Kang

Again, I don't want to take away from any of it, but at least parts of it beg the question: the difference is what exactly? It isn't wrong to do it, but quite frankly I doubt anybody really needs high fidelity flight models for an AI B-52, that quite frankly spends most of its life in a mission going in a straight line. If one was to update an AI asset with improved modeling of flight dynamics, damage model and all the jazz, perhaps it would be a sane idea to take it to one of the assets for which it is a game-breaking issue and has been reported time and time again for years, like... a MiG-15 or so.

Personally I think what would enhance the air-naval warfare environment much more would be to update some of the old ship types and add overall more ship types to DCS, ideally with a slightly improved damaging model. Having all of these international carriers would be fun, but before you know it the naval complement in DCS will be all aircraft carriers and submarines.

Funnily enough, what these 'new improved models' sadly have in common at this point is that they get announced, then get shown off in a newsletter a while later and then disappear into the nether, it seems. Don't get me wrong, I know it takes a while to do them, but... we went from the Newsletter of 'woah look at this soon-to-be released S-3 Tanker model' to the newsletter of 'Look at this B-52 model update we are now working on'. The FC2-era S-3 has been slated for an update for something like five years now. I would love to see more updates on how they are coming along and I would certainly love to see them implemented someday, but I surely am not holding my breath at this point.

Perhaps best to wait how the CH-47 is going to end up then.

Funnily enough that would probably be most realistic as expectation, considering how that didn't involve any of the newfangled digital undersea magic, but simply watching them dive and dropping a bomb on them.

I know the Tornado that is in planning is going to be a Luftwaffe IDS, but that doesn't quite disqualify the idea of getting a proper modelling of the ALARM missile reality in DCS (as MR pointed out they are in the sim albeit somewhat lacking). Perhaps one might be persuaded to include such an improved, actually working ALARM missile for use in said Tonka, to stand in for a Gr 1; as far as I know there is no technical reason for it not to work on a German Tornado, just that Germany didn't buy any. As for the 'nope that would be wrong because no Luftwaffe IDS carried an ALARM operationally' talk, I am not even that sure any IDS ever carried a HARM either - ECR variants routinely do.

That's quite an impressive list you compiled.

We can debate back and forth what the actual difficulty of certain tasks might be until the cows come home, make themselves comfortable, set up internet trading, get rich, buy out the house and throw us out really, but I agree that there are a lot of tasks that - for whatever reason - are left on the shelf ('low priority' obviously meaning 'no priority at all') for ridiculous timescales. The problem isn't these small issues one by one. Yes, you can just leave those for a bit, but over the years they have grown so numerous that the chances that one of these 'little nuisances' ruins the experience in a majority of the missions.

Interest, certainly. But I agree with Northstar98 in that it's unlikely because there is a tremendous amount of work associated with it to be even remotely working. The whole implementation of submarines in DCS so far is - given how many submarine types are in the game - lackluster at best, with the whole naval component not exactly being detailed.

True, but then I haven't found a way to get the AI to use them in indirect mode ever. Coming to think of it, it's already rather hard to get the AI to use them at all.

Well, since you say it's an iMav it probably means that the target is not an official manufacturer's product and consequently incompatible with it.

Since I experienced such again just now, what actually is supposed to heat up the batteries like that? I've tried isolating one of the two batteries right after take-off, so there is no load on it but also no loading happening anymore, at least as far as I understand electricity. Still after about half an hour of flight both batteries started showing the overheat warning and it never went away again.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up, I have been wondering for a while.

Here is what puzzles me the most about it, really: People say looking at tracks in TacView is working quite well. How comes? It's using the exact same track file, isn't it?

Fixed - level of regret burning units feel about their life decisions has been adjusted

Relatedly the wish for setting regular 'blackout' conditions within a trigger zone has come up several times before

I'm sure most of the warbirds could do with a tiny bit of decoration, but then I don't really see it as a necessity.

That's not wrong for sure. I don't mind it terribly much either, but it just is kinda weird that they are not differently built humans really, but literally scaled. @Hartsblade, a follow-up question to all the work you put into the comparison: are they actually differently sized when in their respective cockpits as well or do they 'change scale' upon disembarking?

Then again, as the original post states, this is a comparison of all the different WW2-era pilots in DCS, where this effect should be decidedly less pronounced.

DCS: Tug - Tow a Legend!

Perhaps it would be much simpler to have an option to put markers on the map that are only visible to whoever set them. Basically have 'regular' orange markers as we do and add 'private' green markers. I can understand how it's annoying to have your markers removed by someone else, but at least in my experience that hardly ever is malicious intent, it's usually someone trying to clean up.

I'm really not sold on the multiplayer aspect of that. a) does it actually have working multicrew? b) somehow I have the feeling that few people will be captivated for long by mostly tuning the radio As for AI: it probably wouldn't even have to be as complicated as our recent helicopter gunners. I mean, the Huey had a simple 'autopilot' that could either keep on going straight or circle to simulate the copilot taking over for a short while; that would already to wonders for the Mosquito.

It certainly is a balance and I feel the original question about the UB32s is one that happens to be pretty much right at that edge. Outside of that particular question I think perhaps it would be good if the module manuals (nudge, nudge, ED: some of the manuals really could do with some updating/completing) could come with a page of appendix that showcased the loadout options, perhaps with a slight colour code for 'actual loadouts used on this aircraft', 'loadouts used on this type', 'technically possible loadouts' and finally 'loadouts included in DCS for the purposes of standing in as a different, similar type'. Admittedly some of these might lead back to the same discussion on what counts as the same type of aircraft in a way, but it might give scenario creators a better guide. Case in point: while I have been aware of the MiG-21bis' Kh-66 being somewhat imaginary (and technically impossible for the type), I somehow missed out on the GSh-23 pods not being a thing on the particular type. A quick look at a GDR source says you are right, though. Not sure if that is ever mentioned in the manual - also yes, I know, that one isn't on ED, but same point applies.

Maybe that exactly is the point. Whether one prefers the purist authenticity of a specific airframe or a slightly broader approach to representing a type. Probably what we slightly disagree on. Personally I feel that simulating a single specific aircraft without much leeway exacerbates the 'spotty' nature of DCS, which is that oftentimes modules are scattered all over the place with hardly ever having the assets to properly match them in a scenario - but I admit that that is just my opinion. I definitely agree that the recent developments in Ka-50 have gotten a bit out of hand at any rate with the experimental features and the modelling after prototypes. I realise that the Ka-50 itself is a bit of a rare helicopter, but then ED sure doesn't do things a favour by claiming this BS3 version to be 'representative'.

Admittedly of little use to the luxury customers who go full VR, but... Merch store?