=475FG= Dawger

Similar aircraft dogfights are absolutely the most fun but they do eliminate blaming the machine. The problem with DCS WWII and DCS in general is the constant attempt at 24/7 persistent “dynamic” war in an historical framework. It just doesn’t work and becomes extremely stale. The persistent experience should be one not constrained by “history” allowing for the creation of engaging gameplay. History re-creation should be a rare treat, not a steady diet.

Just for the sake of the argument, I will accept your premise as correct for a moment. DCS would be a world’s better experience if the ground units were all ARMA AI. That, alone, would make the collaboration worthwhile. However, the premise is not correct. There is a mountain of teamwork and coordination opportunity in a simulation of 3-D battle space. Imagine an infantry unit, platoon sized, tasked with air assault of a small objective. Assume the enemy is a peer force with similar force composition and capability. All components of the human controlled force must be coordinated for success to be possible. Does it mean the CAP fighter might fly the entire duration in a BARCAP track? Maybe, but if he isn’t there the enemy strikers will have free reign of the airspace. Just getting troops to the objective in contested space would be an exciting challenge. Does it mean every pilot is constantly engaged? No. Neither are the ground pounders. However, just because troops move at a fraction of a percent of a fast mover doesn’t mean the battle moves any faster than the infantry. The fast mover may be hauling bombs to the same spot on the map over and over. Having flown a lot of multiplayer in various titles and played a lot of ARMA and other titles in organized units, I can tell you there is a tremendous opportunity for a collaboration between DCS and ARMA to create an engaging multiplayer environment for scenario gameplay. WWII and Cold War scenarios would be epic if the two titles could operate on the same map. Modern precision weapons might not be quite as engaging for the ground troops but I am sure there are plenty of folks that would enjoy JTAC ops with humans or even ARMA AI targets instead of static guy with an AK standing upright in a field.

I have a bit of a different take. WWII online flying games were at their peak when everyone had access to all the same planes for the daily gameplay and "historical" scenarios were special events. DCS WWII with its limited plane set could benefit from this style of gameplay if three (or more) sides were possible. Of course it would require either labels or locking in some bright color liveries for each side. Of course, I realize this is impossible. The people who enjoy the challenge of fighting against other folks in the same aircraft, not worried about sneaking around avoiding the fight, instead actively seeking the fight are all dead or retired from gaming. In such an environment, historical scenarios are an occasional and welcome treat, instead of the inevitable daily grind.

I find ARMA 3 and DCS very similar animals. They are as arcade or as mil-sim as you want them to be. Everything you mention above is available in ARMA via mod much like mods really make DCS MP something much better than "vanilla". A purposeful marriage of the two titles would be something incredible. ARMA really falls down when it comes to everything aerial and DCS really falls down with everything ground based. There wouldn't be much for the 4th Gen fighters to do in an ARMA fight but if the two companies collaborated on a map that both titles could use simultaneously, it would be truly amazing. Flying an airstrike for friendlies who are humans you can talk to and see on the ground would be an amazing experience.

I wasn't even talking about military stuff. Just flying a little bush plane around in MSFS is a horribly unsatisfying experience with nothing "simulator" about it.

MSFS seems to be glorified Google Earth to me. I try it every year or so but it just is not anything more than weird slew mode of satellite photos.

If I were HB, I would delay until fall. Summer is the slow season.

I used similar equipment decades ago and electrical power wasn't necessary to be able move switches, knobs, discs, etc. That diagram is showing mechanical switching. I see no reason why they would complicate that by adding an electric lock and see no evidence of one. Reading the operational test procedure, you turn the set on and let it warm up for 6 minutes before tuning stations and test the full range of motion on the tuning controls. This probably was taken to literally mean power was required for the tuning controls to rotate but this is extremely unlikely.

My fun/blow money budget isn’t itemized. Hookers/Blow/DCS modules are all in the same pile. I am talking about preorders based on the assumption that no one would be lame enough to whine about release delays if they hadn’t actually parted with some cash. Upon reflection, that is a ridiculous assumption. The most likely scenario is those complaining are just here to complain. They haven’t preordered, won’t be post ordering and will never fly the HB Phantom.

Nope. Finance is money management. Your household budget is a financial decision. Individual purchases are not. If a DCS module rises to the level of "financial decision", that means it is a major budget item, which would automatically mean it should be stricken from the budget as it is a completely unnecessary item. If you can't throw the price of a module out the window once or twice a year without thought to its impact on your budget, you should not be anywhere near pre-ordering anything.

If you think buying a DCS module is a financial decision, you definitely shouldn't be pre-ordering. You probably shouldn't be playing DCS either.

If your (collective) whining and moaning was contained within the designated thread, then only those interested in it would visit it. However, you (again collectively) insist on doing the whining and moaning in topics of interest to the community in general and we have to read through it all to glean any nuggets of interest.

I am convinced people pre-order or pretend they did just for the opportunity to whine incessantly once any delay occurs. As I said earlier, treat pre-orders like money thrown out the window. If throwing the pre-order price tag in cash out is going to affect your life in the slightest, you should never consider preordering anything. If you preorder knowing your panties will get twisted in knots, you did this to yourself and should refrain from announcing your lack of self control to the world. If you preordered and were surprised at how the inevitable delays have upset your apple cart, internalize the lesson and move on. Continuing to complain at this point can only be because you enjoy whining.

There should be a mental fitness test prior to purchase for pre-order. Do people really not know themselves well enough to be able to predict the self induced anguish any perceived or real delay in release will cause them? Consider pre-order money just as you would cash thrown out the window of a moving car and all your mental torment will cease.

If it has the old wing, I’ll be interested

To explain further, in missions without easy comms, you must press the radio push to talk or transmit button to open the comms menu when in flight. This simulates the necessity of using the radio to communicate outside of the airplane This is true in all full fidelity modules AFAIK.

Aggressor F-5’s were in the desert and if the equipment is installed it has to be maintained and the pilots have to maintain proficiency. Easy decision to not bother with ILS. And it really isn’t needed. In 15,000 hours flying all over the world in all kinds of weather, I probably needed ILS to see the runway less than 500 times, maybe a lot less than that. Never once in a desert.

I forgot about PAR/GSR. Those are pretty exciting IRL. TBH, the way the weather works in DCS makes ILS pretty useless. Trying to get ILS mins at one airport is going to sock in all the rest, generally speaking.

T-38 is a trainer and required the ILS for the curriculum. I imagine the foreign buyers put the ILS in for much the same reason, proficiency in procedures versus any combat usefulness.

Non-Precision approach minimums are sufficient for what the F-5 does. 600 ft universally and as low as 400 in some spots If the F-5 needs an ILS, it shouldn’t even bother to sortie.

Imagine typing multiple paragraphs agonizing over when you are going to be able to play with your new toy? It does make for fun reading though.

I know that it being buggy sucks but you dont really need it to fly through the clouds for short periods. Other instruments provide all the information you need to fly blind.

Logistics is going to run out of F-5 wings long before it runs out burned out light bulbs for the F-4.

Naw, it just means they hit the big volume discount number and finally sent them to be produced.

No reason to stick to historically accurate paint schemes. Do custom paint. Makes it easier to find your wingman as well.