Kang

I just hope that certain improvements in ATC will actually make it to core DCS, so that'll work a little better.

Sorry, but that is not about enhancing its capabilities in any way, but rather about updating the cockpit to fit with recent-ish changes in how lighting works.

I got the Mirage right after last month's two-day trials in which I gave it a spin and oddly my experience has been quite the opposite. I found my first flight in it to be very pleasant and rather easy to control. Admittedly I found the fact that a lot of things are just different quite charming as well. And I loved ze accent.

On the contrary, as Exorcet has pointed out, there is the option to have an AI flight perform not only aerobatics in general, but give them a specific sequence of 'tricks' to do. I wouldn't call that terribly limited.

So, I've been trying the Matra 155 rocket pods from the Mirage and came across something that struck me as odd. Is it intended that the rockets upon firing turn into Hydra-70 MK5 rockets instead of the SNEB rockets that I naively expected? I get that they are somewhat similar in their effect, but still...

...or perhaps a MiG-29 (and a Su-27) is simply in the video because it's an available FC3 module and thus part of the free trial? Not everything is a conspiracy.

At this rate you'll be through with them all quite soon. Nice video again!

Are the tooltips a little more helpful now, mayhaps?

On the other hand: isn't putting the launch bar switch to 'retract' part of the pre-launch checklist?

The actual possible bug nonwithstanding, shouldn't fighting with guns be the kind of situation where instead of playing with the electronic toys good old-fashioned 'looking at the bugger' should be the solution? Not saying the whole electronic IFF issue shouldn't be investigated, just, you know... fiddling with that strikes me as a little odd.

The thing with this 'generations' business is that there is no perfectly set definition. How haywire it goes should be quite obvious when looking at current state-of-the-art fighter planes and the rather bizarre 4.5th generation. At least part of that odd numbering is down to the fact that planes like Gripen, Rafale or Typhoon came around with everything that made them distinct from the general 4th generation, yet some people were rather upset that their own air forces had temporarily fallen behind in the development of all-new aircraft und thus not among the first to reach that 'milestone'. Hence, make up some specific extra-rule you have been side-tracked working on and invent the 4.5th. You don't have to agree on that view on the latter, the point is: these categories are rather sketchy at all times.

As Greyman said, there are some rules that Steam itself requires to adhere to. That's why in the last month both the free trials and the sale items have been different from the ED shop ones, and also at least in part why sales generally are a bit later and different in Steam.

I haven't quite noticed for buildings (but it may be there), but I've seen something similar with singularly clustered trees disappearing at long ranges, which I at least think used to be not the case. At least I don't remember far-away vehicles appearing before the trees. Perhaps something about the low level-of-detail models of some scenery assets?

It worked alright for me yesterday. Since you have TAS selected, is your radar (not the altimeter) emitting?

I'd assume this is a ranging problem. When locked the gun automatically adjusts elevation.

That is quite a surprise, ED. Thank you very much! Not only is a full month quite a considerable amount of time to test out a thing or two, having the option to try out virtually all of the modules is definitely a tremendous gift to the whole community. And please, folks, there is no need for any hatred because a few things are not part of this. Appreciate that more than ever before is and dig how beautiful it is out here!

To be fair, that has been much of the premise behind loading up the F-16 as a 'follow-up' to the F/A-18 project to begin with.

I certainly hope it was! We all know that we need the vastly superior Skylane!

Well, to be fair, 'crunch time' as a concept is quite prevalent in all parts of the software industry and is probably something a developer expects when picking that career, so I wouldn't quite talk about 'enduring under ED'. Doesn't mean you don't have a point about it, I think a lot of us do understand things got a little bit rattled by the general situation right now anyway.

In real-life there are 'AWACS-like' systems that use ground radar to track movement on the ground and combined with other sources of intelligence, they can provide quite good information, but none of them are simulated in DCS (yet).

Concerning the 'classified information' you should also all keep in mind that it not only matters what a certain document says, it also matters a lot who actually shares it. Just because information is available to the public by some means does not always mean that everybody who has this exact same piece of knowledge first-hand is at liberty of talking about it. On topic I can agree that DCS, with all of its shortcomings and often rather frustrating problems, can quite often make up for those with an astonishing attention to detail. There has to be a reason so many of us keep coming back.

Don't see the relevance to the topic, but I'd assume that is intentional. They probably expect you to rearm through the ground crew.

I can quite see the case for the C-2, provided the whole cargo part gets a little fleshed out still. Right on its tail would be a Dakota for me, simply because with its long, long, long service life it can be shoe-horned into so many scenarios in some way. A C-130 would be something interesting, but I gather it's a rather complicated one, plus people keep saying that DCS doesn't like modules with more than two engines.

I didn't really have that problem before and I have it even less now. That might just be me, too, though.

Sorry. I meant, perhaps several controls are bound to the same keys.