusted the version name, as the list is for the version we will get. I also just adjusted the name on the F4U, and left the service life, for the same reason as for the P-51. When it comes to the P-40F however, I'm reluctant to change the entry date. 1943 was the date I found it was actually sent into active service. I might be wrong, of course, but without any source on this I will be cautious with changing it. //Jarl

The diff. between 24V and 24P is a quite substantil one, out of a gaming perspective. Gunner in the V has more stuff to do (yay Turret!) than in the P, mainly. As for a LanceR, AFAIK it can use a targeting pod, and that surely gives it much more of a capability than the Bis, but we all know how hard that is to get documentation on (if you don't have a special deal as for the A10, AFAIK). Also that aside, the LanceR's base performance should be similar, if not same as, the Bis, no? Anyway: I think the LanceR is a special case as it's an old air frame (MiG-21) with classified systems (LITENING pod) so it's both too old (and already in the game) and too classified to be interesting for DCS.

Balance? Bah. Servers and/or missions can restrict access to hardware. No nerfs! Also, there's a lot of speculation in this thread. Let's put some faith in LNS that they will consult proper sources, simulate, and test their data so that the AIM-54 will be as close as possible to the real version. One can come a long, long way with math in these cases. Trust science! :P

Hmm, isn't the LanceR very similar to the Bis? Only with new avionics, that are also to some extent classified?

BobbyDevo: Check my list. The first part "IN GAME/IN DEV" should be a near complete list of all confirmed aircraft currently in, or in development for, DCS. Currently the Mi-24 is hanging on the edge on being confirmed :P

So, I've thought about how nice it would be if we could navigate the ATC menu with only our HOTAS. That is, some way to move a selection marker up and down the list, and then selecting an entry, with only controls on a joystick, eliminating the need to use the Function-keys. Activating the ATC-menu is possible at the moment, but moving down the list isn't- I'd like to be able to map a HAT-switch to do this, and then a Select-button to select an entry. What do you think? //Jarl P.S. Disclaimer if it's somehow already possible... :P

Unfortunately I don't think we should get our hopes up that ED will make maps that sacrifice fidelity (what little we have) on making the maps larger. For players that want larger maps, the only hope will probably be some 3rd party dev. Once 2.5 is up and running that will be a possibility. And even then, if we do get a larger map, it will probably be a map with mainly sea. (less detail is needed :P ) To conclude: The most plausible possibility for DCS to get a larger and slower plane, as I see it, would be either one that has some offensive/tactical capability, or if it is slow enough to work on the existing map size.

Update: I've been testing some more. About every 10th attempt on starting an Instant Action mission I've actually not gotten a crash. (about 50% of the crashes where during loading, the other 50% just after I click "Fly"). When I get into a mission successfully I can end it and start new mission without problems (I successfully started and ended at least 6 missions this way). I could even quit DCS without a crash in this case.

Chill? =) I'm sure they are first trying to find out what the problem is.

I did some quick tests. It only crashed when I chose Instant Action missions with air start. When I started on ground, either Cold Start or Takeoff with engines running, the game was (at least initially) stable.

I don't doubt that one bit, I just wanted to know why =)

haha! Yeah, I failed xP

Why not?

FYI: I could not find any trace of an F-4 on their site. http://www.leatherneck-sim.com/ LoL: http://www.leatherneck-sim.com/dcs-mig-21/ There it is... xP

Nice! Thanks for the info! I've updated the F86 entry accordingly.

Ah! How could I forget? Added it ^^ Can anyone confirm it's the Block 5 version, and that the Block 5 entered service in 2012?

Interesting. Makes sense. I'll extend the MiG-15Bis to at least 1973, with a note about "Lim-2 in Polish service" =)

Thanks a lot =) I agree with your reasoning, and I have updated the sheet accordingly. The only thing I could not determine was when the MiG-17F went out of service. AFAIK, the North Koreans used the MiG-17PF/J-5-variant, the service span is reduced, but I can't figure out to what =) //Jarl.

Thank you. ^^ Well, I include all eastern aircraft. Some Chinese are already in the list for example. As for Lim2, I'm not too eager to add them if they where limited to the trainer role. As for the Lim6 (CAS version) I can have them marked as active, as they might have been used in a conflict situation. It sounds interesting, but I will have to investigate further. Edit: Added the Lim-6bis CAS aircraft to the list =)