Jarlerus

Personally, I'd be happy with the ability to kit the present Mi8 more specifically. Like only having door-gunners, without the pylons on. I mean, can the F/A-18 do that, the Mi-8 can. :P

I do support the general idea here, if not specifics of your list. But I think we should be less judging. Using terms like "...is probably REALLY easy to do", "...would not require a major effort at all" and "QUICK AND EASY WIN" presume that they are not working on an old code-base. For what we know the code base could be from the 90's at this point! And as I get the impression that DCS development is mainly driven by engineers, and not marketing. I interpret the sequence of updates as them re-doing/refactoring those old frameworks from the ground up, one big chunk at a time. So I'd assume that the mission editor will get a big overhaul, at some point, and that they are saving their time until they can do it properly, instead of going in and shoehorning in improvements that will have to be trashed once they do the "Big Overhaul". At least, this is how I see it to be able to keep my sanity over the years I've been following DCS.

+1 A bit slow. I'd be happy if I didn't need to tweak the lua-files myself :P

Updated with the OV-10 Bronco (Not announced yet, but come on, as good as! ;) ) Also moved Buccaneer and Alpha Jet to "Wishlist" as those projects are presumed dead at the moment. //Jarl

+1

As per patch on 16 01 2019. Once the canopy is closed, it can't be opened. The "interaction zone" on the canopy for pushing it opendesyncs. Lock lever position has no impact. Keyboard shortcut only unlocks the lock lever. The interaction zone stays de-synced mostly, but sometimes snaps into sync when user is clicking it's rearward position, when the handle is fore. As seen in the demonstration bellow: //Jarl

N/T fusing is set by the fuzing-knob (Manual: Page 81: Reference 6: "Manual Control"), and not by the switch (Fuzing Control). I do too wonder how to set burst height in the Harrier =) Overall, I'd like the Mk20's to be overhauled, and a proper manual entry on them added. //Jarl

Financially stupid to release this as a Free map :P Great commercial potential. Free maps will be a lot simpler - by the nature of it.

Qualified guess: Yes.

+++1 :)

My total time spent in Google Maps only rivals my DCS-flying time ;) /Jarl

Yes, half a week ago: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3735513&postcount=178

In order: Incirlik Air Base - Turkey Ramat David Air Base - Israel Beirut-Rafic Hariri Intl. Airport. - Lebanon

Probably re-write parts of the Mission Editor to accommodate it properly :P

+1 At best it would be a Mission Editor option to set how death is handled.

I agree: With MAC, clean up DCS. It'll save ED some time by not having to keep it up-to-date.

I throw my +1 as hard as I can towards you! :D

Yeah, there was a high risk of Joke, but I didn't see the " " which is the proper way to indicate irony in internet text Anyway, Other possible Red-side planes are, as I see it; Il-28, MiG-17F, Su-7, Su-15, and maybe the Tu-22 (Blinder, not the Backfire). So there's still hope, at least for pre-90's Red-stuff =D //Jarl

I suggest that when joining a server, players first have to choose side, and only then they can see who is in what airframe on that side. The opposing side would be totally hidden, bar the a total/number of players. Additionally, these steps should be configurable through scripting and/or the ME - so that callsigns/IP-addresses can be logged and bound to the different sides for an amount of time set by the mission maker. //Jarl

Really? Not sure? :P It's marked "cubanace" and has pinups carrying a missile.... Even if you're joking... xD

+1 But isn't it not working on all carriers? Might be how (all) the carriers are designed at the moment :(

Simple feature request: When CA (Combined Arms) is installed; Mark drivable vehicles in the Unit-List in the mission editor Yellow. Reason: For the mission maker to easily see what vehicles are controllable by clients - similar to the flyable modules. //Jarl

So long ago now. #84yearsmeme #twoweeks

Different type of Viggen. And the Gripen (note the single P) isn't on top of lists, because it's not going to happen any time soon.

I wonder how a revamp of the Huey could be done, financially? It _should_ be self-funding to polish it up to 2.5 standard, with the new engine model, PBR, multi-crew and M23 armament system, taking the Huey up to proper "slick"-standard, as well. The sales should increase. I'm just sad the Huey is in it's current state. :( It has potential to be the ultimate Huey module, but here I am hoping someone else will make a "normal" UH-1D instead. -.-' //Jarl.