Kang

You can hear a siren sound inside the cockpit, provided that the signal flare system circuit breaker is on. I always assumed it was meant to be a signal into the cargo compartment and not to the outside.

I'm not saying it isn't possible, but most of these things rely heavily on user-made scripts to run in the missions. There are a lot of options for that because very talented people have published their 'toolboxes' like CTLD, SAR scripts and so on, but frankly, to buy a module centered around these tasks, I would expect them to be working 'out of the box' at least, even if there is no visible interaction.

George knows full well whom he hates.

My apologies! Also Italy, Argentina and I think Saudi Arabia. That's a bit of an issue really. DCS so far has a bit lackluster ASW going on indeed, but the whole transport bit isn't exactly stellar either and could definitely use a bit of an overhaul, not just for any upcoming transport-centered module but also for the sake of our trusty utility helicopters already available. Going for the 'Jolly Green Giant' instead of one of the navy Sea Kings of course cuts that little corner of making it possible to land on water, which so far isn't a thing in DCS either, but personally I would prefer one of the amphibious variants for their classic shape.

If certain other online communities are an indicator you can get all the classified documents you want from the PLA if you badmouth their hardware for long enough.

The date is part of the mission file. Guess it would be possible to make a script that edits the .miz file to update the date and time regularly.

Thanks, the thread kind of evaded me when I was looking through the list earlier.

Notices this in a recent multiplayer session: When a Ka-50 III fires Vikhr missiles the launchers remain visually fully loaded. On the old version you could see the tubes empty.

The Sea King sure is one of those legends. Wide spread use as well, from the US, the UK, Canada, Germany, Japan, Australia, Spain, quite recently Ukraine and probably a dozen more countries. So the tough question has to be: which version of the legend would one prefer?

I wouldn't mind being proven wrong on this, but I have come to the conclusion that ED generally prefers 'latest version' of things and I reckon one reason is digital computerized systems are, surprisingly, easier to simulate on a computer.

In theory you could read out engine RPM from the sim instead of the cockpit gauges, but it's inconsistent across modules. Some have 100% RPM as mil power and just go beyond that for burners, some have 100% RPM for full burners and so on.

The idea sounds good, but I'm also afraid that it would be very difficult to make it meaningful. Not only do things change up all the time, but also opinions on a lot of things vary wildly. Several people have tried to set up things like 'buying guides' for modules over the years, but not only do they outdate rather quickly as development of modules goes on, but at the end of the day they always contain a lot of personal notion. Just like with review videos you can find, the real question is whose opinion in the community you value and trust. Perhaps it would be good to just have a little section dedicated to module recommendations, where people can set up threads saying: «This is what I am looking for in my next module. [...] What are your suggestions?»

I can certainly see where you're coming from and your thinking isn't entirely wrong, but it isn't entirely right either. Pulling hard and going to the edge of angle-of-attack (where the airframe will start shaking) will give you the tighter turning circle alright, but a key thing to understand is that turn rate is not the same thing. One is the actual diameter of the circle you fly in, the other is about the time it takes you to complete a circle. Going for a tight circle is great if you are in an overall more agile fighter and you are confident that you can pull enough lead to end the fight quickly. For example the famous F-18 high-AOA opening. Looking at your turn rate instead is usually favourable when you are in a more powerful fighter - you don't go for an immediate lead and shot, but keep up the turn rate so even if your opponent can go in a tighter circle to keep up, they will bleed more energy and over time be forced to give up.

Having this could be a lot of fun for some missions.

They still seem to be in their jolly mode of switching between absolute bonkers effective and basically throwing paper machee at tanks between patches. I agree they seem to be in the 'rather disappointing' phase of things right now, alongside the other cluster munitions (guided bomblets of 97 and the like excluded).

It's mostly a manner of having missions to reflect this, I guess. But yes, valid wish for having more of this kind of mission in campaigns or multiplayer servers. It can definitely be interesting. I guess in MP at least the focus is usually put with more fighter-fighter combat as bomber intercepts usually mean AI only flights which some people do not enjoy so much.

I agree it could use a bit of a rework. The recent surge in multi-crew capable modules is my personal pet peeve about the list seeming a bit cluttered right now.

Well done, really! I enjoyed that and you managed a few really amazing set-ups. We all know how tracks can be a bit cumbersome to work with in DCS and how much effort it can be to set up camera angles as well. If you do want a few suggestions for the next time: Keep in mind that night scenes are pretty dark already and YT will make them appear even darker than they were on your screen. I liked the opening anyway, but doing night scenes without any added artificial light or post-production trickery is definitely going for hard mode. Music. I think you had some nice pieces of music playing, some better some worse, but one thing you could improve on is the audio edit: once or twice you have music literally cut to silence from one frame to the next. Giving it a softer fade-out or having it switch to other sound effects would make that better. Definitely looking forward to seeing more of the kind. Who knows, I might get around to try one myself sometime this year.

As far as I'm aware all of the 'random failures' get picked from the list of possible malfunctions found in the Mission Editor. What kind of technical problem is simulated depends heavily on the module. Of course there are further things that can go wrong, but usually not by this system. As in: if you do something wrong consistently you will end up with a certain problem every time.

Hm, I see what you are saying, but I also believe that the trial system, the way it works now, is a pretty fair deal. I can certainly relate to your frustration with it. You downloaded a module you wanted to try, and incidentally went with one that - at least in my opinion - does require a bit of time to get into, and your schedules changed for whatever reason and now you don't really get to try it out. In a similar vein I have not tried out modules for a long time because I always felt I needed to 'wait for a good week so I can make the most of it', but eventually figured that perfect time just never happens anyway. I take solace in the fact that I can actually re-try the same module in a few months time for a second go. Having the trial system in place is a real improvement to the community, I feel, because each individual module is comparatively expensive and just being able to try them and see how much I enjoy them is decidedly something to help me decide for one, especially when I am interested in two somewhat similar modules and can't make up my mind which one I really want.

Yes, FCR is cancelled. It's the only explanation.

There is a power switch on the right panel, no gymnastics necessary.

It's always nice to see this coming together bit by bit.

More options in regard to how a given SAM site operates to better simulate its real counterparts would absolutely be good. While I see that there is obviously a limit to what can be done given how many different systems are around and how we all like to have various options later on, I think it would also be a good opportunity to once again suggest something like a SAM module that would allow players to take proper simulated control of, say, a HAWK and a SA-6 for example. As multi-vehicle sites they are somewhat excluded from Combined Arms so far anyway and it might be a good way to get some payoff into further development of these systems.