Foogle

Please do, I'll see if I can record the bug when I get home tonight.

The sensitivity is not the problem, when the pod becomes ground stabilized, it should slew relative to the ground, not relative to the aircraft. Overpowering the adverse movement does not fix the issue.

I've been experiencing this since day one, the pod has to overcome the aircraft movement, so if you're too close to the target (too much transversal velocity) or too zoomed in (controls dampened too much) then you can't slew in the direction of travel. Same thing with rotation of the aircraft.

It was shown on one of the static mockups IIRC, but that's probably a better question for @uboats

That's normal. MTOW is not a number that says 'you cannot take off' it specifies a number where it becomes unsafe to take off due to aircraft limitations. MTOW affects many aspects of an aircraft's performance. It will affect stopping distance after a rejected takeoff, takeoff performance (including engine failure), climb performance, taxi weights, and many structural aspects. MTOW will be chosen so that the requirements for all of these conditions are met.

First: Dual SD-10 racks have not been seen on an operational aircraft to my knowledge. Second: if they were used, they would not be loaded with the 1100L tanks for that reason. So the 'realistic' loadout would be with 800L tanks.

While we're on it, most modern aircraft can be loaded with drawings on their map (like the KA-50) to designate corridors, sectors, etc.. The KA-50 has this ability in game, so it's already been done; but no other developers have touched the idea. *wink wink nudge nudge*

Usually we're on the same page, but I'm gonna disagree with you on this one. The KA-50/F10 map is the superior of all available maps in DCS; all other maps suffer from the same problem: they dont scale when zoomed in, so you get the same 250,000:1 map, but blurry. When zooming on the HSD it should move to a finer detail map, whether that's correct for the aircraft, I don't know, but accurate maps have been a pillar of warfare for hundreds of years and the lack of usable detail has always been something that ticks me off.

Yes please, both of the available maps are terrible.

Hey! My Squadron has some rules around privacy, is there an option to make a board private, so it needs both the password and username to even view it?

Pretty sure that was a joke screenshot, but I may be wrong.

Reported multiple times, Check the Bugs section. ED messed up the render distance when they introduced the SLAM.

As per Deka in previous threads: If the PAF get the HMD, we'll get the HMD

A year ago? Just before covid hit, I think.

It accurately simulates a Pakistani aircraft that is built to interface with the blufor airborne command and control (Erieye) that Pakistan uses. The promotional material doesn't mention the Thunder belonging to a specific side, and I don't see any lies in saying that the data link allows it to talk to the AWACS. If the sales page is lying, then the page for any Blu datalink capable aircraft is lying. The F-16 can't connect to the Red AWACS either, it's also used by Pakistan, so you should go over to their forum and see what they say. Finally, PvP balancing is not a reasonable argument for changing an aircraft away from its known capabilities. DCS is ultimately a simulator, whether you use it realistically or not.

Any more info on these? I can't find them on the user files and it's been over a month.

Balancing Red and Blu sides is not Deka's job.

Again, you're going to screw over squadrons based on the real world operators all because you want Deka to balance the game for you. Deka has to choose one, and going with the current real world option is the obvious choice until a work around can be found.

The linked post doesn't confirm that. There are 2 sets of pictures, one from Aeria, and a one from Hamza. Hamza's pictures are of a 17B, and uses them to refute the PC-21 cockpit (see linked post). The picture posted by op is of the 17B training pit, so it might be something we can get.

I noticed this too, if I mask the Tpod I can lose the SPI but the pod is still locked to the target, so I need to TDC depress to reset the SPI or I won't get an IN RNG and the rockets won't fire.

Pakistan is the primary operator of the Thunder, and uses it along side the F-16, so I'd prefer to have compatibility that mirrors real world application. Making the JF-17 DL REDFOR only is breaking from reality in the name of balancing air quake. Balancing MP is not Deka's job, making the most realistic aircraft is.

Drawing is currently available for the KA-50, but has been promptly ignored in every module ever since. So it's not only possible but has been implemented before. It's up to PC to make the call though.

No mods, and I'm not going to change my settings when every other module works fine, again, this has been fixed in other modules, as shown in this old F-16 screenshot.

As the title says, this was an issue in the F-18 and F-16 but ED was able to fix it. No track file because it wont show you anything. This makes much of the text unreadable, please see attached picture.

I posted about the C-704/705 earlier, hopefully it will be added also. But honestly the more Red team weapons we can get, the better.