Kang

Well, that all escalated quickly. Rather pointless, too.

That's good to hear. Thank you.

Those who have been holding their breath for the imminent release are slowly turning blue.

Well put together. This is popular wish for good reasons and you pointed out how it can be implemented with a minimum amount of work necessary. I only have to add that the whole rules-of-engagement issue has only grown in real-life operations in areas like our Syria map.

I like the opening and I think this'll be very interesting. Little point of criticism, though: I'm sure you could get a bit more traction by putting the language selector a bit more prominently on the front page. Yes, people, there is the option for English, it is just a bit hidden in the menu on the top right.

I like that list, it can be added to your kneeboard and it has the common and important ones. You'll find there are a lot more, but they are rarely used in DCS. Also, do feel free to ask if you come across something more obscure!

Thank you, that sort of matches my experience. I seem to recall reading somewhere that there also was an infrared system associated with it, but at least to me it remained unclear whether there is an actual IR-guided variant, or if the SACLOS guidance system just has an optional IR camera.

I'll admit I never really understood how the HQ-7 works. Basically the Crotale it was copied from is rather confusing already with different variants seemingly having vastly different guidance methods. Can anybody use the opportunity and explain to me what exactly the HQ-7 in DCS is?

I also doubt that gun jams are modeled beyond the option of setting it as a failure mayhaps.

At least in theory the 'warehouse' options in DCS provide the options for such limitations for each and every airbase and FARP already.

That's a good idea. Should be fairly easy to implement and would often be welcome for briefing maps at least.

You should be able to click on them to move them around. It is a bit tricky if the waypoint mode (in the right tab) is set to 'ADD', so it might add waypoints instead. Click on 'EDIT' there to make it easier. Other than that, there are some limitations to the placement of units. For example, if you placed an aircraft as parked, it must be on a base parking spot and can't be moved about manually.

That just makes it easier for him to give feedback to your flying.

The good news is that, yes, most of us do remember genuine joy. The bad news is that, sadly, one does get used to certain kind of disappointment, I guess. Still, don't mistake skepticism for negativity, please. The matter of fact is, that being somewhat realistic in what can be done helps curb that disappointment quite a lot. You know, people been here long enough to understand that things don't 'just happen' all that easily, so we got to pick our wishes carefully. Heck, I know that I often come off as really negative around here. The truth of the matter is that I try not to be, but sadly some glaring issues actually do get in the way of enjoying DCS as is, even more so of what it could be. Pointing it out, sometimes in stark terms, is what I hope brings about an improvement. Other people have other preferred ways, I reckon. But to get more on the topic at hand: There are quite a few on your list that I'd definitely agree with. I'd shorten it a lot, because, well, I won't live forever either. The upcoming C-130J is, I am quite certain, going to pave the way for a whole new kind of flying in DCS, and I believe the more regularly carrier-capable C-2 Greyhound would be a very interesting module for DCS. As far as the WW2 topic goes, I'm convinced that sooner or later it needs a proper bomber module to be viable. Some of the big birds would be interesting for sure, and a B-29 would also serve Korean-era scenarios well, but I'd also agree that starting out with something a little more, lets say, lightweight, would be the way to go, as it offers more flexibility. You got the B-25 on the list, and there is a whole trove of fun variants of that. I'll also admit I always liked it somehow. In a similar vein I could also see the somewhat rarer B-26 or the illustrious A-26 - both also wouldn't be strictly WW2 modules. Some of the more exotic wishes, I think, have a long ways to go. The possibility of doing them aside, anything that is focused on reconnaissance work or on anti-submarine duties pretty much would require DCS to implement these topics entirely first, and frankly, I doubt that ED would even consider that for a long time. Both of those could be very interesting, though.

A bit mean of you to seemingly not allow them to have a little vacation ever.