Kang

No no no, it was stated that it was being handled by the fixed-wing team, that means something entirely different.

Thanks for clearing that up, I kind of missed out on the wording there.

This whole problem could be avoided if the timeframe for sales in ED's shop and Steam were a bit more synced. I get it that Steam seems to impose certain rules on these things. Or perhaps actually put in both relevant dates in each of the publications. I remember people on Steam usually get riled up quite badly if they get the newsletter displayed and it has information not relevant to the Steam version. So, at the end of the day, somebody is going to be miffed either way anyway.

You aren't doing anything wrong. It should work like that, even without the 'hook cargo command', just hovering above the cargo should prompt a message and an auto-hookup. The fact that the red marker smoke appears correctly is evidence the cargo is set up correctly. Only thing I can think of is checking the rope length on the Huey in the ME, perhaps it's set to something too short?

Well, it's not like NATO developed these things to go plinking tanks with them. The Soviet Union probably gets a bit of a raw deal in these discussions because it frankly ceased to be in the early 90s. It's easy to forget that, while the options were there, at that time most Hornets and Tomcats and whatnot were also throwing iron bombs at their targets mostly.

The 'wreckage should be an object of some sort' issue definitely has merit. If you use just 'ambient civilians', they go through anything and don't care. They drive through actively fighting units as well. But I can see that it should be a thing for placed unit civilians that actually do have AI. In related news, it would also be good if AI truck drivers would not drive into burning (but still 'alive') vehicles either, because that can lead to interestingly stupid chain reactions if you hit just the lead vehicle of a convoy.

So, apparently this is a serious wishlist thread now, all of a sudden. Can someone from ED make a quick post on which of this modest list of aircraft mentioned can actually be expected in the future?

Wait, you have a working lua script, want to convert it to C and then ask for a way to run C code when you could have just run the lua script you had in the beginning?

I agree that one of the more common, large production number and 'famous' variants might have been a better choice, but I doubt it makes so much sense with the K-4 already around. Cohesion is something one could have had in mind then. At this point, that idea is a bit of a joke, considering how even the WWII project is all over the place already.

That kind of thing is less of a 'you need VR for depth perception' thing and more of a FOV thing. Generally a flight sim will 'scale down', to afford you a decent field of view on your average monitor. If you measure the actual angle of view your monitor delivers and you set the game FOV to meet that, everything should look right scale-wise. The problem is that you'll feel like looking through a pinhole at all times.

You can prevent the DECOL warning from coming up on landing by pressing the Autopilot Standby button twice.

Adding to that: when flying online the fact that you visually see a missile passing you does not mean it didn't hit you. They are a bit out-of-sync generally.

Sounds a bit like your axis bind for throttles is reversed. Have you tried re-assigning it?

...unless of course we are talking about infantrymen. Their thought on amphibious assault is more along the line of Under the sea Under the sea Darling it's better Down where it's wetter Take it from me Up on the shore they work all day Out in the sun they slave away While we devotin' Full time to floatin' Under the sea

That entirely depends on what you call 'full fidelity'. A level of detail in the systems modelling like DCS features has obviously been technically impossible for a long time. So, yes, you got it. There is no full fidelity Phantom simulation. But if you want to play that card, why stop there? There is no full fidelity Tornado simulation either (although DI's classic is still pretty good today), for a random example. No, AH-1, no MiG-27, no F-104. Plus the F-4 has been previously announced, as you said it has had some development work done, and is now gathering dust on a shelf.

You really don't need to see the laser point. All you need to know is the rough position of the target to CCRP drop in its vicinity. The JTAC's laser just does the terminal guiding. The preferred way might be to set up an IP from a known waypoint in an easily visible place, so you can re-calibrate position just before drop. Otherwise a 'eyeball' CCRP designation is going to work as well.

Relax. He has friends who can tell him the important bits. The rules don't change all that much between missions.

Your DCS folder/Doc/Charts/DCS_GND_Charts.pdf

Mostly because that statement simply is not true.

Thanks, I never quite bothered to test things like that out with the two, really. Stupidly believed that the physics of an object of known mass and shape falling to the ground would not be much of a challenge, really.

That is entirely true. That is also why tracks get worse and worse the longer they are. A small inconsistency at one point leads to a sometimes significant change in relative position after half an hour. For example you end up not on 5oc of an AI plane, but 7oc. The AI will react accordingly and turn in a different direction than they did in the original scenario. Since the player plane repeats its steering cues, it now chases a non-existent ghost bandit while an actual enemy watches in confusion. That can be reproduced, although it is a bit of work.

That is because that unit isn't an actual active AI JTAC unit as intended by ED. It is possible to use those in MP scenarios as well, but generally people prefer to use the solution you describe - basically a script. The advantage of the 'script' JTAC is that it is easier to get it to do what you want it to do, as in automatically mark a specific location via laser, independent of situation. Actual JTAC units can get a little fussy fast, because of the conditions they require. Line of sight, distance, time of day and - usually most importantly - target being part of a specific group. With script-spawned new units it all goes to heck quickly. Even without sometimes you might not get a proper laser mark for reasons nobody knows. Still not all is lost, there are options to add radio menu items that'll just have the script repeat the message alright. Send the folks at DDCS a message and ask them to add it.

And here I always thought it stood for Radar De Merde... P.S.: There is no such thing.

Absolutely would like a pilot as a place-able object. In fact, less related to the carrier, but as a prop for SAR missions and the like. Especially since the models (including animations) are all there anyway.

«I made a poll so we can just have a quick vote instead of the ridiculously long thread we already had.» «Also, lets just make this a second, identical thread in the process.» Ah, DCS community.