Kang

Nobody truly does. Technically it makes sense that you can't just take somebody's designs and put them in your game without them having a say. That's why a lot of games have what are clearly real life objects in them but give them nonsensical names to avoid 'any sort of semblance'. The thing is that some courts would definitely decide that certain designations and names are 'fair game' while in some circumstances courts would be 'oh no that is totally making statements about this particular product!'. Doesn't get much easier when you consider how wildly laws about that sort of thing vary from country to country.

I'm so sorry to hear that. I didn't know him much beyond these forums, but I know we'll miss him.

Personally I think the damage model to the city buildings should be less of a priority than damage models to ships and ground units, really, but still try not to make perfect the worst enemy of good: yes, it would be awesome to have internal structures and realistic damage to buildings, but - as sirrah has pointed out - a huge improvement already is just making a 'ruined' model for the common buildings. One could later on further append it by giving it various degrees of destroyed.

Mind you, these are two different things: one is the flight call sign, the other are personal call signs.

That's exactly what somebody who'd want to keep the base a secret would tell us, though.

This weekend I learned the hard way that if you MP multicrew this setting de-syncs and makes for quite a nasty surprise.

At the end of the day, they were a bit of a random choice on ED's part. The default call signs follow to patterns: one is for manufacturers of small arms (Uzi, Enfield etc) one is for manufacturers of cars (Dodge, Ford etc). Personally I like them to have a bit of a theme to them for mission building reasons, but really there is no 'official system'.

Got to stoke the fires of hype now and then, though.

Those cute little things are the air data sensors. Used for speed and orientation measurements and whatnot.

Some... people who are taking part in the closed beta tests may or may not have publicly shown the use of an SA-17 and one or two others, probably because they didn't realise that these were not released yet.

I dislike how I no longer can see if the module forums I am interested in have new posts or not. P.S.: Do like the addition of the module icons, though.

You really got me caught there. I honestly never believed those 'extra options' for the Warthog actually worked.

Do you mean the movement indication 'line' or do you mean the actual speed gauge? The latter is obviously influenced by wind.

Multiplayer generally requires someone to take the pilot role first, then someone else can occupy the corresponding CPG slot as well.

Well, you need something to shoot at. You can create such a point on the fly by lasing and storing a point, so you don't have to fiddle with coordinates if you don't want to.

It wouldn't even surprise me if, when visiting the actual place, you'd find an old Russian vehicle sat there with an ED logo and a DCS advertisement on it.

If you expect naval assets from the South Atlantic map you are technically giving up on ED's effort and banking on Razbam doing a couple ships.

AI can see and fight through the clouds, excluding ground haze and - I believe - fully closed overcasts. They don't affect IR seekers either.

'Pilot's radio trigger RADIO', it's in the cyclic stick section. Mind you, to use a radio you need to select the corresponding radio from the rotary dial in the middle console. PVT - talk among crew INT - intercom (e.g. for ground crew) 1 - FM radio 2 - UHF radio 3 - VHF radio

Coming in May: DCS: Awkward and cringy romance subplot Goink a legend!

Ah, yes, I admit I totally slept on the WW2 ships, as I don't have the asset pack myself. That is one I definitely disagree with. We have a surprising number of submarines as is, which is irksome considering it's the ship class that a player in DCS - predominantly still a flight simulator - has the least possible interaction with. Don't get me wrong, the Kilo has its place and missions about attacking submarines in harbour aren't bad, but most of the submarines basically spend 90% of their time submerged and thus in a place I can neither see them, nor detect them, nor involve them in any fight, as torpedoes are only a thing in DCS:WW2.

Returning to the original topic for a minute: It seems to be a little better than 'one ship every five years', depending on how you look at it, but still. In the wake of the releases of Hornet and Supercarrier, ED announced the 'year of naval focus in DCS'. That year (or years if you will) have definitely come and gone, seeing how we are now in the 'year of close combat helicopter focus', so lets take stock: The Supercarrier itself, which was a paid module, so you might argue it wasn't exactly part of the core game changes, but that's for everyone to decide. The Arleigh Burke destroyer, same reasoning as it was part of the Supercarrier module. The La Combattante corvette The Handy Wind bulk freighter The Seawise Giant tanker I don't want to be ungrateful, because these new cargo ships are definitely an important asset and were direly needed, but seeing how apart from a new model pretty much a copy-paste job of the existing cargo ships (top speed, turning radius and health points are the only variables here), the only 'core game naval asset' has been one corvette. Maybe I'm just mistaken and a few more things are just still in the pipeline. I'd certainly hope so.

Generally speaking I wouldn't trust in that. Mileage may vary depending on which map you fly on.

But you surely can in all of your own missions. If the skin you want is used on the other side, here's a hot take: instead of Blue Joint Force just use Red Joint Force. The fact that the mission designer doesn't let you use whatever skin you want in a MP mission is actually preferable, as country markings and roundels are actually a thing then.