Kang

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.

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.