Kang

Does this imply that buddy-lasing for another type from a Ka-50 is actually working nowadays?

That certainly is a point well taken. Here's to hoping that quite a bit of things will trickle down to us in the trenches once the fancy people got their look in at the Chicago event!

It does, yes. So you get all the way to SEARCHING and then nothing happens. It is indeed odd. I replayed this specific training mission and it seems to work alright on my end. Since the mission walks you through the steps and you obviously fired a missile successfully from the observer's position already, it is safe to assume that the procedure is correct. That leaves my best guess at: could it be you accidentally bound AI Helper LEFT to something that might fire accidentally, and thus close the target list prematurely?

Got 'em, I'd say.

I'd say my focus as of late lies with the F-4E, even though I don't really do all that much with it, and - even if that seems to be rare so far - the Mi-8.

I don't entirely agree on that. Would having them find a realistic reaction to every threat at all times with utilizing their specific column make-up, current immediate objectives and surrounding terrain be too much to expect here? Certainly, absolutely. Would it be computationally expensive to have a few more patterns available that could either be selected for a unit in ME or maybe even selected on a limited set of circumstances like 'road travel', 'road travel in urban area', 'off road travel' and 'engaged or stationary'? The first case of affairs, absolutely doable, not a big problem. The second option, probably a bit of work, but definitely feasible as well.

Certainly. To be perfectly, honest, little of it has to do with the upcoming C-130J module in itself, and as such it might be a little unfair on my part, but the fact is that a little bit of hyping up wouldn't be amiss. 1. The only bit that is in your field here, is that I increasingly can't shake the thought that I would have much preferred an earlier C-130 model. One with the steam gauges cockpit instead of being mostly screens. It is a bit late to bring that up, I am aware. Also, mostly personal preference, I'm sure the majority of the community appreciates the 'latest and greatest possible' approach. 2. This has nothing to do with your efforts at all, but there is the whole Razbam situation. People who take interest in those proceedings might have noticed that the 'discussion thread' has changed modes from being archived and then restarted every now and then to 'purge entirely and lock it up'. Everyone is of course entitled to form their own opinions, but I have a quite firm one on why that happened then, and it does not bode well. (I shall not elaborate further on that because it is off-topic and also will get this post deleted for sure) 3. Again, nothing you can do here, but another onset of general DCS fatigue. Or maybe ED fatigue? Lots of little things that irk and annoy me and worst of all is how much mere questions are treated as complaints, valid complaints as unreasonable hate, and stern criticism as heresy around here. That is, if any official reply happens at all. And no, this is in no way meant to be directed at anybody here personally, I am convinced the problem lies further in the management. Again, I am aware there isn't a lot to be done on your end about any of this. On the whole I am glad to say that I am still looking forward to the C-130J module and, to be honest, I am firmly convinced that it'll be a success. My whole point was supposed to be that my personal excitement level sure could get boosted with a few nice screenshots again sometime soon.

The boxes should be beige or tan when everything is alright. Double check that Petrovich has reported weapons ready, and otherwise circle for a minute or two. P.S.: Besides the preparations of the sights, the missiles themselves need to warm up for a few minutes before use

Keep in mind it takes a moment before the sight can be used. Also, make sure you don't damage the sight beforehand by maneouvering too hard with it open. Also have you instructed Petrovich to enable the weapon system / done so yourself in the front seat?

Quite possibly. If only ASC had told ED some time in advance that they'd release a C-130, you know.

One could say that ED themselves are missing out a lot on the idea of merchandising, though. Thing is, though, I personally would rather have something DCS inspired than a mere company logo.

Definitely would be good. Also, touching on the fact that it is a little problematic how much this sort of thing depends on the module.

I can only speak for myself, but have to say I am still interested, but my personal hype level is definitely falling for various reasons. Perhaps a treat would remedy that.

Not so sure about it being much of a secret, but the FW-190D9 surely is one of the most capable German planes of the war. Probably a lot less guesswork and what-if involved in the module as well, compared to some others. While I haven't had the chance to give it a spin myself yet, I always thought, though, that the F4U in its tactical employment could be considered a bit of a Pacific FW190. That might sound bizarre, so let me explain: they are both quite nimble, mostly in roll and not in circle radius, they both excel at going fast and climbing away from danger, and they both boast devastating firepower, compared to the sturdiness of their respective targets. Overall I find the warbird experience in DCS a bit lackluster on the whole, though, especially considering its comparably high step of entrance.

As hilarious as I would find the news report about somebody having been thrown through the wall by their fancy sim rig, I think this should be done, yes. The event flag quite obviously is a thing in DCS already, it just needs to be routed out to the whole export business.

Funnily enough for both of them the hardest part is convincing them that there is a problem. Coincidence? You decide! Perhaps an optimal solution would be to actually include different models of these SAMs to better mirror their real life counterparts, but I am wary of what the ME unit selection list might look like soon enough.

Frankly what would be nice: A little indication in the ME when setting up a unit to act as JTAC on what it is capable of or not.

As far as I can tell both the tractors and the waypoint action have been put in for future use and there are no 'active' trailers as of yet. At least I haven't seen one.

The truth is that Wags has an assistant who moves the mouse very slowly and smoothly.

That would, after all, be the perfect time to get some flight tests done!

Last I heard it's not really like the German armed forces were overly happy with it either. Showing off might just be smiling for the pain.

I perfectly get that the amount of dev-time is limited and people want different things as, sadly, we simply cannot have it all. Still, as upyr1 pointed out: ED is working on the F-35A - which in turn I have very little interest in - and HB is working on a Eurofighter Typhoon.

I know it is, in all likelihood, being based on a Spanish example of the F-104G and that's perfectly fine, but do y'all see a chance for the incorporation of the AS.34 Kormoran anti-ship missile?

Since the 'No manual?' thread got merged and conveniently closed, I'll put the question here: Is the manual being proof-read with surprising tenacity or is it - as said thread recently suggests - running into some trouble in the writing process?