Bearfoot

Yep. Yep, yep, yep.

I guess the point of the pic is to get us to speculate, but I am still amazed at how folks can speculate so .... wildly. Especially in the face of hard information to the contrary. Developers have indicated time and time and time again that it is not an all or nothing thing. Work on module does not necessarily mean work taken away from another module. Some work proceeds more quickly than others, while others move more slowly. Yet the team persists. Sometimes a particular module is stuck on part of the pipeline, leaving the rest of the team with idle hands. So while one --- or even several --- modules are being worked on by some of the team, or waiting their turn to be worked on by some of the team, other members of team get cracking on another module. This issue of zero-sum game development comes up whenever the idea of new module gets floated, or even when people get upset about perceived delays in their favorite module .... and the answer is always the same. Now, I am not saying you are wrong about the conclusion that this is an AI ... just your reasoning for it is totally off. And as far as measuring popularity goes, neither you nor I know about the relative demand for an iconic big heavy lift helicopter that has seen and continues to see active service around the world in combat as well as non-combat operations vs. say, a niche B-list long-retired aircraft that after a short, uneventful career faded quietly away in retirement. ( ;) j/k, of course )

Interesting. Will have a look. I guess "target" would be a more conventional word choice instead of "fired-uponee" ... but no harm in a little bit of a creative vocabularizing now and then ;)

Where exactly are you seeing this? Debriefings I see show shots fired and shots hit, firer and fired-uponee, but no details on the actual damage.

:thumbup: Thanks!

This one may seem a little weird, but just to be sure ... Bearing the warning to only tighten the dry clutch screws to "finger tightness" in mind, are there any long implications to have a relatively strong dry clutch friction? E.g., is there more wear/stress on the components, requiring, e.g., replacement of the nylon collars or other parts sooner rather than later in the future?

Is this a WW2 throttle or a modern jet-ish style throttle or something else or as yet undecided?

So, just a quick note on some possible additions to this server. In this thread, I asked about the possibility of enabling level bombing on the Tu-95. msalama was kind enough to provide a script that works perfectly (with the caveats I describe here) . So now we have the possibility of bomber/escort/defense missions on both sides! Unless this has already been done? BTW, I think the Normandy map offers some really interesting possibilities for a scenario featuring the F-86 and Mig-15 as well, especially if we imagine something a little later than the Korean war proper (specifically including the Tu-95!). I'm thinking that after the VE-day honeymoon/parties are over, things go awry, and the USSR decides the imperialists should not be allow to corrupt Europe, and pushes everyone out of Germany, rolling the lines back to .... Normandy. The US/UK maintain a tenuous but strong toehold there, a position made more robust by the long supplie lines the USSR needs to support such a far west frontline, plus resources stretched thin by policing Europe. With the US/UK HQ in Cherbourg, and the new frontline running just east of Cannes. To make things more interesting, maybe the post WW2 UK Labor govt goes neutral and allows the Soviets to base fighters in Southern London and Tu-95 bombers to overfly UK territory? Apart from all this interesting theatre, one reason to adopt 2.1 is to take advantage of the patched Mig-15 flight model.

WOW! Thanks! This works FANTASTICALLY! Tried in 2.1, Normandy map, using both "bombing" and "ground attack" options under "Perform Task". As you said, selected "bomb" and "all" for options. Only caveats: (1) Need to set altitude to 21000 ft or below at action waypoint, or otherwise after reaching waypoint, aircraft will circle around (taking a loooooooooong arc) to descend to that altitude before bombing. (2) Need to make sure sufficient offset between bombing target (triangle) and waypoint of action. If too close, then, again, aircraft will circle around in long arc before carrying out bombing. (3) Aircraft seems to be 200-300 knots for bombing. Setting higher speed in mission profile is fine: aircraft will just slow down appropriately. Presumably, if they cannot slow down enough, they may circle around. Keeping the above caveats in mind allows for Cherbourg to get a proper pounding! Now to add it Mig-15's for escorts and throw in some F-86's for cover!

Yes, exactly! I guess I should have clarified that this is how my mouse (or, actually, trackball) works. I press down on the scroll wheel (which functions, for me, as the middle mouse button) and scroll forward/back to achieve the effect. On reddit, someone mentioned you could also map cockpit view up/down, and use that to adjust in the vertical axis as well.

Not sure if this is documented or not, well-known or not, but I found that if you press the middle mouse button and scroll forward/back, you adjust your VR position accordingly.

FWIW, I replied, but heard nothing back ...

For DCS, this idiom should really be RCGA (Read Chuck's Guide Already).

Ah, did not realize that you could remove/put back the palm rest in Gunfighter! That would indeed make it a lot easier.

Thanks, Sokol1. Unfortunately, I can't see any of the images without registering! In any case, from what I can make out, it seems that he got the grip one by stretching it over bottom. Which cannot be done (I speculate) to the Gunfighter KG-12, due to the palm rest.

Ah, it looks like in the thread that I linked to above, I provide some more notes on using native methods to load/unload:

Unfortunately, at the best of times, I've not found native methods to be very reliable. But here is how it is supposed to work ... For troop/soldier group: - create two waypoints (source, destination) - set first waypoint to: "Perform Task" > "Embark to transport" - set next waypoint to: "Perform Task" > "Disembark" For lift mission helo group: - set first waypoint to: "Perform Task" > "Embarking" - select load (Add/remove); might need to click "distribution" - Needs to be placed really close to troops; chose formation that supports this if needed So, e.g., waypoint #1 of helo will correspond, or be very near to, waypoint #1 of troop (though, of course, if you want help to fly a particular route, it can be waypoint #9, for e.g.). Helo will fly to this waypoint, land, and, if troops are nearby enough AND have their own waypoint in this location set to "Embark to transport", they will load. Helo will then fly directly to waypoint #2 of embarked troop group (i.e., not the helo group). I think you might also have to explicit assign particular unit of soldier to particular unit of helo if multiple. In general, the whole thing is very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very fragile and unreliable, prone to breaking. I infinitely prefer using CTLD or MOOSE. E.g. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2758768

Thanks!

Is it possible to download the labels.lua used on this server?

Do you have a link to the original post or to the cover he put on? I am wondering how he got it on the grip ...

Ya, I originally got this, which is similar: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01FLQO5IU/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 But it was too thin. I wanted something that added girth (insert joke here ...)

So I think the KG-12 grip is a very elegant design. But, for me, coming from the TMWH the tactile feel of the plastic does not feel so great, plus, and perhaps a bigger issue, the "cheap" feel is made worse by the relatively narrow girth (even if it is an accurate modeling of the real thing). So I decided to wrap mine up in a gel bicycle handle grip as an experiment. Because I am a terrible craftsman, the work is clumsy, and I am also not wild about the flesh color (I was hoping for a cork look to go with the cork feel). But it does feel great! The extra girth means I feel that I have a more control/precision in my grip, and the soft give of the cork-like gel also helps a lot. The grip I used was: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000RY7SZY/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 What I like about it is that there is no adhesive back --- just a tacky gel strip. This means you have a lot of flexibility and tolerance in adjusting it multiple times, plus there is no residual goo left behind when you remove it. The top is secured through electrical tape (which actually makes no contact with the plastic grip itself: it's just wrapped around the gel grip). The only complication is cutting away the grip from the pinky button. If your handicraft skills are good, you might prefer to use this: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00STUOJCS/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER It does have adhesive, so you get once chance to lay it down well. But I imagine the leather both looks and feels better than the cork-like gel grip that I used. One complication is making room for the pinky button. I had to clumsily hack away at the tape to expose it. I will probably try a more refined attempt at re-doing this once I find the patience! I plan to do the same for the MCG Pro when I get it. The pinky button there is going to pose even bigger challenges, being in the middle of the grip rather than the side! So here is a maybe a suggestion for VKB: perhaps release a custom-cut leather, "leatherette", or just neoprene/PVC/gel grip wrapper for the grips? I would pay premium for it, and I am sure many folks would too! It improves the feel immensely!

Thanks. I guess I figured it would be easier to get Tu-95 to serve as a iron bomb carpet bomber with appropriate mission, than an entirely new aircraft model. And while not in service during the Korean war in particular, would it not still be not anachronistic for the "era"? In particular, it's performance (speed/altitude) would put it within reach of the F-86, for example? I suppose, now that you bring it up, though, we do have a B-29 mod, and it might make sense just to relabel this one a Tu-4 and give it to the Soviet and Soviet-supported countries?

This would be great for Korean Era arenas.

Extension vs no extension being the big one. I, for one, have absolutely ZERO interest in a non-extended stick.