Sephyrius

Don't think Razbam would have an issue with it considering that they posted BO-105 screenies on their own facebook page. But technically, maybe :P

The upcoming campaign that I linked is incompatible with non-SC users *only* because the spawn count on the free carrier is about half of that of the DLC equivalent. It is the only barrier there is. That's not capitalism at it's finest, that's just lazy development. But sure, if they won't be arsed to fix the carriers and thus allow more people to buy the campaign, that's their choice, it's a lose-lose.

Eagerly awaiting the Plus version as well, reckon it would be a big selling point as it's currently 90% A2G only.

It only works for low-fidelity self-made individual missions. Campaign missions tend to be more complex in terms of scripting, spawns, triggers and so on. It has already begun - an upcoming carrier-based campaign is unable to run without Supercarrier because of these issues, solely because the spawn counts are so different.

Is there ever any chance that there will be campaigns utilizing the supercarrier? It's becoming less and less likely because of all the requirements. "To buy this campaign you must have X aircraft and Y map and Z add-on", so that the campaign itself is a fraction of the cost to run it, meaning only a fraction of the players can and will utilize it. Is there no way to impose limits to deal with this? Say, if you buy a campaign you can use the map and/or add-ons for it, but only for that campaign. Opening up to a much wider base as well as serving as a good "teaser" to get more people to buy quality products.

Ganbei! *downs his baijiu* Glad to hear that you took some time off, well deserved. As for aircraft, as I understand it you're not allowed to make active-duty PLAAF ones, but how about a Soviet Tu-16 'Badger' (predecessor to the Xian H6) ? Two engines are within the technical limits of the game, first bomber ever in the game, appropriate for plenty of scenarios - certainly a very different kind of module.

It's just not good business practice to show trailers and charge pre-orders when you can't even guarantee something as simple as "Is X aircraft compatible with this module?" as of yet, because for alot of customers that's a dealbreaker.

How is it sensible to pile on $40 for CA on top of the $50 supercarrier just to be able to drive the damn thing? If they charge aircraft module-level prices people should expect that level of control and fidelity.

To be honest that's nothing compared to other 3rd party devs where you're barely getting an update every 6 months which is mostly just saying "Will bring you more news soon".

Those people have already proven that they'll throw lots of money at a half-baked product. Why would they give an extra discount to the customers that care about it the least? It's just fun to watch the perks of buying the Hornet turn into an empty sales pitch when it comes down to it.

Has a Mistral even been fired from a Gazelle operationally?

Before binding the flaps and speed brake I was literally unable to drop below 200 knots despite having gear out and idle throttle. Made for some silly landing attempts. :)

Indeed, very nice work! Just hope you havent overworked yourself 996-style, if so you deserve a rest :) You did it!

Looks interesting, gonna hold off until the Gazelle fixes though as it speaks volumes about the longevity of the modules we purchase. If the Gazelle isn't fixed, what can we expect when the Kiowa is having issues while you're working on the next module?

I mapped mine to a G25 shifter so that it's always on. But yes, it's weird.

Hell no.

As PickleMonster already mentioned, turn off force feedback. It completely breaks the controls (think something like huge deadzone and extremely weird behavior), unlike every other module without FFB that at least defaults to a normal spring-loaded stick. It was announced ages ago as not being developed any further and has never been fixed (despite promises as such). Which is why I have pretty much zero expectations of seeing it for the Kiowa, and a significant reason to reconsider buying it. Works wonderfully in the Huey, Mi-8 and especially the KA-50.

Isn't that study primarily about the supposedly popular laptop producers and ready-made PCs? Nowadays the norm is to build your own/let a friend build one/shop assembles it, the lack of choice and silly prices scared people off. Id sooner look at AMD, Intel and Nvidia stocks over the last 5 years for that, theyre all on the up-and-up. But anyways, using it exclusively for DCS is the outlier at hand

Nevermind, seems like MAR-1 and LD-10 fit the same bill. Please ignore.

Looking forward to checking it out. And alright, hoped it would at least have a general similarity. I think it would be useful for people to know what setup your real life pilots use the module with, for example the twitchy and very sensitive feel of the Gazelle might be a completely different experience for a $1000 floor mounted helicopter cyclic and your average joe with his T16000M. On that note, Im guessing that there wont be any FFB support for the Kiowa?

Just as a suggestion, I firmly suspect that the new free map will be something along the lines of Libya + Egypt, and if that holds true it would be an amazing choice for a Gazelle campaign mimicking Operation Serval and counter-insurgency operations in that region. But of course we have no idea when it's gonna be released. All I know is that it's a dozen times more suitable than another fictional Caucasus scenario or being locked behind terrain ownership.

Deka plans to extend the existing 3 skins to 10 soon enough, Im sure that will include multiple Pakistani skins.

Check out the following : F:\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\aircraft\JF-17\Doc\JF-17_3_MFCD.lua But yes, it does require setting up, is it possible for those with TM MFDs to post their Lua files to make it easier for others or is it too highly dependent on your monitor setup?

It could be worse - there's nothing more frustrating than doing Mi-8/Huey gun runs and being unable to kill infantry because the zeroing of the guns causes your massive bursts to hit one meter on either side of them to no effect. And then it takes a single tracer-less infantry round to take out your tail rotor or engine. Most dangerous unit there is, infantry is far scarier than APCs and IFVs.

Well, nothing's happened even after they announced that it would be developed in tandem with the OH-58D, so for all we know it was just a bargaining chip in contract negotiations á la "Let us do this or we wont update or maintain the Gazelle". Talk is cheap, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see.