Kang

Could be interesting, but would require the whole EW side of things in DCS to at least have a simple modeling that is reasonably consistent throughout the world. Not even talking about the whole multiplayer balance thoughts that I understand many people don't care about, but in any scenario such a concept would be wildly disappointing if it was only effective for a select few targets and others were completely immune.

The western-made clusters aren't really much better in being consistent in their performance. The sole exception are the 'smart sub-munition' ones (like CBU-97) that have always been deadly. A BLG-66 or a Mk20 are just in the same boat as the RBK-250.

I happen to have both of them and my personal verdict is that I enjoyed the Mosquito more, but that may be in part because I am generally a ground attack enjoyer and find that dogfighting in the Spitfire often trips over some DCS core problems. Seriously, this. Quite frankly, I think the Mosquito wouldn't even need a George-style fancy AI. Something akin to what ol' Belsimtek did for the Huey would probably suffice. The option to have a 'pilot' keep it somewhat straight and level or maybe circle or at least hold attitude properly, while I work with the radios in the back. Skill issue? Maybe. But I find it awfully hard to do the entirety of the flying while also looking the exact other way and fiddling with the dials. It isn't even that doing a lot with the long range radio was always necessary, it just feels to me that they put a lot of work into modeling all that and then made it borderline impossible to use any of it.

Cluster bombs as a whole, in DCS, have an interesting tendency to alternate between 'completely useless' and 'ridiculously powerful' every few updates. Nobody knows why. This is not limited to the RBK-250.

Perhaps when that rework that has been hinted at several times over the years happens. As for right now I figure it doesn't make a huge difference which language they use to tell me completely irrelevant stuff to ignore. Before somebody feels the need to ask, here my usual experience with the DCS AWACS in a busy mission: AWACS: «Pop-up group of two, 90 miles, 330.» AWACS: «Pop-up group, 150 miles, 025, hot.» AWACS: «Bogey four ship, somewhere over Western Australia, flanking.» AWACS: «Pop-up group, 75 miles, 347, cold.» AWACS: «MERGED!» Yea, thanks a lot...

As serious as BIGNEWY's 2022 implication that the crew has been missing for lack of time.

Being reminded of the thread thanks to the bump one can't help but acknowledge how releasing these without visible crew sure was the correct call, seeing how three years later they still would be in the making otherwise, evidently.

Ah, yes, that's true. I guess I made that mistake seeing how the Jolly Green Giant wasn't exactly known for doing much of that. But the coast guard Pelican is indeed the same fuselage. While I do like the Giant, I would agree that a 'proper' boat hull Sea King would be nicer to have. Not quite believing in it, though.

At that point it would make more sense to go with the CH-3 Jolly Green Giant really. It would also avoid the whole float/water landing problem.

Standby for disappointment

Bit disappointed in what came out of that event, to be honest, but the good news is: with videos like that, the hype is going up again!

To some extent, in the literal way of the nomenclature being chaotic down to the very files, but more broadly as well, in that DCS plays it very loose with any sort of standardisation for literally anything.

I can't say I agree with that. Frankly, I still fail to see where that diagram even mentions the windows in any capacity. But alas, we can leave it at that.

I don't quite understand what any of those pictures really have to do with that. Could you perhaps elaborate that?

That certainly gave my hype a +1

It might be, really, but I remember it gained some popularity (or maybe even re-introduction) not all that long ago. Definitely in the DCS 2.x era. It's just confusing all around.

I can relate to the wish, but I'm afraid the mish-mash of nomenclature is tied to the very core of what DCS is.

I'm fairly sure that even if any sort of deity exists, they are perfectly puzzled as to what exactly Combined Arms is supposed to be. You know, it's fun to dream sometimes. A lot of people throw the word 'functional' around easily here, you know. But really, thanks for the laugh.

What I remember vividly from my visit there, which has been years ago at this point, is that videos do not do it proper justice usually, and it is sometimes more worthwhile to just enjoy the moment.

There are a lot of interesting options, but frankly, I doubt they are going for the angle of mainly maritime use helicopters anytime soon, considering that it would definitely increase the pressure of implementing ASW as a whole new topic, as well as the need to expand/modernise watery assets. Remember the 'year of naval focus'.

Thank you for your insights and special thanks to Actium for having done the work to actually look into it. That answered my question. Yes, it does raise further questions, like... why? But lets not get carried away.

He is waiting for a final salute. I believe there was a keybind for that (or was that just for the Tomcat?), but you can definitely find it in the Ground Crew menu.

The bizarre wish for subscriptions is malarkey. And yes, in some places DCS modules were sold as hard copies for a while. It's actually how I got to DCS in the first place.

A lot of online servers, when you try to connect to them, require permission 'for the server to take screenshots'. There has been some debate about it when the feature was introduced, I seem to recall it is considered a bit of an anti-cheat bit somehow, but frankly, that isn't what I want to get into right now. Instead, quick question: What does the server actually take a screenshot of? Or more precisely: Can any of the online server admins, who ever took a look at one of those, actually tell me what all they show? Is it solely the DCS window? Is it the screen that DCS is running on? Is it all the screens?

I'm pretty sure that the days when DCS modules were available to be bought in physical boxes were a much better idea than this usual malarkey.