Shively

I don't know if you fly against the F-4 AI very often or not, but it's kind of an accomplishment for me to get the kill on them the first time with the missiles on my Fishbed, of basically all varieties (aside the R-3R, which always feels ahistorically awesome). If I'm toting R-60m I'm accustomed to double-tapping anyway, but it almost always requires two of them, otherwise most hits just disable one engine and the F-4 keeps fighting like nothing happened. That's fine for the R-60 and its tiny warhead, but when the R-13s start failing on you, you begin to get a bit annoyed. I seriously wouldn't be surprised if they can tank R-73s. Should probably get around to testing that, actually.

I'd support a push to remove aircraft that weren't present in the 80's from a concept for Blue Flag that seeks to create a Cold War gone-hot scenario. Even if only because air-to-ground strikes in the older Grach are FUN and I believe everyone should get to experience them.

I'll never leave you, 460. But now I'm going to be flying a lot more Fishbed. God help us all. At least everything sort of works in that module, for the time being at least.

Sweep, missile performance varies as ED refuses to fix their missiles, I don't really want to get into an argument here, I was just trying to answer his question You just can't resist, can you?

I thought it was already accepted that the R-27R and R-27T were the proper counterparts to the AIM-7 in DCS. The AIM-7M even has a longer range than both of those missiles, being advantaged by some 4 nautical miles. Hell, the AIM-7M even has a longer range than the R-77.

If I'm not mistaken, the F-15 can just take 3 fuel bags and fill itself up using those then call for the loadout they actually want, right? Otherwise, I'm fine with the fuel-up time on FC3 planes, the only thing that needs to go regarding that isn't really in Buddy Spike's control. The sound effect for refueling really is worse than nails on a chalkboard though, I basically turn my volume down to almost nill if I know I'm going to have to fuel one up.

Just play when Blue has the majority advantage. ;^) I don't see a problem. Seriously, though, if a team/balance limit is to be instituted, I'd support it, just so long as it's within a margin of +/- 10 players or so as people have suggested in the past. That's still enough players for the side with an advantage to have a huge advantage, but not such that the server gets full and no one else can join to even it out.

Not even the admin that banned him thinks he's cheating. You're reaching a bit there.

I just looked through that thread and the overwhelming majority of REDFOR's complaints are about the event/mission's organization, mostly to do with server/team balance, and one (count 'em) instance during testing where it looked like some idiots were spamming the screenshot function which inadvertently crashed the server. I think that's a little bit different than the current situation, which is now the third time a BLUEFOR player has broken ED's rules, bringing multiplayer disputes to the forums, and sought the offending player's head on a silver platter - just that I've seen, in this thread alone. It doesn't appear that REDFOR is as prone to participating in witch hunts.

Wasn't it just a few days ago that BLUFOR was trying to get Manzanita banned for accidental teamkills, thinking that, obviously, he had to be doing that on purpose? Given that incident and the sheer amount of complaining seems to be going on on Blue's TS, going by testimony given here, I think the issue may have a bit to do with sportsmanship and maturity so much as it does the server's huge amount of scripting and different clients/connections to handle and ED's netcode problems and inattention to multiplayer. You can't bring out the pitchforks every time something doesn't go your way. If we all did that, no one would be left to play on the server. I think a lot of you are getting far too worked up over this Kazakh submarine simulator.

I'd just like to say that if I reported every Blue player I noticed having desync issues, a considerable portion of the team would be banned, pending their own reinstalls. It's not like F-15s doing the timewarp is particularly uncommon, hell, a couple nights ago, I even had one lag out while I was tailing him and reappear directly on my six. I just chalked that up to a netcode problem, I don't think the guy was necessarily nefariously messing around with his connection, though I was sure as hell aggravated about it. Things happen. Anyone who's played DCS' multiplayer for more than 5 minutes should recognize that the net code is far from being perfect, which compounds further with issues from players' local network/internet setups. I don't think banning Arcus for something that's very likely not entirely in his control is anything short of ridiculous.

I was hoping someone would get around to the Mirage III at some point. Given your work on the M2000, I can't think of a better team to do it. Since you're doing the IIICJ, is there any chance of getting a Mirage 5 or even the Neshir in the future (same thing, right? :P)?

In a strange twist, I'm going to thank you guys for locking airfield captures until server balance is restored. Hope this'll be a recurring feature, as it should force a fight in effect, and hopefully make the event drag on longer, giving you guys more time to plan out and test the new concept. Would've been nice to have a couple days ago, though.

As a dedicated Fishbed pilot, I'd like to thank you guys for bringing the the AA weapons limitations back. No more getting blown up by cruise missiles launched from space at ranges longer than I can lock at, and at least I might have a chance of seeing the AIM-7s launched at me as I go for the merge, and that's all I ask!

So BLUEFOR players spamming screenshots until the server crashed, and doing functionally the same thing you're accusing Red of doing with the smoke, just 2-3 nights ago, didn't disrupt smoothness and kill other players' experience? I seem to recall an attack by RED on the point where those smoke canisters were dropped. Just stop special pleading, okay?

And you know that instance wasn't an accident as well, how, exactly? It seems like you're saying that it's okay and accidental when Bluefor does something that winds up crashing the server under suspect circumstances, but definitely done with malicious intent when Redfor does it.

Sounds interesting, glad you guys are revising the bombers to give them a bit more of a role to play here. My group flies the L-39 a bit, maybe we'll give it a shot later tonight if we're drunk enough and feel like throwing some lives into the pit.

Then 32 BLUEFOR players would get to fly against 0 REDFOR. I don't think Buddy Spike is particularly responsible for what one player on their server does so long as he's not abusing other players directly. I think Eagle Dynamics can handle having its dignity besmirched in a manner that they'll never know about.

Can't say I'm surprised, and that's all I'll say

Maybe just give us some heads-up this time so the forums aren't flooded with people unable to figure out why their weapons won't fire. :P I know you just did, but maybe try some big, bold, flashing letters or something, in some kind of nice bright red or orange or some other obnoxious color. Actually, nevermind, that won't do any good. Glad you guys've got this thing close to being implemented.

Somewhere out there, Ric Flair just let loose a lot of air.

I think that, probably, the assumption is that Leatherneck has sole responsibility over what gets updated regarded their module on a week-to-week basis. Simply put, that's Eagle Dynamic's job. Leatherneck cooks up the fixes, but it's not them that controls what gets uploaded to ED's patch servers and rolled out on Friday. Glad to see the fix is in the beta patch, though. Let's all hope it gets implemented next week. I can understand why people are frustrated, though, they've been told "it would be fixed in the next patch" multiple times now, with multiple patches, only to see them come and go with no fix applied. This may be a bit of conjecture, but I'm fairly certain Cobra and the rest of the Leatherneck team have been going through similar frustrations in trying to get this thing rolled out.

Not even a patch for the "live" version, just some stuff for the open beta build that won't be updated to the main version for a week or more. Call it what it is, not what we wanted it to be.

Excellent. Didn't know whether it was just Su-27/F-15 that had to refuel or all FC3 fighters.

All of the MiG-29s at Maykop are like that, I'm assuming this one's a feature rather than a bug, but I'm not certain.