probad

wow i guess everything else in dcs must go too since nothing is current

been reading this over the holidays, thanks

the relationship isnt so linear lol

fake, even without factchecking this should have set off all the bogus alarms

im not enthused about them coming in droves to drown us out with demands for dumbed down accessibility options if they're not already here for the flight and systems modelling, then they're just not appreciative of what makes dcs different than the rest. they'd love nothing more than to turn dcs into 'that other game' and that's really not what i want to see

i really dont want extraneous fx in my sim

last time i checked dragging mig-15 ai's into a power dive was a sure kill at least they respect compressibility

if you cant figure out how to have fun with it on your own you're always gonna get bored, that's the bottom line

apparently this is how its supposed to work, much like apkws. op is saying it works instead like vikhr, where the rocket looks back at the airplane's laser for instructions on which way to turn. so when buddy lasing, rocket looks backwards and sees nothing, it goes dumb.

better than worst doesnt make good it's also not a dealbreaker so you dont have to try to start spinning rationalizations

textures dont seem to be deka's strong suit, while the graphical detail is there, actual material and lighting behavior leaves much to be desired. some things seem untextured (gsh interior mechanism, intake duct interior), cockpit interior doesnt really take shadows well (local values too strong -- blacks too dark, grays too light). some lighting occlusion doesnt seem quite right (ex. console sunshade doesnt seem to shade emergency brake). hopefully sales and experience can see improvements made to visual quality but right now JF-17 texturing isn't quite up to ED standard.

thats insulting that you think we dont read the rest of the forum

if you have to ask, you cant afford it

Both images are Photoshops for sure. The original for the latter image is literally on the Wikipedia article.

"...not because its easy, but because it's hard."

get this guy in the kremlin

lmao anyone who looks down on the r-60 hasnt used it at all you guys cry over the smallest losses in paper performance as if they were death sentences yet you think you can just shrug off an r-60 and win the fight? what a joke

great, everyone's a manager

love to hear his thoughts on our community that can't seem to do anything without a cbu-105

this may not always be true. in the real world, more "primitive" systems may be simpler to manufacture, but that's because their operative principles rely more on the underlying architecture of nature itself. this architecture does not exist natively inside the computer and needs to be coded for, and so ironically primitive systems can be quite complicated to simulate properly. for example, wood and fabric ww1 aircraft are much more complicated to simulate on the computer than they are to build in reality due to the sheer number of interactions created by their construction methods. im just saying it's a bit callous to assume that building things on the computer is anything like building things in real life.

my dude subs is a friggin legend

wow why arent there any laws in place to ensure i get my fun quota

this will end well well i guess maybe hawkeye can turn out a stand-in mod if your standards arent too high.

yeah my utterly baseless speculation must be true if i copypasta it enough times

fairweather friends itf