VZ_342

Beautiful!

If ya’all aren’t getting responses anyway, I wouldn’t think spelling someone’s screenname wrong would decrease the chances of a reply. Twice nothing is still nothing.

Hopefully the Cowbell will be able to self-lase. I’m not sure if there was a two-seater variant?

Could you describe how to use one core as a server? Even a basic “how to” to get myself oriented to do self-study would be great! Thanks!

He was probably just jealous that you got to fly in a real fighter, not just in a high speed low-level bomber...(I worked on the EF-111A during the ‘80s, and would’ve killed for an incentive flight; alas, all of those went to Hosp sq. and USAF LE)

When I bought the Supercarrier, I didn’t know it also had the Kuznetsov. I didn’t think that maybe I’d overpaid for SC (because I wasn’t in the market for the K, even though it was something that I would eventually buy). I was very happy with price! Given that you do get both (even though you only want one), how much would you pay for the new K? Would it have been worth it to buy both when the sale was half off? Also, a number of YouTube creators had their own 10% off coupon which also worked on the half-off price... Seeing the new K’s impressive firepower in several YouTube videos would have made it an immediate purchase for me!

:thumbup: F-16 and Supercarrier because, well...F-16 and Supercarrier!! :pilotfly:

Spitfire! And commuting!

+1 on the Venom! Also +1 to the Venezuelan camo!

Will the A-4 work with the new “Supercarrier” module? Will it have to use the same workarounds for starting, hooking up to the catapult, etc?

iirc, DCS is primarily a flight sim; Combined Arms is an accessory to add another level of depth to the experience. Most people (imho) using the sim don’t usually get into the ground troops side of things, and if they do, there’s several maps which do work for ground ops. To tell everyone to not buy PG is excessive, even for the “boots” amongst us. Something informative, such as “Before buying PG, be aware it doesn’t work with CA” would target your specific audience and not potentially scare off the primarily pilot types. Just my $0.02

Looks like some are coated with Zimmerit, to prevent bad guys from attaching anti-bomb mines as the bombs approach their positions...

I’d think it'd fit nicely in half of a two-car garage...:joystick: :pilotfly:

Africa is one big continent. Maybe divide it into 20-30 sections by regional conflict(s) or interesting locations (coastal, mountainous, inland waterways, oil fields, copper/diamond producing areas, etc). I’d suspect the Red Sea/Egypt corner would be an excellent starting point. It’d be an interesting read, at the least.

“End of discussion” is a bit demanding...although I’ve never been in either a real f-14 or the DCS version, noise of anything that is “loud” can be “too loud.” Sound can range from the “click” of a toggle switch to 175 Db (“crazy ex-wife” level)...and an open discussion of how loud the afterburner should be , is fair game. Imho

I’ve heard that pilots IRL suggest peanut butter sandwiches if one is prone to airsickness...because it tastes the same coming up as when it went down...

Check out YouTube FLIR videos from Afghanistan...the US isn’t AI, but we can see everything.

That’s why a ground element, if any, should be secondary to the main mission of flight. Somehow I don’t see many current players of DCS wanting to control company-sized units, most talk about a single squadron of armor (5 units) or squad size or less infantry. But...once one gets used to 5, they’ll want 10...then 30... But those decisions are well above my paygrade, and I’m just glad that some form of integration of ground elements are in the consideration pool. Thx BigNewy!

I spotted an odd ground effect once near a river, and couldn’t get my F-5 to hover to check it out, so I just ejected...once on the ground (mountainous and wooded Caucasus terrain) I took a bearing+distance reading and started hoofing it. Walked straight thru trees, found tree-less corridors which resembled actual forest environments, and had to continually retake bearing+ distance readings (F10 map). The plodding rate of the pilot’s walk as well as the inaccuracy of facing a specific direction (it seemed like Mr Pilot turns in 30° - 40° increments) meant I was walking for a long time. The last obstacle I came across was a river which sounded like a gentle stream, and I could hear it from some distance away. It was quite disappointing after walking so far, I got within about 10 meters to the edge and suddenly... I died. Drowned, apparently. Based on this, I would suggest a few very basic modifications which are enabled whenever the pilot/individual person is on foot: First, have some kind of direction + speed indicator for someone on foot. The little bar that is used when viewing the aircraft from the outside (F2) would work well for this. Second, have a more accurate directional input. The ability to adjust heading and the rate of the turn should be able to incorporate the yaw input controls just as the aircraft does. Third, “crouching” is just a way of reducing perceived height above ground. If a pilot is 1.8 meters tall, then by pressing “crouch” (“q”, perhaps) the pilot’s “altitude” would be reduced to .9m. Typical first shooter controls are a (slide left), s (reverse), d (slide right), and w (walk forward), with q = crouch and e = jump. Once on foot or ejected, all aircraft control bindings are inactive, perhaps a secondary set of control bindings could be activated for pilot body/parachute controls? One in particular would be “activate Mae West” (“v” for vest) which would prevent pilot death when landing in water. Also, these directional controls (except “run”) could be used with water as a basic “swim” function. Fourth, there should be a “run” modifier. Caps Lock would be good for this. This kind of setup could also be used (when combined with a groundcrew request to put/remove a boarding ladder against the cockpit) to do a walk-around pretrip, for those who like doing that or who just want to check out the airfield (or possibly even have an “airshow visitor” perspective). I understand having or using individual weapons would be well outside the scope of DCS, but if we limit available individual equipment to: Binoculars (which are not necessarily visible in the characters hand) which use “zoom”); A simple representation (perhaps a tube integrated into the hand, aligned with direction of travel or designated target) of a manportable laser designator, and A simple on-screen radio interface (which could be a third-party program, like SRS or TS) which is active when on foot... This should be adequate for most players’ purposes...I’m not a programmer but in the words of many others....”This should be easy to incorporate into DCS!” Just a suggestion, thanks for reading.

DCS/ED has a very specific set of rules regarding which planes can be made available. There’s really no room (imho) for preferences based on “we got bored after a week.” Sounds like you may want to check out some other flight games which have a much larger pool of aircraft from which to choose.

Especially anything with “Microsoft™“ in the title. Seriously, give that deity its own time slot for installation + update.

When I watched the wing flex video (F-16), it was actually kind of scary...such thin wings, combined with high-G’s and heavy bomb loads, they flex far enough where I’d be worried they snap right off. As a pilot, I don’t think I want to watch them as I buzzed around the area. I understand that carbon fiber wings have immense flex ranges, but the -16 has traditional wing construction iirc. Of course, the wings *are* modeled correctly, yes? In which case my fears are nothing but vapors in my mind, “fear is the mind killer.”

The trick in a war is to know your weapons’ strengths and weaknesses, and the enemy’s strengths and weaknesses. Applied correctly, with just a pinch or two of luck, and victory is yours!

+1 on the C-47/DC-3...”Spooky” was the original gunship in Vietnam and of course used for multiple mission types in WW2.

What is not working? It seems to work for me but my accuracy is better without the Shkval.