Kang

The idea sounds good, but I'm also afraid that it would be very difficult to make it meaningful. Not only do things change up all the time, but also opinions on a lot of things vary wildly. Several people have tried to set up things like 'buying guides' for modules over the years, but not only do they outdate rather quickly as development of modules goes on, but at the end of the day they always contain a lot of personal notion. Just like with review videos you can find, the real question is whose opinion in the community you value and trust. Perhaps it would be good to just have a little section dedicated to module recommendations, where people can set up threads saying: «This is what I am looking for in my next module. [...] What are your suggestions?»

I can certainly see where you're coming from and your thinking isn't entirely wrong, but it isn't entirely right either. Pulling hard and going to the edge of angle-of-attack (where the airframe will start shaking) will give you the tighter turning circle alright, but a key thing to understand is that turn rate is not the same thing. One is the actual diameter of the circle you fly in, the other is about the time it takes you to complete a circle. Going for a tight circle is great if you are in an overall more agile fighter and you are confident that you can pull enough lead to end the fight quickly. For example the famous F-18 high-AOA opening. Looking at your turn rate instead is usually favourable when you are in a more powerful fighter - you don't go for an immediate lead and shot, but keep up the turn rate so even if your opponent can go in a tighter circle to keep up, they will bleed more energy and over time be forced to give up.

Having this could be a lot of fun for some missions.

They still seem to be in their jolly mode of switching between absolute bonkers effective and basically throwing paper machee at tanks between patches. I agree they seem to be in the 'rather disappointing' phase of things right now, alongside the other cluster munitions (guided bomblets of 97 and the like excluded).

It's mostly a manner of having missions to reflect this, I guess. But yes, valid wish for having more of this kind of mission in campaigns or multiplayer servers. It can definitely be interesting. I guess in MP at least the focus is usually put with more fighter-fighter combat as bomber intercepts usually mean AI only flights which some people do not enjoy so much.

I agree it could use a bit of a rework. The recent surge in multi-crew capable modules is my personal pet peeve about the list seeming a bit cluttered right now.

Well done, really! I enjoyed that and you managed a few really amazing set-ups. We all know how tracks can be a bit cumbersome to work with in DCS and how much effort it can be to set up camera angles as well. If you do want a few suggestions for the next time: Keep in mind that night scenes are pretty dark already and YT will make them appear even darker than they were on your screen. I liked the opening anyway, but doing night scenes without any added artificial light or post-production trickery is definitely going for hard mode. Music. I think you had some nice pieces of music playing, some better some worse, but one thing you could improve on is the audio edit: once or twice you have music literally cut to silence from one frame to the next. Giving it a softer fade-out or having it switch to other sound effects would make that better. Definitely looking forward to seeing more of the kind. Who knows, I might get around to try one myself sometime this year.

As far as I'm aware all of the 'random failures' get picked from the list of possible malfunctions found in the Mission Editor. What kind of technical problem is simulated depends heavily on the module. Of course there are further things that can go wrong, but usually not by this system. As in: if you do something wrong consistently you will end up with a certain problem every time.

Hm, I see what you are saying, but I also believe that the trial system, the way it works now, is a pretty fair deal. I can certainly relate to your frustration with it. You downloaded a module you wanted to try, and incidentally went with one that - at least in my opinion - does require a bit of time to get into, and your schedules changed for whatever reason and now you don't really get to try it out. In a similar vein I have not tried out modules for a long time because I always felt I needed to 'wait for a good week so I can make the most of it', but eventually figured that perfect time just never happens anyway. I take solace in the fact that I can actually re-try the same module in a few months time for a second go. Having the trial system in place is a real improvement to the community, I feel, because each individual module is comparatively expensive and just being able to try them and see how much I enjoy them is decidedly something to help me decide for one, especially when I am interested in two somewhat similar modules and can't make up my mind which one I really want.

Yes, FCR is cancelled. It's the only explanation.

There is a power switch on the right panel, no gymnastics necessary.

It's always nice to see this coming together bit by bit.

More options in regard to how a given SAM site operates to better simulate its real counterparts would absolutely be good. While I see that there is obviously a limit to what can be done given how many different systems are around and how we all like to have various options later on, I think it would also be a good opportunity to once again suggest something like a SAM module that would allow players to take proper simulated control of, say, a HAWK and a SA-6 for example. As multi-vehicle sites they are somewhat excluded from Combined Arms so far anyway and it might be a good way to get some payoff into further development of these systems.

All advice I can offer you: - Universally just don't try to be a jerk to everyone; there are enough people who that. Dropping a cheeky bomb on your own airfield isn't as hilarious as some people think. - SRS is popular to talk to others, but not generally a requirement. Usually the server info you get when you click on it before joining is going to tell you if people are expected to be on that - There are a lot of different servers and they are run differently. If you give it a try and you find people are a bit hostile or you feel a little lost, just try a different one. A lot of servers are more focused on 'PvE', which means that other players aren't in the business of hunting you down at least. Some say 'Training Server' in their name, they are great places to just practice stuff and generally people aren't taken aback if you ask them questions. - Remember to have some fun! Stick around where you find people whose company you enjoy.

I'd like a CH-46 or CH-47 for it having some unique factors being a tandem helicopter. Admittedly that also means a lot of work has to be done for its development and it is less likely we get it anytime soon. I know out of the two the 47 is probably the more popular choice, as it has higher lift capacities and is also more common around the world.

(I tried to revive the old thread from last year, but I couldn't seem to find it) I just wanted to stop a minute and wish you all, the staff over at ED, the developers of third party content, and all the nice people in the community, very happy and peaceful holidays.

Quick question: who has designed the logo?

Eurofighter doesn't hold a candle to Cricri. But on serious notes: whatever happened to DCS: Tug - Tow several legends?

You got a lot of good ones on your list! I'd like a bit more involvement with cargo on a whole, also in view of the big wish of a dynamic campaign.

It does accelerate forward, but if you time it right and move sideways fast enough it'll work out. The force towards the center of the circle (or the target) gets offset by your momentum while turning. If you are too slow on the sideways motion you don't have the benefit of the tank being unable to fire at you (at least with the main armament) and you also will be struggling to keep a reasonable distance.

Generally I try not to think about this. One could argue that I don't fly DCS as much as I used to these days, but it comes in 'waves'. Sometimes I fly a lot, sometimes I hardly do at all. At times I am happy that I mostly fly MP and thus my times don't get recorded.

As fleet captain Ramius once said: "let 'em sing!" Probably Razbam having a little bit of fun in the mission. Personally I prefer to include any such in radio stations to be tuned to at some point in my missions.

Oh, don't worry, I noted very warmly how you pointed out how it should be an option to be used when necessary, and I certainly support it. Apart from several other advantages, like being able to distinguish between various weapons employed by a single unit, it would also be tremendously helpful to anyone who has trouble seeing the circles now, be it because of 'VR res issues', the circles being outside the current view or just plain old low contrast.

Just would like to remind people: the fact that there was a wishlist thread for the Corsair seven years ago does not mean that M3 has been working on it for seven years.