Kang

I tested that a long time ago and this might not be accurate anymore, but my findings were: - IR suppressors have an effect on the range at which IR guided SAMs will launch at you - the decrease in range was small. While measurable it made little practical difference - there is no noticeable performance penalty at low altitudes - the hit probability of heat-seeking missiles isn't noticeable degraded once within launch range

The Su-27 by default lets you choose between Russian and Chinese, for what it's worth. Probably not making things any better for you.

To be fair the probability of accidental triggering of the ejection seat is even less in DCS than it is in real life.

Glad to see there is some movement in this. Might I suggest also to add a keybinding to toggle this in-cockpit? I think a lot of us actually see a good point in it at times, but would like to have more control over when exactly it is on or off, since the automatic logic is a little dodgy at times.

And thus this request moved from 'somewhat strange' to 'borderline insane'. Lovely. DCS has no option for missions to run any custom Assembler code as well, I hear.

1.) Disappointed in the lack of kangaroo content right there 2.) I disagree on them being 'still the same'. For example the HUD of the Ka-50 has undergone some change with the recent (in DCS terms) cockpit overhaul and I think that kinda addressed what you mean.

The surprising part is that the pilot hasn't been instantly killed as he is somewhat prone to be in the F-18 in DCS. It's like the ejection seat has an automatic throat slasher attached in case any of the valuable, expensive hardware takes damage.

Also: what do you consider 'heavily armed'? In terms of simple firepower a Tor has nothing against any of the MBTs. The most dangerous to aircraft... I'd agree with the S-300 (and Patriot), being high in the list. Tor is quite dangerous to aircraft and also capable of defending nearby units against missiles, which makes it valuable. Personally I find the Tunguska rather dangerous, mostly because it gives very little warning of its launches. Heavily armed per se... any MBT. T-90, T-80, both versions of the T-72, but also IFVs, especially ones armed with ATGMs deal major punches; never underestimate the BMP-2. Of course the whole topic of artillery units can be considered heavy armaments as well. 155mm shells are going to cause a little chaos on your dinner table.

They used to differ slightly in that regard, as 'Inbound' would send you towards the approach point and 'Azimuth' would send you to the field itself, but somewhere along the line these got a bit muddled up. Generally the communication proceeds further once you are within a certain radius of the center of the base nowadays.

You might be overthinking this, considering the F-15C is an FC3 craft and as such most of the actual controls are going to do literally nothing in DCS.

If you haven't actually bought any modules at all, the TF-51D and the Su-25T should still be available.

You click on 'Select Role' and either select a new plane slot or click on 'Return to spectator' in the selection screen. There is none, really. But then, not so much has changed in the world of DCS Multiplayer, really. Most of the 'more advanced' functions come down to various scripts that are part of the missions run by the servers, thus their usage differs from server to server. No idea what server that is, or how specifically they do it (see previous point). Most server admins will explain how to do things like that in the mission briefing somewhere. Generally for a base to change owners it is necessary that no enemy units are within the airbase area and at least one friendly ground unit is there. So generally you will have to destroy enemy forces nearby and then either use Combined Arms to drive a unit onto the airfield or - if the mission/server supports it - drop in ground forces from a helicopter, for example using CTLD.

Are you sure you got a target point designated? It is a little cumbersome in the AV-8B. Long story short, before you go looking for the laser spot, designate a waypoint as target.

The main difference is that the 'inbound' call will lead to the option of requesting a landing clearance once you are over the base, whereas 'navigation assistance' does not.

Well, the 'solo flight' option in other modules so far meant that no second pilot is supposed to be on board at all, so it is a bit consistent in that regard. What is a little disappointing is that - after years of development on the ostensibly big challenges of having multi crew in the Huey the implementation - while generally appreciated and lending itself to some fun - is exactly what quite a few people have dreaded for years: making it impossible to make full use of the module by oneself. The previous two or three OB versions had apparently introduced some part of the code in preparation already, because it has been impossible to switch to the copilot seat in multiplayer already, albeit the door gunners still worked.

You need to set the orbit task from the first waypoint. The following waypoint is deciding the racetrack orientation and length.

Probably someone mentioned already, but: the fact that you can't see the 'latest reply' thread title when looking over the subforums is quite annoying, among other things.

Guess what makes it feel so bad to me is seeing how the Yak-52 is a comparably simple module and a reasonably completed state is not that far away, as in a lot of the fixes it needs could probably be done with comparably little investment. Might be wrong though.

I like the idea, but doubt it's worth to put in the effort of tracking single leaflet trajectories, really. It's not like that sort of thing develops perfect convincing power on fighting units if hit directly or such. A somewhat simple cluster munition kind of particle effect and a reaction to the 'bomb in area' trigger would probably do and in fact not be a bad idea.

It at least used to be that you could keep on trucking for a limited amount of time (24h? 48h?) but would have to reconnect after that.

Addendum: as long as clouds themselves simply disappear if you switch cameras once too often, the proper simulation of raindrops is probably secondary.

I'd concur with recommending the MiG-21. Despite a few issues it is a great module and it's definitely something different than what you've done so far. The F-16 would in large parts be 'more of the same'.

Nice as it would be, I think we only just got raindrops on windshields at all, and as they're not much of a thing for fast movers I don't expect ED to do much about them.

It would be so like 2020 to just keep dragging on for five more years.