Kang

One could say that ED themselves are missing out a lot on the idea of merchandising, though. Thing is, though, I personally would rather have something DCS inspired than a mere company logo.

Definitely would be good. Also, touching on the fact that it is a little problematic how much this sort of thing depends on the module.

I can only speak for myself, but have to say I am still interested, but my personal hype level is definitely falling for various reasons. Perhaps a treat would remedy that.

Not so sure about it being much of a secret, but the FW-190D9 surely is one of the most capable German planes of the war. Probably a lot less guesswork and what-if involved in the module as well, compared to some others. While I haven't had the chance to give it a spin myself yet, I always thought, though, that the F4U in its tactical employment could be considered a bit of a Pacific FW190. That might sound bizarre, so let me explain: they are both quite nimble, mostly in roll and not in circle radius, they both excel at going fast and climbing away from danger, and they both boast devastating firepower, compared to the sturdiness of their respective targets. Overall I find the warbird experience in DCS a bit lackluster on the whole, though, especially considering its comparably high step of entrance.

As hilarious as I would find the news report about somebody having been thrown through the wall by their fancy sim rig, I think this should be done, yes. The event flag quite obviously is a thing in DCS already, it just needs to be routed out to the whole export business.

Funnily enough for both of them the hardest part is convincing them that there is a problem. Coincidence? You decide! Perhaps an optimal solution would be to actually include different models of these SAMs to better mirror their real life counterparts, but I am wary of what the ME unit selection list might look like soon enough.

Frankly what would be nice: A little indication in the ME when setting up a unit to act as JTAC on what it is capable of or not.

As far as I can tell both the tractors and the waypoint action have been put in for future use and there are no 'active' trailers as of yet. At least I haven't seen one.

The truth is that Wags has an assistant who moves the mouse very slowly and smoothly.

That would, after all, be the perfect time to get some flight tests done!

Last I heard it's not really like the German armed forces were overly happy with it either. Showing off might just be smiling for the pain.

I perfectly get that the amount of dev-time is limited and people want different things as, sadly, we simply cannot have it all. Still, as upyr1 pointed out: ED is working on the F-35A - which in turn I have very little interest in - and HB is working on a Eurofighter Typhoon.

I know it is, in all likelihood, being based on a Spanish example of the F-104G and that's perfectly fine, but do y'all see a chance for the incorporation of the AS.34 Kormoran anti-ship missile?

Since the 'No manual?' thread got merged and conveniently closed, I'll put the question here: Is the manual being proof-read with surprising tenacity or is it - as said thread recently suggests - running into some trouble in the writing process?

Doubly so, in fact, if you fly a mission you haven't created yourself and in lieu of a good briefing have to guess at which radio channel preset is the one you need...

It definitely would be a good choice. As you said: the early models saw combat in WW2, it was rather prominent in the Korean War and the later variants saw some action in Vietnam and Africa. You could say the rug really tied the room together.

Quite frankly, this is the wrong variant to be dogfighting F-14 Tomcats in

I would take that swap in an instant as well, but given how the F-35A is officially announced, I'd say it's a bit late for that now.

I'm fairly sure there is no more work being done on the BS2 version.

Having just muzzle flashes akin to the fire and smoke effects to be placed would be a great solution. Place them around buildings or in the forests.

That's what I meant, yes. I do not find it amusing when I spend time carefully placing things in a mission only to later find out that I can't share it people freely because at some point I used something form an asset pack. It isn't always obvious, and it's definitely going to get harder when there are more asset packs around.

Must be one hell of a manual if proofreading alone takes more than one and a half years.

Selling a lot of the modules that are actually released and would become a whole lot less annoying to use, I presume. I know that probably doesn't work out, but it is no secret that the enormous backlog of errors is only getting bigger and bigger, and it sure hampers DCS' progress and in turn sales. Now, I'd say that ED isn't exactly a prime example of being geniuses at running a business either, but to be honest - they might have us morons figured out just right and manage to just scrape by despite the releases to - as you said - stay afloat during the year, coming ever quicker and - some people say - being less and less impressive.

Simple wish: Mark units that require one or the other asset pack in the ME unit lists. Give them an asterisk or a "(Asset Pack)" or whatnot. Perhaps retroactively for units from the original asset pack as well?