BodyOrgan

Shh...... I was trying to set microVAX off ;)

Yes, that's what I mean. The EWR at the Comm arrays. You're right about friendly aircraft in your group, but as you said that doesn't work in MP :(

Rounds 7-9 are the only rounds WARSAW vs NATO. Prior to those rounds strike aircraft/choppers were shared between the teams. I feel sorry for the poor chopper pilot who wasted 40+ minutes of flight to be team killed by the horde of QuakeAir. It isn't about edge, but about making the Flanker competitive if that's even possible with those missiles. Oh you mean like the Mirage radar maintaining lock through mountains or when it isn't even facing the target? Welcome to the wishlist thread. Here's what I'd like to see: Strike Aircraft, and Choppers shared between the teams. I'd like to get some multi-crew action in a Gazelle too, why does Bluefor have to be so stingy? ;) Leave Mirage as is including D2M. Leave F-15C as is. Give Russian aircraft their datalink, and better SARH missiles. (I don't understand why everyone thinks they must go into combat having the worst SA, and the worst weapons or it's OP.) EDIT: Almost forgot. One I really want to see is own plane removed from F10 map. I can't wait for everyone to get lost. I think the only reason everyone is afraid to give the Flanker its datalink is because it will force them to work as a team using legitimate tactics. No more of this cat, and mouse crap where everyone is flying at 1 meter off the ground hunting RWR spikes. EDIT: Having the datalink would also make capturing the Comm arrays very important for Bluefor, because that's how datalink is propagated in multiplayer. Might also like to see a FARP pad at the Comm arrays to launch a small contingent of choppers (like 2 max) from a Comm array giving more options for strike.

Edit: To include quote in response. Sorry guys, you're right, I'm wrong. Simple answer, you will enjoy the Gazelle..... I think.

No, you're picking out what you need from the OP's message. Here, the message in its entirety: As you mentioned I addressed the flight characteristics of both. Which quite frankly you didn't even do. The only thing you informed the OP of is that their names are different, so in must be everything else. I also addressed what is highlighted in red by explaining the various systems of each (which I could go even deeper in depth on, but as you say I've already reached the wall of text moniker). Simply by knowing the various ranges of each weapon system, and how they work should give an implied understanding the tactics of each air-frame, but yes I could have explained that, and then you'd still be sitting here reading my wall of text. The intent is to give the OP enough information in the hopes they can make a judgement call for themselves on whether or not the module is worth it to them. To attack my statements of FACT (please find anything I've written which is false) as misleading is what is misleading. I cannot fathom in what world your statement or any of these "Yeah man! Like totally different... I mean like this one fly good, and this one tank good!" could ever help anyone decide if the module is right for them.

CrashO, I'm one of those regulars who play the Red side, and I've mentioned before reasons why I don't play much anymore, so the only thing I'm going to say here is: Forget the communication thing, and forget your M2K (as in don't even factor these in). Join Redfor for a testing round, and use all the other modules, and formulate your opinion on why playing on Redfor isn't fun. Again, do not factor in communication or the M2K (do not worry, you'll find many other reasons why it isn't fun). You'll have a much better understanding of the situation then.

I'm not making a personal attack on you, but addressing the lie that is often propagated (as I've seen in many threads) in which the Gazelle is fast. This may be true for the civil variant, but the statement should be mentioned as such. I'm a fanboi too, but everyone likes to pretend the Gazelle is so different from the Ka-50. This is really only true in application, and not so much role. Even then, only to a point. Put another way the Gazelle is like what the Camaro was once often referred to in the States as the poor man's Corvette. The Ka-50 being the Corvette. As for my sarcasm, well I don't know what you want to read into, but I gave a far more objective view of each aircraft than anyone else and simply told the OP good luck with whatever choice they end up going with.

I feel these fanboi's are giving you incorrect information. Lets start with the most glaring lie. The Gazelle in DCS is the slowest of all the choppers including the Huey. In its civilian form it holds/held speed records, but when loaded with equipment it is quite slow. As far as gameplay is concerned the Gazelle isn't all that different from the Ka-50. What the Ka-50 does in a single air-frame it takes 3 air-frames for a Gazelle to achieve. They are both tank busters. The Ka-50 has 12 Vikhrs which can destroy targets up to ranges of 11-12 KM, but usually a max of 9 KM if actually locking onto the target. The Gazelle (SA342M) has 4 HOT missiles with a maximum range of 4300 meters, and no more because after this the wire runs out, and guidance is no longer possible. The Ka-50 uses tracking technology, so that once locked the missile will guide to the locked target. In contrast the Gazelle HOT missile must be manually guided (by the 2nd seat) all the way to target. The Ka-50 can employ rockets, and a 30mm cannon. The Gazelle can employ rockets, and a 20mm cannon in a 2nd variant (SA243L). The Ka-50 can use its Vikhrs for A-A although this is quite difficult without a good deal of preparation, but if successfully locked onto a target, then they are very effective. The Gazelle has a 3rd (SA342Mistral) variant which carries 4 A-A missiles which are easy to use, but will only acquire a lock from rear aspect. These are also quite effective as long as counter measures aren't used. The PVI-800 in the Ka-50 operates in much the same way the NADIR does in the Gazelle. Each will allow you to create waypoints to help you navigate. Each will allow you to see wind speed, and direction. Each will allow you have an ETA, etc.... The Gazelle doesn't have a moving map (ABRIS in the Ka-50) thus you can't visualize the AO. It also doesn't have any data-link features, so no sharing target information with another Gazelle. It also cannot buddy lase which is something the Ka-50 can do for another Ka-50 (this is really just a bullet point as it's quite useless in reality). The Gazelle has an stabilization system (SAS) which is similar to the Ka-50. The flight model on the other hand is where things differ vastly. The Gazelle doesn't fly like the Ka-50 at all. The basics are the same, push forward to gain forward momentum, increase collective for altitude, etc.. The handling is where everything is different. Before I end, two important things the Gazelle has which the Ka-50 doesn't. First, an RWR, so you can detect radar threats which may or may not be tracking you. Lastly, the ability to fly with another person in multiplayer in the same aircraft. One person takes the pilot position, and the other takes the co-pilot position. Good luck with your choice.

Personally I think it's just about learning the aircraft of choice. I used to come out with zero victories to many deaths in the P-51D, but I've been putting a lot of time in with it, and I'm starting to do quite well against average players, coming out ahead in many cases. Against the real aces I'm lucky to go one for one, but I still have so much to learn, and I feel like there's tons of potential I've yet to tap into. I have to agree with some of the others about the Spitfire complementing the Mustang. As long as the Mustangs stay high, and watch the fight only dropping in for the occasional pass they'll be able to run down any German trying to flee in which they'll either kill them, or force them back into a turn fight with the Spitfires.

IIRC the effects aren't modeled like the other aircraft. The pilot will just die after a time.

I want them to get the radio selector switch functional, so I can use it to switch radios for SRS, and so I know which radio I'm transmitting on.

I'm glad you added the new label settings. It helps out a great deal.

Yes, it is because of your numbers. Nothing you can really do about it unless you want to split your team, but then to Smokey's point, blue team will still have much higher numbers probably. I look at taking away the Su-27 datalink as the same thing as taking away the A-10C TGP. Round 6 was fought with giving the F-15C its full capabilities, but the same wasn't done for the Su-27. We saw how that turned out. I don't. You're right in that blue team is going to have the superior numbers no matter what. Due to your teams size when RvE plays red team it keeps the numbers pretty even, so it's a lot more fun to play on either team then. With the numbers game as it is I don't intend to play round 10, but next time I see RvE on red team, and if by some miracle that keeps the numbers close to even I might drop into blue team. It's probably the only time I'll get to play on that team without it being a steam roll session. Caveat being the strikers/choppers aren't mixed again. If that happens I'll just stick with Redfor, because they will have less numbers, but I'll get to fly everything except the F-15C. The NATO vs WARSAW was a nice concept, but without any DCS level Russian equipment which can actually compete it's pretty rough playing for red team at the moment. I'm for mixing and matching the strikers and choppers again.

Actually, there are two things consistent. Whining about the whining.

Had a great time on the server last night on the winter map. Got to do my first high altitude dogfight. That was a completely different experience. It seemed to give both parties near equal footing, and you're able to escape just about anytime you want.

I'm glad you called that out, because I was tempted to as well. I'm not blaming RvE for their choices, as I would rather fly with those you know, and those you can cooperate with, but the team stacking which occurs when they join a side is the reason I don't play anymore. Sucked the fun out of it for me. Good luck round 10.

Thanks for putting the Mig-15, and F-86F in the mission. Can you also update the mission so the radio presets can tune into the ATC and especially the AWACS channel? I wasn't able to get on the AWACS channel while flying the F-86F, and of course I was snuck up on each sortie, because I had no way to find an opponent except visually, and that's less than stellar in DCS.

Can a few F-86, and Mig-15 be added to the mission? That's all I would need to play on the server.

As much as I like NATO vs Warsaw PACT it's no longer feasible IMO. I think we got exactly one round where it wasn't a complete drag for Redfor due to a nearly equal amount of DCS level modules on both sides. Right now it sucks being on Redfor because we don't get any of the high fidelity modules unless we want to fly choppers, and that just doesn't work well in Blue Quake. I find myself agreeing to go back to sharing strike/chopper and DCS level fighters.

I thought the 109 was super easy till I discovered in the settings it had defaulted to 100% take off help. Once I set this to 0 it was significantly harder. Like everyone say's though, even with 0 take off assistance once you figure it out it isn't so bad.

+1 +1 :megalol::megalol::megalol:

I love how you follow up your posts with answers when you discover them. It's a really good habit, because someone 10 years from now is going to find your posts. As long as you actually spend time speaking with others who share your flight interest online, then I don't think you'll be the last to the party anymore. Build those friendships!

I have a few changes which should go a long way in helping the competitive multiplayer environment. I sure hope someone affiliated with ED passes this information along to the designers as food for thought at least. GUI bullet points as follows: Client must select coalition prior to selecting unit, and only that coalition's units are displayed to the client (Want for 1.5.x badly) Client selects unit type to spawn, and airbase/FARP/spawn point to spawn from Mission editor bullet points: Add more than two coalitions All aircraft for all nations Generic unit type (becomes whatever the client selects) for mission editor Airbases, FARPs, or any other type capable of spawning units uses a counter to track total spawned against total allowable spawns Explanation of GUI bullet points follows: With the current multiplayer selection screen counter picking is possible. Player X on Blue team might pick F-15C at Tbilisi to counter Player Y on Red team who spawned in a Su-25T at Beslan. Opposing teams should not be privy to this information. By forcing the player to choose a side before being shown only their sides spawns, counter picking is eliminated on servers which prevent coalition change. The second point is going to be a little tougher to explain as it works in conjunction with a mission editor change. Simply put, the client is presented with a unit selection screen which allows them to choose the unit (via drop down list) they want to spawn which isn't predetermined, and from where (via drop down list) to spawn. When I say isn't predetermined I mean the mission designer did not specify the unit or where the unit spawns (at least not directly). In other words there is no multiplayer screen with a predetermined number of units in which the client must select an available slot (predetermined screen should still exist when client doesn't select a generic type). Explanation of mission editor bullet points follows: The first point is self explanatory. Allow it so more than two teams can be engaging. Also self explanatory. Don't restrict mission designer's fantasies of creating the mission they want to create. Ok, these last two points are the meat and potatoes for the client being able to choose what they want, and remove this responsibility from the mission designer, and to allow the future growth of modules. The mission editor needs a generic type. A type which can become any unit in the game determined by the client selection upon entering the mission via the GUI as described above. This is needed due to impending module saturation. At the current rate it stands to reason the available slots at airbases aren't going to be enough to field all aircraft types at the front lines or any where for that matter once enough modules exist. This will ultimately leave players unable to fly their desired aircraft. Only one generic type need be added to an airbase (what allows it to show in the drop down list described in the GUI section) in the mission editor to handle all clients intending to spawn at this airbase. Due to an airbase having a finite amount of physical spawning space a counter containing maximum allowable spawns is used to prevent a spawn should total amount of allowable spawns be reached. If the total amount of allowable spawns is 50, and a clients spawns from a generic type or non-generic type the counter is reduced to 49 for example. Non-generic types should be checking against this counter as well to make sure they aren't spawning into some client.

It's all I got out of it. Perhaps your English runs deeper than mine.

Are spectators getting this briefing? It may only be if you're slotted.