FoxOne007

We can debate and show charts about this all day long but in the end RAZBAM had already said they won’t be removable. CFT’s are an integral part of the Strike Eagle and only ever come off during repot maintenance and other rare MX occasions. Discussing X & Y performance is a waste of time as it won’t have any result

While true, the Kiowa lacks any good reason for the majority of players to get the aircraft when they already own the Apache. The Apache is far more capable in every way. Only the more hardcore Kiowa fans will be getting it (which is a small group in an already small community). Imo Polychop has really shot themselves in the foot with not having this out before the Apache as well as with their “No Multicrew” stance

As long as people keep pre-ordering their very hyped up modules (like the Apache) it’s a lost cause

In typical ED fashion the manual has once again not been updated to include the latest changes, pretty poor track record this. New changes (especially significant ones like addition of HTS, Markpoints, etc.) should be in the manual once it's released to the sim, now we're once again left to figure out half the stuff on our own (like how to input MGRS and make sure it saves)

Ah didn’t know that about the CNVRT, couldn’t figure out how to get the dobber there. Thanks!

As per title, When you put in all the MGRS Grid info into any of the STPT's (20-24) and then back out to the CNI pages or go back to LAT/LONG it doesn't save, it also doesn't create an actual STPT on the HSD to navigate to

Not sure if this has been suggested yet, but it would be very nice to also be able to set up the HARM emitter ALIC codes via the DTC (should be able to do this IRL as well afaik)

To add onto this, cursor speed should be the same on all pages with a cursor, this goes for the F-18 too btw, the cursor speed on that jet is a complete mess

I really don’t understand the speculation tbh . We know nothing until they tell us something, really not worth constantly discussing about, cuz everyone just makes their own narrative with mostly made up reasoning as to XYZ

Just curious about this, as in the past it was always, this module won’t affect another plane’s dev time (like F-18 & F-16). Yet here we are with an unfinished A-10, but with the Apache coming out soon-ish…. (There are about 3 more examples that I won’t go into but you get the point). It seems like we just keep getting lied to while people get mover off modules to work on something that gives ED more money instead of finishing what a lot of people already payed for (4/5 years of Dev time isn’t acceptable if you keep releasing new modules in that same time) it just becomes abandonware at this point

Someone on discord also reported the following: - if you handoff a threat and then switch the MFD page, it breaks the handoff and wont let you handoff another threat - if you handoff a threat, and it launches on you, it breaks it and wont let you handoff again i feel like this is in the same line of issues as mentioned above

To leave out those cities would be the best option given the geo-political situation in those Israeli/Palestinian area’s. Amman is closer but imo still far enough to be able to be left out without it looking weird, sure I would welcome the city being there, but it’s not a big must, I’d rather have the airbase.

As someone who regularly JTAC’s I 100% agree, but that has nothing to do with making smaller maps, terrain smoothing tools just need to be drastically improved by ED

Not trying to be rude but this is arguably the worst idea for DCS, making even smaller maps will leave out a lot of other areas where conflict might have happened too, thus severely limiting playability, along with 80x80 (or similar) being way to small for any fighter group to fly in properly. This would do 2 things, have even more maps that are super small but take up a lot of disc space that a lot of people would have to buy. on that note, both Syria, Caucasus and Marianas have great ground level detail and terrain. The upcoming South Atlantic terrain by RAZBAM also loons like it’s gonna have a lot of great terrain for low level flying

If you have no meaningful comments them I kindly ask you to just not comment instead of making dumb unfounded “comments” There is no official DCS or 3rd Party roadmap so not sure what your point is.

Bump

As per title, In AG master mode when trying to put the TGP into INR mode (after a point/area track) via TMS Aft it CZ's the TGP after the first Aft press. It however does work when you are in NAV master mode, it will go into INR mode just fine with one TMS Aft press. Steps to reproduce: - Jump into jet and when in NAV mode go to TGP, put in a track mode and then TMS aft for INR. - Then switch to AG mode and do the same, it should CZ. Track file also attached. F-16_TGP_INR_Not_working_in_AG-Mode.trk

Would be WIP and not yet finished or perhaps on the left panels

Another update, a look inside the cockpit, here’s the right hand panel of both the pilot and WSO

Prowler dropping some dumb bombs, note the External 3D model (looks very nice). And it FLIES AND DROPS BOMBS!!

So I tested this and it doesn't work on the Humvee's. can someone at ED please fix it so that it also works on the Humvee's. Thanks in advance

There is some docs that state that the HTS and LITENING don't work together, if loaded together it would then leave the LITENING INOP iirc

Ah neat, didn’t know that, will have to check it out, thanks!

Well said, you hit the nail right on the head. I would rather have it be another year before they release it if that means we will get a proper module on release and not a hot mess like the F-16C was