Kang

Thank you, that sort of matches my experience. I seem to recall reading somewhere that there also was an infrared system associated with it, but at least to me it remained unclear whether there is an actual IR-guided variant, or if the SACLOS guidance system just has an optional IR camera.

I'll admit I never really understood how the HQ-7 works. Basically the Crotale it was copied from is rather confusing already with different variants seemingly having vastly different guidance methods. Can anybody use the opportunity and explain to me what exactly the HQ-7 in DCS is?

I also doubt that gun jams are modeled beyond the option of setting it as a failure mayhaps.

At least in theory the 'warehouse' options in DCS provide the options for such limitations for each and every airbase and FARP already.

That's a good idea. Should be fairly easy to implement and would often be welcome for briefing maps at least.

You should be able to click on them to move them around. It is a bit tricky if the waypoint mode (in the right tab) is set to 'ADD', so it might add waypoints instead. Click on 'EDIT' there to make it easier. Other than that, there are some limitations to the placement of units. For example, if you placed an aircraft as parked, it must be on a base parking spot and can't be moved about manually.

That just makes it easier for him to give feedback to your flying.

The good news is that, yes, most of us do remember genuine joy. The bad news is that, sadly, one does get used to certain kind of disappointment, I guess. Still, don't mistake skepticism for negativity, please. The matter of fact is, that being somewhat realistic in what can be done helps curb that disappointment quite a lot. You know, people been here long enough to understand that things don't 'just happen' all that easily, so we got to pick our wishes carefully. Heck, I know that I often come off as really negative around here. The truth of the matter is that I try not to be, but sadly some glaring issues actually do get in the way of enjoying DCS as is, even more so of what it could be. Pointing it out, sometimes in stark terms, is what I hope brings about an improvement. Other people have other preferred ways, I reckon. But to get more on the topic at hand: There are quite a few on your list that I'd definitely agree with. I'd shorten it a lot, because, well, I won't live forever either. The upcoming C-130J is, I am quite certain, going to pave the way for a whole new kind of flying in DCS, and I believe the more regularly carrier-capable C-2 Greyhound would be a very interesting module for DCS. As far as the WW2 topic goes, I'm convinced that sooner or later it needs a proper bomber module to be viable. Some of the big birds would be interesting for sure, and a B-29 would also serve Korean-era scenarios well, but I'd also agree that starting out with something a little more, lets say, lightweight, would be the way to go, as it offers more flexibility. You got the B-25 on the list, and there is a whole trove of fun variants of that. I'll also admit I always liked it somehow. In a similar vein I could also see the somewhat rarer B-26 or the illustrious A-26 - both also wouldn't be strictly WW2 modules. Some of the more exotic wishes, I think, have a long ways to go. The possibility of doing them aside, anything that is focused on reconnaissance work or on anti-submarine duties pretty much would require DCS to implement these topics entirely first, and frankly, I doubt that ED would even consider that for a long time. Both of those could be very interesting, though.

A bit mean of you to seemingly not allow them to have a little vacation ever.

How dare you... there goes my weekend.

Here is the basic disconnect in it: a) «This is an Early Access product. You really should be prepared for it to have a few bugs still.» b) «This product has been out for years and doesn't sell so much anymore, so we cannot commit resources to it.» They are both statements that make sense, I guess, but living in the intersecting set of the two is outright bizarre.

I concur that it is, sadly, very frustrating to find what one is looking for in the user files, and it is best seen when trying to 're-find' something one saw once. The way the search function just, well, doesn't, is somewhat hard to excuse really. Another issue with the repository is that all instructions on how to use any of the files are between non-existent and vague. Yes, I know, this varies greatly with what the files are and most of the community is somewhat tech-savvy and can figure it out, but the section really should have a small note on how to easily get downloaded missions into the game for example. User content can certainly drive DCS' popularity, and in some cases, it has to.

Surprisingly Hartmann was not the only aviator ever, though.

And don't forget how many of those numbers came from the very early days of the war, when the Luftwaffe's 109s truly in a different league than many of the biplanes they faced, plus staffed with determined and well-trained combat pilots against ill-prepared and generally surprised pilots. But hey, everyone is going to turn those things the way they want to see them.

Sorry, I had to.

I do appreciate having the somewhat classic training session as well, though. Over the years we have seen many styles of those and I trust we all have our favourites.

You see, the trouble with what people call 'red air' is that the 'can't do this' latest generation fighters and the old planes are one and the same.

Lets not get all ahead of ourselves, maybe do a Mosquito FB Mk. VI first.

It does not always make sense, but here are a few things for your consideration: 1. Planes on the ground are notoriously tricky because the logic deciding when the plane is actually destroyed doesn't always trigger there, as there is no final impact. You need either an explosion, a pilot kill or have your opponent eject, to have a kill counted. In other words: people who just remain seated in their wrecked up plane can screw you over here. 2. Head-ons are a bit of a crap-shoot anyway, and doubly so here. The same logic applies, in that your opponent having a singular lucky hit in your forehead will grant him a kill, even if you are both equally dead. You cannot collect on kills once you are legally dead, so only one of you gets a kill. 3. Some multiplayer servers don't actually have a full scoreboard going. It is possible that only losses are counted as well. 4. I don't know what to tell you, why should the - arguably not very important - bit of the multiplayer scoreboard, out of all things, work without bugs?

This. I never got interested in it much because to me the JF-17 was (and to be honest, still is) somewhat obscure.

As MAXsenna said, it's probably fine. Don't obey in advance, admins will delete it if they mind. Was just a bit of a blast from the past there; the rules have changed about that, and for a while they were enforced strictly enough that I at least avoid mentioning any other games by name.

It'll be soon™

Oh boy, back in 2009 we were allowed to discuss other sims in the off-topic section still.

So you are saying the mysterious delay is even worse than I thought. That's not unsettling at all...

Those two sure are among the prime examples of a) yes, it seems to take years and b) interestingly, in the years between showing off the model in a newsletter and them actually being implemented, very little on them changed. I bet it takes a while to make these things, but the very examples you picked are also showcasing how that is doubly true when ED is involved...