Kang

Well, this seems to be a rather specific problem, really. Perhaps the slightly broader wish would be that both installing and uninstalling be conducted the next time DCS (or the update/repair) is started, rather than immediately, so you could queue up everything.

Catch a bug from Asia... odd way of putting that.

So, just out of curiosity: what was the problem?

So I take it the rumours of Polychop not having the licencing for the Kiowa are false then?

Yes, I keep hearing the same reasoning and quite frankly, I agree with your view that a proper Su-27 module would probably be a best-selling one. That leaves me with the following conclusions: a) developing the Su-27 would, for some reason, be more costly by an astronomical factor, making number of sales irrelevant b) the real reason is something one would rather not talk about c) some secret market research trick tells ED that the minority of users active on the various forums are by coincidence the only ones who would want it Anyway, enough of this little detour.

It might be that people around these parts - those who wander off down into this section to begin with - aren't all too excited about continually casting pointless votes anymore. Don't get me wrong, this one has it going for it that a) it has a bit of a reasoning to it and b) it at least isn't stacked in favour of the OP's desired result right off the start, as most of the 'let us vote for what should be the next module from this vastly comprehensive list of possible projects, half of which happen to be variants of what I want'-threads do.

Trying out the Yak-52 I found that the ol' tap isn't working so well, because it is really a bit jumpy. If you don't have an axis to spare for it, my suggestion is you look at the controls for 'Increase/decrease brakes'. Instead of going 0%-100%-0%-100% that lets you do 0%-12%-25%... (numbers depending on your sensitive touch); I found that to work quite okay.

There is no hand-off in SP mode. It's like 'quick shot, save yourself' mode of operation. TOO requires a hand-off, but gives you a much clearer picture of (and control over) what and where your missile is aiming for. Also it is much more making sure that the missile actually acquires the target when fired. Both of these modes worked quite alright for a long time by now. ECM is very WIP, read: don't bother.

Would you enlighten us (or me at least, because I really don't get it) on what that is supposed to tell us?

What an extraordinary coincidence that at night they would probably be at their most useful. But really, yes, that used to work at least, although the tricky part is that the ship can quite drastically disagree with you on what conditions are this 'nighttime' you speak of. Never figured out what the real criterion was.

Am I the only one who doesn't think about a US map but rather is confused by the wish for a seperate map for every single state? I get that overall surface is a concern, but still, that's odd.

I agree a medium bomber would make for a much better choice. It fits the scope much better, doesn't require solutions to just as many problems at once and thus is a great stepping stone. Adding to Evoman's suggestion, perhaps even go for an A-20, which requires even fewer crewmembers.

Without having explicitly tested this I assume it is fixed. It used to be that the DCS status RPM readout would go from 100% (mil power) to -100% (AB) for the MiG-21. That is no longer the case.

I agree it's rather unfortunate to have very little news in total. No problem if there is little to report really, although I'm sure we'd all appreciate a bit of a 'sign of life' now and then. «Still working on gunsight issue.» Even more puzzling, though, is that sometimes changes to the module are being implemented but no news of that published. Nothing really in the ED changelog, no announcement in an official thread. I realise that M3 had a bit of trouble with the changelog previously, when they announced updates there but apparently barely missed the deadline and the actual changes had to wait one version down, but I'm sure most of us preferred that to the complete lack of announcements.

It could have the 'modular visual damage' that some of the ships have. Or maybe, just maybe, it'll be the first ship to have a bit of an upgrade about this.

Personally I'd assume that 2005 Hornet pilot would have a very different take on it from a 1995 Hornet pilot, really. That's at least what I took from talking to a Tornado driver a few years ago.

I love how you take that to mean specifically that one out of the approximately 1500 types the thread also mentioned.

Well done. I agree, guess that got the pilot.

No.

I haven't tested that myself, but I've seen someone else in MP light up a Shilka and a BMP-2 as expected using the 25mm.

I agree and found that fighting the Sabre against the MiG-19 is actually more fun. Could be because at least in my personal experience the AI MiG-15s are the pinnacle of cheating.

One of the major reasons I haven't had too much interest in DCS:WW2 so far is the lack of bomber modules. Mosquito is a good move. Ju-88 would be another.

I'm afraid for a flyable module the 'all analogue' part doesn't exactly make it easier.

In other words: the faster you go, the more level you can be