Kang

Well, it starts making a bit more sense if you look at servers that aren't competitive PVP. For example you might run a server solely as a bombing range for people to practice together and give them the option of just doing repeat runs with quick turn-arounds.

Just a suggestion to look into: https://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints/modernplanes/general-dynamics/27971/view/general_dynamics_f-16c_block_52/ They also have high quality vector graphics for sale. In either way, might have to take a quick look into licencing as to how it can be used, especially if you end up making more shirts. IP and all.

I'm a little surprised to see a 'yes (local)' in there, but then there might be a few more options for that one. From my understanding it means just what you thought: the server in question does not force this setting but you have locally set it for yourself. Generally speaking the 'stricter' of the two rulesets is applied. For example if you set your labels to off, and the server allows labels, you still have no labels. But if the server has set them to be off, but you - when flying on your own - use labels, there still won't be any on the server.

Well, always an option, but no, I perfectly get what you're saying. There certainly are servers that are somewhat dedicated to the 'Cold War' scenarios who might make a bit more sense about that, but obviously that limits the set of available aircraft even more, so I yea, I guess for many servers that's not much of a concern. To be fair, many of the popular servers are basically so centered on Fox3-jousting that visual IFF is barely even a thing. If you want a slightly more cynical take: perhaps releasing modules more or less at random wasn't such a great policy after all.

Thanks for clearing that up. Guess I could have read the manual a bit more thoroughly after all.

Just a simple question: Does the real flight stick on the FB Mk VI really have four triggers? I've been trying out the module a bit these past weeks and enjoyed it, but one of the things that somewhat irked me is how there are four separate, independent triggers: machine guns, cannons, bombs and rockets. I haven't been able to find a good picture of the actual stick. Not really doubting it's what it's like, but would be nice if someone who knows could tell me.

Funnily enough lightly armoured vehicles and even some of the trucks display the same kind of resilience in DCS, though.

Indeed. Just take a quick peek at the list of former eastern bloc countries that are now quite firmly part of 'the west', carrying over a lot of equipment and often upgrading it themselves since. It makes Pu vile dictators cry at night. Or as mentioned the fact that Iran is, as of now, the only operator of F-14 Tomcats.

Not sure I understand what you are asking, but if you leave a server your flight ceases to be. It cannot be resumed, it does not get taken over by AI, it just vanishes into thin air.

I guess because most servers aren't set up to go with Cold War scenarios. Some are. But then, if you set your scenario in the Cold War you severely limit what you can do with all the 2000s modules being excluded from the start.

Or try using an actual anti-ship missile like Harpoon and marvel at why sailors ever were afraid of such things, if this was a realistic representation. The whole 'French bombs are bigger than they should be!' topic isn't new at all. Look at the Viggen's missiles, for example, which do not measure up even near the actual explosive payload they should have. It's the 3rd party devs trying to get DCS to actually display the effect one would expect.

There is an almost identical situation at Haifa as well.

As a matter of fact, in more olden days, this bug was much more prevalent and would happen so much that using unit-based TACAN in multiplayer missions was almost entirely useless. There has been some fix to it and it has been much better, but seems it creeps back in.

I'm fairly sure the Saab 29's design was in no small part inspired by German prototypes and drawings

Yes, indeed. It has been a bug specifically in multiplayer for... years, I guess. Not just in conjunction with the aircraft carriers, although for them of course you can set up the beacons yourself in the ME, but previously also involving fixed ground stations. It is hard to reproduce on command, but it keeps happening. You could, but really... several systems over several ships all failing at once is a bit of a stretch to that, I feel. While I perfectly agree to this treatment as a workaround, it doesn't change the fact that it is a bug.

Decided to give the Mosquito a little try-out

I'll go out on a daring limb and just predict: no

Really no idea what it is. Some days it works fine, some days it's broken. Guess I'll put my trust into the next OB version and just blindly hoping that whatever causes this gets fixed by chance.

Am I the only one who thinks that 'more submarines' is the least interesting naval asset wishlist item? Don't get me wrong, I like submarines, but... in what is mostly a flight simulator with literally no ASW modeled I don't find the subtle difference between an Improved Kilo and an early model Kilo submarine matter at all. The nuclear powered ones even less, considering they exist in two states in regard to DCS: docked targets, for which all those internal capabilities don't matter very much, or submerged, for which they are literally invisible to me.

Perhaps you can get that by limiting your refuelling base's inventory through the warehouse in ME?

I agree with this. Keep it somewhat simple, lest it gets set up for an all-too-usual problem: there being this absolutely great implementation that someday will enhance the game, with nothing until then.

If certain online games are something to go by we could get such data by just arguing about it online for long enough.

I'm having a bit of trouble connecting to this particular server today, always ends up freezing during the load screen. Could it be the somewhat unconventional update schedule this week has borked something here?

I will have to check on this, but I have the slight suspicion the ones you are missing are for the Ka-50 Shkval/weapons control panel. ADV (1) being 'automatic turn to target' and the others being 'air target', 'forward hemisphere' and 'moving ground target' respectively. Edit: 1: Automatic turn on target 2: Forward hemisphere/head-on shot 3: Autopilot/director control (this one is among the autopilot buttons on the right) 4: Airborne target 5: Moving ground target 6: Reset And as has been said already: 7: Start 8: Stop

I think that did the trick, but with my tardy timing it might just as well have unclogged itself with the new update this week, really, considering how I ended up getting a practically identical configuration. Still, probably one of those files corrupted somehow. Thanks, issue resolved for now. Sadly we haven't learned much about the hows and whys.