Kang

Ah, yes... well, funny story that one... (Is there even reasonably working embarkment code in place?) No seriously, you are probably quite right that making certain buildings at least be able to 'host' infantry and have them use their weapons from inside is decidedly easier than revamping how ground units as a whole act within urban environments.

I think that's slightly beside the point. If you are making your own missions with scenarios like that in mind, using something like a 'joint coalition' country within the faction is a perfectly walkable way, I'd say. After all, flying the mission you don't see what 'the official country' in DCS really is. The 'Korean' MiG-15s being flown by Russians is true, though, but again, seen from the outside they were pretty much North Korean; at least that's what they were supposed to be. The pilots, if I remember correctly, were actually under strict orders not to speak too much as they knew the Americans could eavesdrop on the radios - orders that were quickly void when in combat.

'LHG' sounds a lot like a CPG control to me. Are you sure you are looking at the 'Pilot' tab of controls? Even the ones that are available to both need to be bound individually (can be the same though, of course).

Ah, I see I misunderstood what you meant there. I thought you meant adding further ground assets in general as a paid pack.

Does this imply that the current state is indeed a bit work-in-progress and might have introduced a few problems that are bound to be fixed, or is the current state a step closer to what it is supposed to be?

Seems like a small oversight, really. After all, the other helicopters have this option and it's mostly a matter of adding the keybind.

Well, it would offer a bit of extra inclusion, and considering how for a modern airframe it wouldn't be out of place at all, it would be a nice option. After all, a rather large session for recording new voicelines is bound to happen anyway, with the general ATC rework, Petrovich, still a lot to be done on Supercarrier comms and more specific FARP messages. Adding an alternate extra face is, I wager, not really that big of a job.

My opinion hasn't changed since the last time someone suggested this: As a first step I'd rather have a more actively engaging and working system of moving troops by helicopter to begin with.

...and that isn't even taking into account how, especially on the older modules, a lot of the skins for various countries are actually called the same, so you'd have to go through the list one by one as well. As a quick example, the Su-25T has quite a few skins that are all called 'af standard'.

The whole problem with adding new vehicles as a paid module addon is that it loops right back to the dilemma that is the WW2 asset pack.

The issue is probably that they literally don't care how far you moved a target. A new fire mission is a new fire mission. So perhaps indeed not a bug per se but a flawed mechanic, especially for CA use.

Ah, I see. That explains that. Also that once in a while killed units are seemingly not counted.

Seems to me that the sub-mission 'Armoured convoy enroute to Senaki' has gotten into a bit of a habit of not ending properly. Maybe the changed composition of the convoy makes the script trip somehow?

I haven't been doing a lot of BVR fights in the Hornet for quite a while, so can't quite comment on previous OB vs current OB, but having returned to some AA work earlier today I can certainly concur that something has changed towards being wonky recently-ish. But then, I haven't had time to do as much systematic testing as some of you apparently have gotten into, so not a whole lot to contribute right now.

Precisely. What I meant is that there are huge problems going on in Combined Arms and this extra feature would be quite down the list of priorities, in my personal opinion. As of Combined Arms II... well, the way I see Combined Arms going so far there'd have to be a whole lot more than vague promises of improvement before I even consider throwing more money at that, that's for sure.

As far as I know the closest you get is replaying the track and looking at it from a different view.

Nice to see that Bandar 1949 was a success. I wasn't overly successful but had fun with it, left a bit early as it seemed there was a bit of a shortage of slots, but those extra ones should fix that.

Thank you, much appreciated!

I think what OP meant was that the tutorial just doesn't clearly indicate which settings are the actual correct ones. You could probably find out quickly by starting a quick mission in a hot-start aircraft and looking at it - I'd assume it is all set up for flight then. Yet the issue remains, if setting these things up is part of the tutorial the tutorial should stop highlighting once it's right, else there is not much point to it.

Would be a good improvement, but quite frankly I think the ground forces in general (and CA module specifically) has much bigger construction sites going than that.

Indeed, the SA-6 launcher itself has no radar at all and thus can neither fire nor show up to the HARM, you need to place the Kub radar vehicle in the same group. The SA-15 has a much shorter range. Relatedly the AI in DCS has a bit of a sixth sense as to not even use their search radar unless you are reasonably close to its detection range, so that's why the SA-15 doesn't show up quickly.

You can, but just like with cargo carrying helicopters you need to specifically set up a 'well done!'-message for this to have any effect. For a future dynamic campaign it would be most interesting to have actually working supply chains, as in the inventories get adjusted when cargo carrying vehicles actually arrive. That would make it possible to disrupt enemy supply lines properly. Up to now any such plan requires quite a bit of manual scripting.

It might be worth noting that 'Arabic' isn't exactly one monolithic language either, it has many 'flavours', as in dialects and accents, which is possibly one of the reasons these things get so chaotic. Someone from, say, Tunisia pronounces things differently from someone from Syria, for example.

I know servers that are using it, although most also offer other means alongside it. It works alright, pretty much. One major issue I have is that upon connecting (or someone else connecting) it loves to mess with all of the audio volumes and there seems to be no way of turning that off, so all of a sudden the game itself becomes super quiet for the tradeoff of hearing somebody breath. Other than that technical bug it's okay. Perhaps it is a case of 'too little, too late', though. Most online communities have set up their SRS servers or their teamspeaks or their discords or whatnot and while it works okay it just doesn't offer anything 'better' for people to make the switch in significant numbers.

It'll work marvellously.