Kang

I liked that. Bit of a trailer feel to it. A little too hard on the very-close-in-action for my taste, but it's nice work.

Ah, thank you. Yes, that kinda answers my question more; just as I thought, it is some bits 'kinda there' but none of it working (yet).

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood the problem. I think admiki's advice nailed that.

Does 'implemented' mean that I can actual get those things towed by something? Even if the tractors are not period-correct? If so, how do I set it up?

Do they go around in a pattern once or do they stay there? Have you tried placing them further out initially as razo+r suggested?

So, just wondering how things progress with trailers. Not the little movie kind, the towed vehicle kind. Quite a while ago ED added a few vehicles that were specifically tractor units. The other day I noticed that quite a few units that are technically trailers, like several AA guns, now appear in the limbered configuration in the encyclopedia at least (even though I believe the QF 3.7" has a few bits the wrong way around, but I might be mistaken). That all leads me to the question: how is the progress on the system and can we expect to have usable trailers anytime soon? How is it going to work in the ME?

Are you within your launch parameters? Assuming your observer locked a target and you are estimated to be in range, you have to align the moving reticle (which shows where your observer is aiming) and the fixed reticle. You will hear a tone then. Press and hold your weapon release button when you do.

While I would of course also like a little update now and then, I perfectly agree here. It's probably that whole radar overhaul that takes a long time and I'm perfectly sure that things are progressing nicely.

Definitely. And it's still going to be a huge effort to make sure that all modules' radar systems react accordingly.

Is this in a mission you made, or a user mission or even multiplayer? I seem to recall there was a way to use a 'standard' carrier instead of the 'crew and stuff' supercarrier.

I don't know. I certainly agree with the focus being on the actual aircraft and its systems being good, but I can't deny that little effects like that tend to go a long way. It's why a lot of the simulators of old seemed rather sterile, I feel, the way that the static cockpit and the world outside were so disconnected.

Oh, I'm perfectly fine with these obvious limitations. What keeps getting me is how they are too busy telling me about something they saw crossing the border into Angola to even let me know they are also seeing that enemy interceptor going straight for me. AI is not exactly DCS' strong suite, and AWACS/GCI has so little sense of priorities that it wants to be in the race for top contender. I rank them about on par with the ATC when it alternates between 'cleared to land' and 'go around' for a minute straight.

The People's Republic of China's all new forum account, obviously.

While I do not entirely disagree with the sentiment, I would like to remind everyone that BLUFOR and REDFOR are concepts that only live in head of your mission designer in question. I, personally, also enjoy certain scenarios that are reasonably inspired by the world I live in, but especially in multiplayer (the only place where 'balance' really means a thing) there is no rule against using the modules you want to use for the sides you want them on. The 'traditional' redfor folks have just been handed an all-new MiG-29. Long overdue, I'd say, but it's there. Use it for, like, twenty minutes, before insisting that you need something else. Thus, what it boils down to rather quickly, is just your usual 'I would like to use this particular airframe' wish.

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!