Kang

But that's not really a hidden base, is it? More of a map glitch, really. I mean, stuff somebody hides doesn't become more visible at range, usually, that's not how it works.

Mind you it is possible to accidentally edit the templates.

...and considering they have a 3D model and, quite frankly, there isn't that much modelling to be done (it needs a proper top speed decided on and a turning radius and a 'damage model'), it would be a nice and easy addition.

Mayhaps. I, as a CA owner, could see the merit in it. 'More toys' is definitely on the very low end of priorities in CA. Right now, almost everything CA is really good for is taking control of a single vehicle, smashing it around the country roads for half an hour and generally stir things up. Its originally advertised tactical control of the ground war is a joke, the simulation of vehicles, while generally functioning, is basic and often showcases bizarre physics, and the less we talk about the UI the better.

Semantics aside, you want the F-16 to get along with its development. Full stop. None of the 'classic' Wild Weasel planes had the ability to 'get range and pinpoint radar systems' in the manner the F-16 with HTS can. The original Wild Weasel missions hardly even had ARMs. Since you said that would be a decisive part, yea, there you go: F-16C.

Well, CA lets you use single-unit SAM systems in a fairly simple fashion. I'm sure there would be some interest at least and also understanding that it wouldn't be part of CA if ED developed something along the lines of SAM Simulator to let players take proper control of battery-type SAM units like SA-3, S-300, Patriot, Hawk or Rapier in a more detailed and more realistic manner.

I wonder that as well. To me a 'hidden airbase' is something like the Swedish roadside bunker hangars. Apparently this is all about 'perfectly obvious airfields that are just not officially airfields in DCS'.

This, pretty much. I'm not opposed to this whole idea at all, I was just curious as to why people feel a need for it. As I said, most missions can be flown entirely without it, given the maximum ranges DCS maps allow for, so in most cases it is included as an option entirely to be included. An implicit achievement, if you will. No point in doing it at all, if it's automatic. But enough of that, my opinion isn't of that much value around here anyway. As I said, I am not opposed to the whole idea, but quite frankly, I find that argument a little bizarre. Accessibility is great. We need more of it, I agree. But is this the place for it? Someone who buys a first module, takes to in-flight refuelling, doesn't immediately succeed and then leaves forever is a possible scenario, but I'd say a rather unlikely one. We need much more accessibility around the basics, not hand-hold people while they are involving themselves with advanced tasks! You don't make your first ever landing on an aircraft carrier in bad weather and rolling waves. On the other hand DCS would become a great deal more accessible for new players if a lot of 'basic' things were actually properly explained within DCS. Just to take a random example: radar notching. It isn't perfectly simple, but there are quite a few people who have written very good explanations of it, explaining why it is a thing to begin with, how it works and giving plenty of examples on how to use it. DCS could benefit from a 'general' tab in 'Training' that has tracks (if they work) or videos of concepts like these, shown in situ in the sim, so people can see what they do.

Definitely holds true for a fully laden Mirage. When returning you can get away with that sort of thing at times.

In previous versions it was just like the others as well.

It doesn't matter whether or not any of it is publically known. It doesn't matter whether or not your uncle happens to have one in his shed. As long as you are not China, to make it you need the consent of those who own the intellectual property of it.

I absolutely agree.

Don't worry, even if you do, they'll end up stuck in post-takeoff and become useless then.

Yes, it is. Also doesn't seem to use the same texture at all. Plus side: you can still dim it to make it even darker.

Guess it's true that scales are just different in America... I'd say perhaps wait and see what that mysterious and legendary dynamic campaign is actually going to be like before worrying too much about the details.

You've been around here for far too long to still be shocked by something like that. Anyway, I see two ways of handling this wave issue - provided ED wants to do anything about it in the first place: a) simply disconnect current wind and wave state. Comparably easy to implement, I guess. The criticism I'd have here is that, while it of course is possible to create realistic conditions, by default there would be no meaningful connection between these two anymore. b) have a complicated system that calculates wave states on geographic location and previous winds? While that would be rather realistic, the obvious problems are that it requires a whole more lot of work to implement, plus it's likely to be rather complicated in use for mission designers, many of who might decide to not bother. An additional problem I see here is that it would easily be one of those things that are done very well in DCS just shining the spotlight on things not far away from it that are mediocre at best and in my opinion would be much more important.

Ironically there has been a thread just last week in which somebody complained that ED ripped him off entirely on his A-10C because it didn't carry any AMRAAMS, which it totally should, as some bizarre mod on BMS let him do just that...

Are you sure the control is bound correctly and working then?

AI helicopters seem unable to land on the Arleigh Burke class destroyer in DCS. While a corresponding flight plan can be set up just fine and they approach quite alright, they never land and instead just vanish into thin air when within a few hundred yards of the ship.

Perhaps those missions have easy comms enabled and enforced by default. Look through your controls and make sure you use the in-cockpit radio button rather than the generic comms menu button. Most common problem about that.

Oh, yes, that is what I originally thought you said, but those pictures seemed like you really meant the headlights. Can confirm the flood lights in cockpit are absolutely useless.

Would be nice for sure. But then, after all these years it's still not even possible to use a pilot model as an infantry asset for CSAR-type missions, and that's a model that already exists with full animations. Not hopeful.

This may sound stupid, but have you adjusted the pointing? The Mi-8 headlights are by default pointing straight down, further so than in the Huey, and thus need to be extended (swung up) in order to appear in view.

I know what you meant. I was a new user once. Did it just like that anyway. The problem you describe comes down to things being in early access for a long time at the end of the day. Otherwise you would have a proper up-to-date manual and proper training missions that talk you trough the procedures. Practicing those is just a matter of clobbering together a simple mission by yourself then. This week saw a major push of things into the 'stable' version of DCS. That puts them out of the fluid situation of being in testing, more or less, and opens the way for manuals and training missions to be adapted to them soon.

Either what Flagrum said, or just incorporate them in missions you previously built.