Mars Exulte

Looks really good, you should be proud of your work

https://www.cnet.com/news/astronaut-chris-hadfield-calls-alien-ufo-hype-foolishness/ I'm just gonna... leave this here.

I have no idea what's going on with other countries. If they're requesting further customisations (like Israel) I absolutely can believe it. Well, we're talking about for the US armed forces, so in that context, no. Like said, what the Euros are paying is their problem.

I couldn't speak to that. Generally the ''per unit price'' includes all expenses. The price everyone talks about is NOT typically the actual ''purchase price'', but rather the dev costs AND purchase price spread across all units, that's why it trends downward the more aircraft are produced : it's averaged out. It is. See above, the prices are averaged out. That's actually what originally started this thread, slashing orders is starting the ''per unit'' cost averaging upward again. Afaik that stuff is tallied separately most the time and is part of longterm sustainment costs. That's one of the things they've been trying to tackle so aggressively, is lowering the maintenance costs. Exactly. Although the stealth coating sounds to be a lot more practical than the ones used on F-22s and earlier aircraft, it still automatically increases maintenance costs .

This ''new'' technology is known as ''the ground''. It has been bringing objects in motion to 0 forward velocity for at least the last few hundred years, possibly longer. It is closely followed by a second technology known as ''walls'' which has been particularly effective in halting the forward motion of automobiles almost as well as Project Codename : Trees Yeah, that's a point often glossed over. The newer block teen fighters don't have their 1980s price tags anymore. Oof

Zing

That's not an ''official document''. It's a media site, describing their research, itself a composite of reports, ship logs, and FOIA data. The same site has an article on ''mannequin mountain'' on their front page, so let's not take them TOO seriously. As for the incident itself : 100 miles offshore is well within international waters. They were conducting exercises, in international waters. They were observed by a number of ''objects'' (read: drones) over a period of several days. ''Well beyond the capacity of commercial units'' means ''you can't buy one at Walmart''. Predators are drones with multi-hour, hundreds of miles flight profiles, so that is a meaningless phrase. ''Low visibility under 1nm'' a mile is still pretty good visibility. Is it ''barnstorming through beggar's canyon in a F-15'' visibility? No, but more than enough for practical observation purposes, especially if you're not observing exclusively in visible spectrums (which is like 100% guaranteed). Again ''at night with poor visibility'' translates to ''UAP''. If it was daytime and well lit we'd probably be reading about Chinese/Russian drones harrassing the US navy ''off their shores!!!!1!'' (The media loves highlighting legal activities in international waters in sensational terms).

Is mandatory surrender no longer required once a French plane is exported, or are new owners obligated to maintain the traditions?

They are real differences that could have easily been blown over. Already said it once. The aircraft have massive overlap except for the undercarriage. Hell, as I recall they were competing in THE SAME programs at one point. The USAF and USN have literally ALWAYS BEEN RIVALS and it has shaped US policy since literally forever. The rest of the world somehow manages to avoid having 47 variations of fighter with overlapping capabilities... except to a certain extent Russia, who is likewise burdened with too many lips desperately suckling at that government teat. They could easily have just picked the one best suited for ''both''. You know ''small compromise for everyone's best interests. Which is just idiotic that even such a minor point ended up being a difference. Yeah, I already said the VTOL stuff is a waste of resources. It was pretty marginal to begin with for utility and at this point needs to go the way of the ''swing wing'' fad of the 70s. Even the ''little carriers'' thing is nonsense, and dispensing with the VTOL requirement would solve some of THEIR issues. If you want a little carrier, put a single cat on it and if necessary reduce the complement. But for that matter, you can drop the Marine fixed wing complement altogether instead of trying to have them be a ''mini air force'' of their own. Helos? Completely justifiable. VTOL fighters? Completely unnecessary.

Yes? Do you think it's coincidence that ''far away, at night, on a FLIR'' translates to ''UAP''? Do you still not get it? The ONLY REASON it's a ''UAP'' AT ALL is BECAUSE it's ''far away, at night, on a FLIR''. If it was ''nearby, during the day, on a TV'' it would be an obvious boat/plane/balloon/lens flare/etc. Yes? No. Are you grasping frantically at straws? Yes.

Yeah, people reallllllly like to trot that line out, except it is literally complete bs that falls apart with even the most cursory of examinations. Even the cited example was due to poor planning and unclear objectives, not because of ''trying to design a multi-role aircraft''. Also using an example from **THE 1960s** is completely ridiculous. It's not 1960 anymore, it's a digital age. All the stuff that goes on an air superiority fighter, radar, FLIR etc, is easy enough to repurpose for A2G, too. PGM capability is as simple as a TPOD attached to a hardpoint, potentially giving that ability to ANY aircraft with wiring that can interface with it, even a Cessna 172. It's not like it requires a full scale redesign and is super duper aerodynamically sensitive. The people pushing that stuff are often ''traditionalists''. You know, the kind that 'we fight like THIS, it's how my father fought, and his father before him, and there's no good reason to change things up!', the kind responsible for many of the most idiotic military defeats in history ''What do you mean the enemy didn't just follow our 300 year old doctrine?!'' The kind of people that should absolutely be completely ignored at all costs. Take for example, the F-16 and F-18, two extremely popular and successful multirole aircraft. There is exactly ZERO reason to have two aircraft with such heavily overlapping capabilities. They both exist EXCLUSIVELY because of bs inter-branch rivalry. It's true the reinforced landing gear is unnecessary for a field operated aircraft, and sacrificing it allows an extra few percent of *insert*, but it's hardly a deal breaker. Like... you see multiple foreign air forces using F-18s exclusively as their main fighter, clearly they do not consider that a ''forfeit the war'' issue. Operating multiple aircraft hand designed to do ''one thing'' when you could so easily have an aircraft capable of doing virtually **is** MIC bloat. The primary purpose of it is to keep all these big defense contractors in business who would otherwise shrivel and die without a steady stream of government money. None of this is even remotely about ''cost efficiency'' or ''the F-35 running overbudget''. If you shut down F-15/16/18 production, retired the entire line, and switched the entire force to F-35s for ''warfare'' and something like the A-29 (which is what I believe eventually won that competition?) for low intensity ops where a stealth fighter is overkill (like strafing jihadis in afghanistan and loitering over one area for multiple hours), you would have 95% of the warfighting capability of the current ''mixed force'', and all these ''money problems'' would evaporate. But that would ALSO sever the government welfare stream to a lot of these contractors and THAT ain't gonna happen. Real life isn't 1v1 gunfights, you're not going to lose a peer adversary war over a few degree/sec or some nonsense. If the F-35s development and support has been plagued by politics and money manipulation, you can rest assured people are arguing against it for the same reasons. None of this has anything to do with what is actually most effective or best, it's ALL about as many people as possible trying to get a piece of that sweet, sweet, government money pie. -edit Absolute maximum a large diverse air force designed for efficiency should consist of the following 1x Frontline high performance fighter suitable for both land and sea operation, with good stealth application. The VTOL stuff is completely pointless and should be dropped altogether. External fuel tanks a fueling pod, it can probably serve as its own tanker, too. Two seaters can probably also serve as AWACS for carrier groups, likewise for EWAR. Strap a couple cargo pods on them, they can deliver mail to the carriers, too. 1x Light fighter suitable for low intensity deployments. No stealth necessary, emphasis on ease of maintenance, loiter time, and low cost. 1x Long range, dedicated bomber or larger strike fighter ''just in case''. Should ideally be capable of at least limited self escort (simply able to launch AAMs, preferably from BVR, not dogfighting) 1x Large, long range tanker 1x Large, long range AWACS 1x Attack helicopter. With modern TPODS/radar etc, you can simply designate one from a flight to serve as ''scout''. 1x Small utility helo 1x Large utility helo 1x Medium size cargo plane 1x Large cargo plane 1x Small business jet size aircraft as a priority courier Unless I've forgotten something terribly glaring, anything beyond this is feeding money to defense contractors.

There's a reason these UFO videos are always really grainy, poor quality, with indistinct shapes, and extremely open to speculation : because if it's an actual decent video, you can tell clearly it's a plane, drone, lens flare, etc etc etc. UFO speculation is directly connected to ''crap audio/video''. In an age of widespread cameras, public access to data (including radar) and and and : bizarrely nobody ever has a decent shot that's not obviously CGI. A cop or celebrity can't pick their nose without it being all over the planet within 20 minutes, but somehow... someway... this is the best garbage we can scrape together on yetis, bigfoot, and aliens. Think about that for a minute.

My bet is something like this for the controller configs. Admin access for DCS, and make sure you don't have it set as read only unnecessarily (both the main and saved games files). As for the crashes, it doesn't sound like people are consistently experiencing crashes most the time round here, so I'd try to gather your logs, version info, exact system specs, etc, and forward it all to ED if it persists.

Well, right upfront... because they're not stupid? You don't go around shooting at random blips or ''I don't know what it is''. Why would they shoot? They're not being threatened. It seems you've noticed the average person is not a murderous psycho. Congratulations.

The helmet has nothing to do with this stuff, which is mostly maintenance and dev related. ''Coronavirus'' is a general category of viruses, not only ''Covid19''. So... yes... there are lots of them. Most notably the common cold. It's like ''Dog'' and then ''Rottweiler''. You know... main category -> sub-category.

That's probably a byproduct of those being worked on a lot longer... The 23 was not even announced as a future goal until fairly recently. I would like to think they're organised well enough to do things in the order they started. With the Harrier and Mirage in final stages, as far as I can tell, I expect they'll turn additional attention to the Farmer and then eventually the Mudhen. I wouldn't expect to see the A-29 or MiG-23 anytime soon as they've stated repeatedly those two are just 3d modeling right now to keep the artist busy. They haven't taken any money from anybody or killed anybody's dog, so I wish people would grow up and stop being so petulant because ''the edgy kids burn Razbam'' @@

Well, that deteriorated quickly.

I think I saw one of the devs around here considering a Su-17/22 but I don't remember which it was. A few days ago I made a list of every aircraft in dev or mentioned as being worked on/planned, but didn't keep track of who said what.

I'm not 100% certain how it works, but can't you use active pause (or regular pause) to interact with systems while everything is frozen? -edit I think active pause only pauses you, not the world. You COULD slow the game world down, though, time deceleration. It would all technically still be moving but you could take your time setting up your plane that way for sure!

I think he described most servers LOL The huge size of DCS environs are a bit wasted on infantry, in order for it to work they either have to spawn IN the immediate area of an objective (which directly leads to the described scenario) or with unreasonably long travel times. I can't see how anybody who ever played Arma would think ''this, but scaled up to 50x the waiting and travel time is a good idea'' or ''this but the roving aircraft are sniping me from 50x as far away'' is going to work very well. The only way infantry work (and to a large extent vehicles, too) in DCS is if you scale the AO down do much as to eliminate strategic considerations like artillery and aircraft altogether at which point... why waste the time and resources on DCS when you could buy any of 15 games that do it already far better than DCS is ever likely to because they were designed to from the ground up? Not every ''cool idea, bro'' that wanders through this forums translates into practical usage.

The old and new Ka-50s will exist side by side (similar to the A-10A and A-10C, or other ''variants''). A mission created for one won't automatically have the other but it's likely a lot of stuff be converted from one to the other (as it's really just a case of going in the mission and changing it from one to the other) fairly quickly or even ahead of time. See above. Missions will have to be updated to allow for the new aircraft, or new ones created outright. Nope, afaik they'll be different versions of the helicopter and exist side by side. I'm uncertain if the original aircraft is also receiving updates, but in general they will be variants. See above. Pretty substantial, if I remember. The A-10C update was $20-30 I think, compared to $60-80 full price. It'll probably be slightly cheaper to buy BS3 at full price than BS2 at full price then discounted BS3 later. Unless you get BS2 during a heavily discounted sale in which case it will be cheaper to go that route most likely.

That's a nice looking pit, Morkva

Well, the whole point of it being dynamic will be to reduce that workload bit That... doesn't really matter as much as it sounds. Some of the most popular servers in Arma are those idiotic Life and/or zombue servers which are hardly representative of the game itself much. Endless PvP deathmatches with only tangential organisation ARE arcadey. It's true this is a partial weakness... structuring a server's entire gameplay in such a way as to really dial in on is not a great idea... but people like to killwhore, so you get what you get. A really dynamic environment, being orchestrated in semi-logical fashion with impactful objectives, dynamic logically organised ADS, etc would go a loooong way toward mitigating some of this. It's hard to fly around spamming raams at every radar contact when you actually have to concern yourself with other threats, too. On DM/TDM style servers, yeah, it's a bit of a problem. Less so on guns only servers. Much less on something even remotely approaching a real battlespace. If they actually improve the AI and its ability to organise and behave intelligently then not everything has to gravitate toward duels. If a server focuses on simplistic PVP deathmatching, then DCS has the same issues every other online game has : namely that people will develop and hyper emphasise whatever the current ''meta'' is.