msalama

Well, this. As much as I detest the "gimme" entitlement crowd so prevalent these days, I personally only buy modules I'm genuinely interested in myself.

My warning level is at 10% even though they're all expired. Could you please fix this?

All the more reason for ED to step up their WW2 development. More theatre- and period-accurate ground units, more AI aircraft and more overall coherence is what we need. We're getting the Mossie and the Jug, and Mag 3 is doing the Corsair. All excellent additions to the base game - and all good AC for us groundpounders - but the overall development is still too disjointed to lure the masses away from all these lesser offerings with wooden FMs and all that "startup checklist: press I" nonsense. Coherence, ladies and gentlemen, more coherence, and they'll come in droves!

Yes, we are, and no, it doesn't. Rather, what really does sound daft is to expect to get it for free, since making the bugger is a carpload of work. So may I courteously suggest you not buy it?

Very good and reassuring :thumbup: And it's great we'll get a ground strike capable late model as well. A great addition to those Korea-type missions! Waiting eagerly... ;)

Joystick buttons commonly found on every stick out there. And yes, it's a well working solution, unless you want to cough up some serious £/$/€ for a throttle quadrant. I know I won't, unless I happen to find a second hand unit in good condition.

I'd certainly pay something in the vicinity of $15 for an upgrade pack.

Thanks mate, good to hear. S!

Complaining is OK, ad homs and immature behaviour are not. Just my take on it though. Care to elaborate? This is the first time I hear of this.

What did you expect? Warthog-like efficiency? The last I checked, and it was after the change discussed here, they worked 100% OK. Are you sure it isn't you?

Nope. A HOTAS lever controls the throttle as IRL and 2 JS buttons control RPM up and down. So with the Mossie, just bind both throttles to a lever and use modifier buttons to control each engine separately when necessary. And likewise with the revs, i.e. the buttons control both by default, and each one separately when an additional modifier button is pressed and held. This is how I do it, and by and large, it works great.

The WW2 subgame needs fleshing out. We need additional ground units and study-level human-pilotable attack aircraft. Mere furballing gets boring after a while.

The real thing is very stable and docile as well. Are you suggesting ED should make it unrealistically difficult?

Was about to repeat what you wrote Manta, but let's avoid tautology and just give you a +1 :D

Yeah, the new sounds rock. They're a sim equivalent of Malcolm Young's (RIP) guitar - oomphy and ballsy! Great job ED :)

...but suffice it to say regardless that it's been literally years since I've last blown the powerplant and I do push the bird quite hard at times. So IMO it's actually pretty much OK and I've got no complaints myself.

An excellent ground attack platform and more than capable of A-to-A as well, provided that you know what you're doing and fly to its strengths. "Neutered" and "better in all regimes"? Completely untrue in DCS and RL both. We don't have the high-boost version and some think WEP breaks the engine too easily, but that may just be mismanagement since I've seen lots of folks grossly mishandling the bird doing no warmups before takeoff, etcetera. So I'm of the opinion that it's actually pretty good, although this comes from someone who's primarily a groundpounder with no recent A-to-A activity. So YMMV...

To call it "completely different" is an exaggeration. There're certainly differences, but still.

Yes, there may be biases, and yes, the L-39 is potentially vulnerable because it's slow and unarmored. Still, Wikipedia claims that "according to Reuters, by 2014 the L-39 had allegedly become one of the favoured platforms of the Syrian Air Force for performing ground attack missions due to its slower speed and higher agility over other aircraft in its inventory." So do those guys have a deathwish or something? Hardly. The circumstances there must make the Albie survivable enough, or they would've all been shot down by 2014 and anecdotes like the above wouldn't exist. So I don't know, maybe the SAF generals, hmmm, structure their missions seriously and are thus able to put their L-39 inventory to good use? ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_L-39_Albatros#Syria

I, of course, know this. The thing is, if you want to actually enjoy those missions, you'll either have to A) limit yourself to hostile APCs, infantry & non-radar AAA only or B) use some common sense by preventing those Albies / F-5s / what have you from striking their target before the big boys have taken out the stuff they can't handle. Real life however? As it comes to Syria, I've heard stories of SAF pilots actually liking their Albies, because they're quite manouverable and the loiter time is good. But strangely enough no-one mentions MANPADs - well either because the insurgents don't have them, or, I don't know, maybe because the SAF has retrofitted their entire fleet with flare throwers or something. But in either case, all publicly available documents just state that "a number of AC have been shot down" without disclosing any loss rates that I've seen at least. Still, those guys must base their fondness for the bird on something tangible. Just wonder what that is? PS. I realize I'm drifting kind of off topic here. My apologies ;)

They have mentioned it in passing, and AFAIK did collect data on the F variant too.

Depends on what you mean by "seriously structured". The L-39ZA, for example, is an excellent light CAS/COIN platform and has been used as such in numerous RL conflicts. And I don't think missions and/or servers concentrating on those kind of scenarios are less "seriously structured" than any 'big war' stuff I've seen so far.

Can you force TAA on DCS and how to go about it if you can?

Maybe. Remains to be seen.

Regardless, a s**tload of work. Taken on by whom exactly?