Revelation

Very nice Mav! I really appreciate the visual queues you provided, that will hopefully speed up the AAR practice.

You assume that the patch notes posted in the official thread are complete and inclusive of all changes...

What everyone is actually trying to say is we want to see more attempts at AAR....

It's nice to see the exhaust is now correctly "oriented" with the nozzle position. In all of previous videos it was fixed to the rear regardless of nozzle orientation. It's nice to see little things like this getting corrected behind the scenes.

Nice work again GA.

Baltic makes no mention of the deal signed in 2015. Let's say that is what he meant, you have a habit of moving the goal post after you are proven wrong. The JPOA, Joint Plan of Action, was signed in 2013... When did the negotiations take place for the interim agreement? The JPOA was the prelude to the JCPOA, which was preceded by negotiations since 2006 which was also preceded by the NPT. They didn't, in 2015, just decide to have an agreement all of the sudden... Where did I say there's a difference between large and small scale incursions? In fact I said the opposite. I pointed out that you were wrong in your initial statement that "when does Iran have the ability to invade anyone?" Again, I pointed out where they have. You cannot qualify your post afterwards by moving the "goal post" and saying: see I'm right... You are being disingenuous with your assertion. I have also provided a link to where Iran trains to invade the UAE via amphibious means, when you said they couldn't Again, you cannot accept when you are wrong, and you keep moving the goal post afterwards. Funny that you bring up a burglar, because a better metaphor would be: If a burglar breaks into your house, but only goes into your living room and then leaves, did he still break into your house? YES, Iran has the capability to invade UAE. Again, you haven't qualified what "invade" means in this context. Go ahead and move the goal post again.... You keep brining up Caucus when I have made no mention of them at all. Is that your go to straw-man argument? Did Iran invade Iraq? In other words, did Iran's military cross an internationally recognized border and seize control of another countries land / assets? Again, move the goal post. You were speaking in absolutes in the first post, when you were wrong. You did not qualify your stance until afterwards and no your are backtracking. Your statement in the first post was "when has Iran ever been able to invade anyone?" Again, you were proven wrong. That is fact. You wanted to move the goal post on what an "invasion" was afterwards. That is shameful on your part. Whether Iran is successful or not depends on many factors. That is a lengthy discussion on tactics, mis-information and that would go on and on and we would probably agree on a lot. You keep saying that possibility must equal success. Actually your point on the North Korean Regime is actually true, it is practiced and it becomes more likely each day You didn't "clarify" - you spoke in absolutes and when proven factual incorrect you moved the goal post by trying to prove that you were right all along. That is disingenuous on your part. I have not used ad hominem attacks at all. I have always pointed out where you were wrong and then YOU tried to re-qualify your position and act like that was what you typed all along. You also keep adding context to my posts, incorrectly, and tried to play it off.

And here's your sign... Again, you are wrong as negotiations began in 2006. Again, my entire post was about Iran's nuclear program. That's like me replying to your post asking if you were really talking about the Titanic; that is how absurd your position is. I did prove you wrong. I provided a specific instance where Iran did invade Iraq. You claimed that they weren't able. This is very simple, You are wrong as they had previously invaded Iraq. In no way did you qualify your original statement as saying invasion and conquer "X' amount of land. No, I focused on one statement because you were wrong. In fact I stated that I agreed with most of your post, what do you want me to cite the rest of your post and give you a pat on the back or the part I take issue with? See there you go again, you keep putting words in my mouth. I never claimed they performed a large scale invasion, in fact I stated the exact opposite. Are you actually reading to understand or reading to respond? What you stated was the Iran COULD NOT, not that their efforts were essentially futile. No where in your first post, the one in question, did you state they have limited capability and would likely be insignificant - however, I did. An invasion is an invasion, unless you qualify ahead of time. You don't get to come back later and state: (this is what we're talking about here) when you never qualified that as your stance. See, unlike you, I don't claim to know what you mean, I am taking you at the words that you typed. I never saw that posed as a question at all. So I provided a link to show that they do practice amphibious landings into the UAE, you obviously didn't even check it out based on this dribble. Wasn't ever part of my discussion, this is simply a distraction... Yes they do. If they are underestimated then yes they can. This was actually proven recently in a War Game where a retired general led OPFOR and decimated the Navy's Carrier Battle Group. https://warontherocks.com/2015/11/millennium-challenge-the-real-story-of-a-corrupted-military-exercise-and-its-legacy/ Again, underestimating your enemy will lead to a loss faster than any plan you can come up with. No. You do not get to come back after a statement to qualify it and act like it was common knowledge or reasonably understood. Now you could have come back and stated " I meant along these lines" and that would have been the end of it. No, again. You keep trying to say I'm missing something but that is a lie. Your statement, as it originally stood, has been proven false. I never claimed that they could conquer the world or the UAE; simply that they had the ability and that they were training for it. IN FACT, I even stated: Again, where did I say that they would be successful, again I stated the opposite. I merely cited sources that say they could and that the trained for it where you said Iran could not. You didn't say Iran has amphibious capabilities that is largely irrelevant unless they get lucky. < THAT is a factually correct statement.

If my very next statement was in regards to the Iranian nuke deal, then yeah it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what I was "talking about." In fact that was the entirety of my post... You then want to criticize that I don't know what I typed.... Childish behavior. It does in fact invalidate your statement where YOU said "Since when does Iran have the ability to invade anyone." No, you are being facetious and trying to play the straw-man. I clearly identified an instance, regardless of how insignificant you find it that invalidates your point. You simply cannot deal with being wrong so you want to create this erroneous scenario to make yourself feel better. Iran actually practices this very scenario a lot. You would know that if you took a moment and learned of geo-political tensions in the region. You could also learn to humble yourself and realize that you do not know everything. No, no it doesn't. You keep mistaking that because someone says that something is possible doesn't mean that they are going to be efficient or successful. Its funny because the last point your copied was that they have limited amphibious capability. That is itself proves that they can, not that they can successfully. https://www.quora.com/How-strong-is-the-UAEs-military-and-can-it-repel-an-Iranian-invasion Now, I am not one in saying that they have the capabilities of the US when it comes to moving troops and the logistics that follow. To merely write them off is a sure-way to lose a conflict.

So you don't know what you typed? There were more inaccuracies such that you claim Iran can't invade anyone, yet they did invade Iraqi territory in 2009 to seize oil fields.

Checkgear, I'm not entirely against your post, but you are factual incorrect. There have been talks of getting Iran to move away from Nuclear capabilities since its first reactor in 1967. There have been multiple meetings and discussions and attempted deals over the past couple of decades that have stalled, failed or where flat out ignored.

Nice!

//// EDIT //// Sorry guys, I am going to have to withdraw my name from the competition.

You are shocked the F-14 might be released in 2018? Maybe that was a typo and you meant 2017, which I believe is unlikely. 2018 is a sure bet.

There is already a terrain and two aircraft that one can fly for free; that is enough. For ED to build out the code needed to support these ridiculous ideas, that bring nothing to DCS, will require a ton of manpower. Do YOU want ED to stop developing DCS to create this nonsense? How about ED delay all other work for 2 years to institute this nonsense - happy now? What about when you decide that you like the demo and want to buy the aircraft only to have some bug creep up a few days later that "forgets" that you bought the module and denies you access because it's confused?

That is generally the point, yes. As Skate is referring to, the resources to downscale the peripheral could exceed the benefit if you have a high FOV. Your eyes would be constantly moving and the resources to keep up will be high. Or you could leave the FOV intact and let your eyes naturally focus on what you want while blurring out the peripheral as it does in real life.

No, that is precisely what this is about and every iteration of pointless polls that suggest the same. I disagree. I know if I am going to enjoy a module before I buy it; simply by the nature of the aircraft and its missions. No. by the time an aircraft is released, i.e. out of early access / beta, there will be plenty of reviews / videos for someone to make an accurate assertion as to whether they will enjoy a module or not. Further, ED, has these great things called "forums" where people can discuss modules to learn more about them and they can then gain a greater understanding of what all is involved in the module and whether it is of sufficient quality.

DCS already has two aircraft that are free with DCS World.

There will be a campaign that is part of the module, it just won't be available right away. Baltic has plans for additional payware campaigns as well.

Looks like the site is almost ready, they do need to fix the price though.

It will be more suited than the A-10C with the use of the AGM-122. It will not be as capable as the SU-25T as others have already mentioned.

Now I am interested in Pimax. Thanks Wags!

This was an April Fool's joke from a few years back.

Any chance of getting it to ED, or if your team can do it, so they can set it up to be plug and play like the warthog where all of the functions/buttons are predefined?

Congrats! Now... Where is that "Project 18" you've been teasing us with for months... :thumbup: