Kang

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?

To be honest, I always find that argument to be in so much of a grey area. Has this particular version officially carried S-5 rockets? No, it hasn't, you do have a point there. But on the other hand: the previous version has and the pylon, as far as I'm aware, hasn't changed one bit. It would be a much clearer cut case if the possibility of carrying these pods had been removed for some technical reason, but as I understand the whole reason they were never carried is because Russia ran out of S-5 rocket pods.

Since the recentmost newsletter has pointed out how work is progressing on the new pilot model, and specifically mentions how much work is going into post-ejection movement animations like walking around, I would - once again - ask for the possibility of placing the pilot as an infantry unit in the ME. This would greatly improve SAR missions for helicopter folks, decorate hangars and generally make this effort more seen.

That's nice to know

I'm fairly sure I've seen it. Perhaps it isn't associated with the Czech Republic country properly?

That's a good point, actually.

A few more early jets as AI would definitely be appreciated. F-84 would be grand. Or maybe an F2H.

I decided not to read through 8 pages of this thread, so just dropping a quick opinion that, most probably, has already been mentioned: There is no need to develop any all-new modules just to get more free options. The two planes available do give a pretty good peek into DCS, plus on top of that anyone who went so far as installing it does have the option to try virtually any module for free for two whole weeks. That is plenty of time to see if you enjoy it, or if it meets your expectations. (Insert rant about 'back in my day we had to buy modules solely on written reviews')