=475FG= Dawger

A major part of the reason many of the players left Alpenwolf for Enigma is the competition over there is at a much lower level and the fight is always close to friendly air defenses. In general, everything there is “easier” which is what people want these days. Sad but true.

That’s too bad. I am looking forward to that mission.

I think the new Arab-Israeli War mission will be coming soon and the Sabre/Fagot mission as well. I just hope not this weekend as I will be busy

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3317307/ Complete instructions are there or you can use the edited file if you like.

Maybe consider getting away from the East/West split a bit when it consulted to the props. A P-47 on one side and the P-51 on the other maybe. There is also historical precedent for Luftwaffe props in early Cold War combat. B-52 is getting pretty late for ECW. MIG 19 might be necessary for intercept

If you provide EWR (so the sides can find each other) and ground targets in close proximity to each other, I think you will find those modules are more popular than you think. You can see both in my profile image below. And I hope you will consider providing prop aircraft for one or both sides for ground attack.

You can fly the A-10A in the best PvP server around, Alpenwolf's Cold War 1947-1991. You can also fly the Mig-29 occasionally in the same server.

What sweeping over generalization? The better question is why the concern on your part for this particular scenario? War is wholesale slaughter for no particularly good reason. It doesn't matter who the participants are, there are no "good guys". Just guys fighting for their side, usually only because they have to, doing things that scar them for life. Thankfully, we aren't fighting a war. We are playing a game. Basing the game on real events, places or situations makes it more engaging for some people. Putting pressure on the server operator to avoid offending one group or another is the REAL politicization of the server. DCS is an escape from all of that grinding stupidity. Let's keep it that way and get on with the business of killing each others pixels.

I find it somewhat amusing that DCS players beg and plead for terrains, aircraft, vehicles, uniforms and weapons representing actual conflicts and then get upset when someone builds a mission using those assets and names it what the conflict is called in the real world. So, yeah. Get over yourself. I mean that in the kindest manner possible. I really do. The nuke is the motivator for the gameplay desired. Nothing more, nothing less.

Cold War Strike Group is progressing along, creating pretty pictures and sinister plans.

No. Which is a good thing.

This one Not this one

A T-38, free or pay, would be a nice addition, especially an ancient version.

I should and normally would but when it happened I was trying to fly so the most expedient solution was to turn the damn thing off. I didn't bother to record which A-4 file triggered the IC. If I report it, they will want to know which file triggered it, which will require I turn it back and try to make it happen again. I am in a particularly sour mood towards DCS this morning so my motivation to bug hunt for a module that has caused me large amounts of grief in the past is low. Maybe later this afternoon I will regain the fire required to alpha test the A-4 some more.

On the face of it, you are correct. There is a lot that goes into my personal opinion on this subject, however. First off, my only interest in DCS is MP PvP, which is a very limited area. Further, I don't have any interest in BVR so that limits it even further. I enjoy servers that pit two sides of human players against each other with a maximum amount of teamwork and cooperation required to achieve the objectives. Such servers are few and far between and getting fewer all the time. I definitely do not like the trend exhibited in this and many other threads focused on the assumption that "cheating" is even a serious issue in DCS. Over the past year there have been multiple threads addressing what seems to be mostly imaginary "cheating". The servers I fly in have community solutions for the occasional player who tries to game the game. The idea of a heavy handed approach to something that is currently taken care of at the server level by the community that uses the server and the server operator rubs me the wrong way. Basically, ED is telling MP server operators, who invest their own time and money into servers, what game play is acceptable on private servers. So, to avoid that, server operators turn off IC and put the server behind a password. The problem with that is it is very hard to have a vibrant PvP, 24/7 server of the sort I enjoy behind a password. So I don't think I would continue to fly DCS if this trend continues. In reality, I think there would be no place left for me to fly should this continue down this road.

They can now taste virtually every module for two weeks. There is absolutely no need to provide a permanently free aircraft with the free trial program in place.

I installed and tested the A-4 mod when you announced this mission a while back. Its flight model is far less fantastical than it used to be, which is a good thing. However, it did trigger Integrity Check after a few days with it on. I turned it off when it triggered IC. I did not bother to research why, as I don't really plan to fly the thing. I sincerely hope the A-4 is successful, as it would be a nice addition to the server.

No secrets. I write my own modified autostart sequences for aircraft that allow access to the file (ED modules do, Third party developers generally don't, much to my chagrin) I fly mainly in Alpenwolf's Cold War server, the ORIGINAL Cold War server. The F-5 is the mainstay blue fighter and the RWR requires a mod to operate in accordance with reality. I use several cockpit mods that change the look or clean up the awfully dirty canopy glass. I have also created mods for several of the WWII aircraft to fix various issues. Here are two that I actually published. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/filter/type-is-mod/unit-is-p-51d/user-is-475FG HQ/apply/ Lots of folks use mods to drive components in home built cockpits. People use all sorts of mods for all sorts of reasons. Could some of them be considered as "cheating"? I suppose they could if you take a very narrow view of what it means to fly MP in DCS. If your only concern is the result, one could get severely wrapped up worrying about what other people are doing. My take is, generally, who cares? (Unless it is something blatant and over the top) If some gottawin is modding his RWR in order to gain what he perceives as some sort of advantage, I would rather live with that than deny the rest of the community the joy and pleasure that modding brings. If ED decides to once again include mods in IC, it will result in even more servers turning IC off and turning on passwords to keep out the riff raff. Public servers will become even more rare. Public MP in DCS is already tiny. Worrying about the three or four jackasses who cheat using mods, resulting in punishing thousands of modders minding their own business is probably going to be counterproductive. And my life experience has taught me that thieves think everyone else is stealing from them.

Providing armed, free aircraft would be/is a mistake. Unarmed, full fidelity modules like the TF-51 are great choices for free aircraft. The TF-51 only and the free trial program would be ideal, IMO. Separately, I would love a full fidelity A-10A. I own the C but don't enjoy it. I fly the A fairly regularly in Alpenwolf's Cold War server and really enjoy it.

Not really. This thread is really about whether or not user mods will pass IC. Without user mods passing IC, I am certain I would stop flying DCS. I don't fly single player and I use mods quite extensively. We went through a short period with IC preventing the use of mods and it was awful. A second iteration is not welcome.

You are welcome. I am glad you found the issue.

Click on the red shield in the server browser and it will disclose the file causing the error.

A short perusal of the A-10C flight manual gives clear evidence that the maximum towing, taxi, takeoff and landing weight of 46,000 lbs is purely due to the weakness of the nose gear and its associated structure. It has nothing to do with takeoff performance. If you want to determine maximum weight for takeoff - limited by performance one must refer to the performance charts but even then this will not be the absolute limit for getting the aircraft off the runway. Such a number doesn't exist, generally speaking, especially for an airplane with a severe restriction in allowable weight for a weak nose gear structure.