Kang

You can send the request, but to get a reply you indeed got to be in the right position, which is on final approach. Being in line with the runway is good, often overlooked is that you must be facing towards the runway as well.

It works the same for every base and every plane, really. 1: Call 'Inbound' and you get a direction and distance towards the airbase (or rather a little offset, to a position to begin your final from) 2: Once you are close enough they will let you know; you can now request landing permission 3: The request only works if you are (reasonably) lined up with the runway

Yes, yes it would.

Yes. After the inbound call they will give you instructions on where to head towards the base. Once you are near enough they will contact you again. Just flying straight over the base is good enough.

Anyone care to elaborate on what is going on for those of us who haven't noticed and have too many crashes to find out as of late?

Yes, there is a high fidelity version in development, the one you can buy right now is identical to the one in the Flaming Cliffs bundles and includes two (or three, if you count that) variants in a simplified version.

Wonder what the next patch is going to bring. I would have liked to participate in the screenshot contest currently going on, but at this point 'show the action' would mean I just submit a 4k version of the 'DCS has crashed' window and that would rightly be considered a bit passive-aggressive. Especially since most of these crashes send me straight to desktop without said window or a log entry.

Personally I would assume the disrepair that very list has fallen into is more of a symptom of ED's lack of interest. Not even sure at this point that the pacific assets will be part of the asset pack. They might bundle them up with the F6F instead.

AviaStorm. Their first ever module. Also, sadly one of those that only has a Discord link and literally no other information, so it might be a long time still.

You want it off. Depth of Field option is what makes things you are not focused on (in game just judged by what is in the center of the screen) blurry to simulate a more three-dimensional world.

While you are at it, the shop page description for the WW2 asset pack has several similar issues, probably due to the fact that lists got revised as new things were added back in the day: The M8 Greyhound is listed as 'cars and wagons', while the SdKfz 234 Puma is listed as 'trucks' The Opel Blitz is marked as free, the Bedford is not The Type VII submarine is listed both in its own category and under 'ships', and is mislabeled anyway, as I think the U-Flak is available in the game The towed artillery pieces, both LeFH 18 and M2, are not listed at all

In my understanding 'AAA' is short for 'anti aircraft artillery' and thus definitely includes large caliber guns. That doesn't detract from the fact that the lists should probably be revised and combined or resorted. 'Flak', as much as it has creeped into everyday English, derives from the German equivalent: Flugabwehrkanone, which translates to anti air gun. Note that both the 88mm and the 20mm are called 'Flak' in German.

It has increased the frequency of crashes a lot at least, so that's a plus.

Now that there is an Afghanistan map (or parts thereof at least), is a time to remind people of the infamous 'Black Tulip', the An-12 to fly former Soviet soldiers back home from Afghanistan in the 80s.

This has been requested several times over the years I'm sure, but it is definitely a request worth having. I am in support.

Exactly, really. My whole point was, that just because you know of few women in the DCS community doesn't mean they don't exist. The very attitude that some people (mind you: not necessarily you) display towards the topic is reason enough for some not to divulge such personal information unnecessarily. In either case, I think this is getting more and more sidetracked.

Surprisingly DCS users are not legally required to state their gender.

I don't, but perhaps consider using a C-130 instead, it looks a whole lot better.

Well, that escalated quickly.

Probably doesn't have a proper IR map yet.

Wait a minute, this was a bug all along? The Huey 'autopilot' has been doing this back in... 2016 or so already. I always assumed it was intentional, in a 'don't leave things to Billy for too long' kind of way.

I sure hope that this recent spout in AI improvement will move towards more of that. The recent news is a very good first step.

I'm not perfectly convinced I want it as a module to fly myself (not that that in itself is a reason not to do it), but I'd definitely welcome it as an AI asset.

Well, perhaps if CH-47 and C-130 result in a general overhaul of how DCS handles logistics it would be a very viable module indeed. I would have some interest at least.

It is a very old model that has been around since probably Lock On. A few of those have slowly been replaced lately, so perhaps that will happen to the C-17 some day as well.