Kang

Sometimes you need to vent and share. I'm sorry for your loss and I sincerely hope you have people in your life you can turn to. We are kinda here, but it probably isn't the same.

I'm not saying that's wrong, all I'm saying is that there was a long, long, loooong time in which said 'severe bugs' got fixed in situ on the OB after a week or so, whereas the otherwise exact same version got pushed to 'Stable' months later with no further fixes. I know that ED has improved on that a bit since, but at least a majority of the multiplayer community has switched to OB entirely at that time and hasn't seen much reason to go back.

Can do, sure. But to be honest, not with all the craft I have that potentially could.

That's not wrong at all. I am convinced a lot of it has come from literal years in which the two options were virtually identical, except that 'Stable' was two months or so behind on new content.

To add a pet peeve of mine: there are actually different kinds of communities in DCS multiplayer. The fact that 'hardcore milsim' and 'air quake' are the kinds that get most of the attention betrays the fact that others exist as well. Still, definitely get the sentiment that doing your own missions on your own time is just more convenient sometimes. The only trouble is that - admittedly slightly pending on scenario - the AI sometimes does have rather severe limitations, both as opposition and as ally.

I can understand the frustration there, but frankly, I disagree as well. Sure it would be nice to have an option for such things, but I am quite convinced that the very task of 'detecting improper landing attempt' prior to actual touchdown is a rather complicated task in itself, and even if you manage that magically, what then? You can flash the wave-off lights, which the people that upset you are just as likely to ignore or you can trigger a script that instantly explodes their plane, which - lets face it - might not exactly further your realistic immersion either, even if you don't quite think that it would be overreacting. At the end of the day, the much more walkable way is to establish rules to your own server which you and/or your admins actually enforce manually. Yes, it might descend into chaos when you aren't there, but frankly, then it might not matter much to you. How about you do that? See, two can play this silly game. Who made you the pope of flight sims?

A little picture I took when I was trying out the FW-190A a little while back. Nice of the friends of the Reich to turn up and fly alongside for a bit, referring to the two-ship Su-27.

To be honest, I am not exactly sure about the precise sub-type, but yes, an A-26 would be quite a worthwhile addition, not least for its long service life, making it a viable vehicle to add to plenty of scenarios.

Definitely would need an overhaul of some of the old FC2 era naval assets as well as adding several new ones. The thing is that it seems that neither really happens. The 'year of naval focus' is a distant memory that produced one freighter (not complaining, it's very useful, just not a lot) and since then things have been in the 'yea, we are totally adding more ships, but we can't possibly show you until they are perfectly done, which might be in 2084' state that so many things end up in.

It's not Ugra Media but OnReTech.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/dcs_combined_arms/

As in, find a way of having it use both basket and boom depending on who calls?

Not surprising, really. Travelling the world is what we are waiting for on that loading screen.

Is that all technically part of the livery?

I don't see much point in simulating all the 'inner workings' of solely AI units, really. There is no harm at all in using a whole lot of shortcuts that can simulate that perfectly well with much less strain on the computing resources. The trouble isn't that the approach of tabulated flight models was inherently bad, it's more that some AI units just have utterly ridiculous values in those tables.

My point exactly, they look amazing but sadly are relegated to being in trailers, where they have been shown off quite a while ago. Anyway, I feel I have spoken my piece.

Again, I don't want to take away from any of it, but at least parts of it beg the question: the difference is what exactly? It isn't wrong to do it, but quite frankly I doubt anybody really needs high fidelity flight models for an AI B-52, that quite frankly spends most of its life in a mission going in a straight line. If one was to update an AI asset with improved modeling of flight dynamics, damage model and all the jazz, perhaps it would be a sane idea to take it to one of the assets for which it is a game-breaking issue and has been reported time and time again for years, like... a MiG-15 or so.

Personally I think what would enhance the air-naval warfare environment much more would be to update some of the old ship types and add overall more ship types to DCS, ideally with a slightly improved damaging model. Having all of these international carriers would be fun, but before you know it the naval complement in DCS will be all aircraft carriers and submarines.

Funnily enough, what these 'new improved models' sadly have in common at this point is that they get announced, then get shown off in a newsletter a while later and then disappear into the nether, it seems. Don't get me wrong, I know it takes a while to do them, but... we went from the Newsletter of 'woah look at this soon-to-be released S-3 Tanker model' to the newsletter of 'Look at this B-52 model update we are now working on'. The FC2-era S-3 has been slated for an update for something like five years now. I would love to see more updates on how they are coming along and I would certainly love to see them implemented someday, but I surely am not holding my breath at this point.

Perhaps best to wait how the CH-47 is going to end up then.

Funnily enough that would probably be most realistic as expectation, considering how that didn't involve any of the newfangled digital undersea magic, but simply watching them dive and dropping a bomb on them.

I know the Tornado that is in planning is going to be a Luftwaffe IDS, but that doesn't quite disqualify the idea of getting a proper modelling of the ALARM missile reality in DCS (as MR pointed out they are in the sim albeit somewhat lacking). Perhaps one might be persuaded to include such an improved, actually working ALARM missile for use in said Tonka, to stand in for a Gr 1; as far as I know there is no technical reason for it not to work on a German Tornado, just that Germany didn't buy any. As for the 'nope that would be wrong because no Luftwaffe IDS carried an ALARM operationally' talk, I am not even that sure any IDS ever carried a HARM either - ECR variants routinely do.

That's quite an impressive list you compiled.

We can debate back and forth what the actual difficulty of certain tasks might be until the cows come home, make themselves comfortable, set up internet trading, get rich, buy out the house and throw us out really, but I agree that there are a lot of tasks that - for whatever reason - are left on the shelf ('low priority' obviously meaning 'no priority at all') for ridiculous timescales. The problem isn't these small issues one by one. Yes, you can just leave those for a bit, but over the years they have grown so numerous that the chances that one of these 'little nuisances' ruins the experience in a majority of the missions.