Revelation

That's a fair request. The original question was whether the rocking and rolling was modeled.

It's already in game, you simply need to increase the wind speed until you achieve your desired effects.

Love the new Gamma Setting Gamma = 1.6

Simply don't buy a module until it is fully "released." Your problem is solved.

There's also the ability to designate points on the ground just by looking at it via the JHMCS. So as Kippy said, there is a lot more to it than just usage for the AIM-9X.

Only land based Hornets carried a Lightning Pod. All carrier based carried a different pod, these days they use the ATFLIR - if I remember the name correctly.

AGM-45 has been phased out for quite a while. Not sure about EM pods, curious as well. I do not believe it will matter much until ED has some time to devote to further flush out and refine radar energy, detection and counter measures.

If I remember correctly it was a contract issue where the ANG did not want it modeled in game. RAZBAM would not be beholden to that contract, you simply won't see it on the A-10C.

Easiest way without having to install everything again is: 1) upgrade OS to new OS 2) Use Carbon Copy Cloner to copy over all contents of HD to SSD (create MBR) 3) reboot and select the SSD as your 1st boot option

Prior to the event, no there wasn't. I also include the Thrustmaster announcement of the event as the event. Prior to that there was no hint, anywhere, that such a thing was coming. According to all Thrustmaster official announcements a new high-end stick wasn't planned until 2020.

Just remember, prior to this event, there was no "hint" of an F-18C stick for DCS either.

I can see Thrustmaster coming out with a throttle for the F-18C. My assumption is that they didn't have it far enough along to even show a teaser.

Nah, it's good as they probably wouldn't do a newsletter today anyways with E3 going on.

So word is that we may get to see carrier landings today. My bet: New Carrier Module in Normandy

No. This is going to be another option, especially for those that like plug and play. I imagine that ED and Thrustmaster will work together to ensure that each button / hat is recognized and "triggers" the appropriate in-game functionality.

You guys never disappoint.

That would be very doable with the 'B' most of use waiting to see if we get self-designation with the 'B'.

As always, top notch guys.

I picked the Harrier, though after next week when we get to see the first in-game videos of the Hornet my opinion may change.

They don't always list every single change, though I agree with your premise.

E3 starts around 15 June, I would wait.

Wait until after E3. Thrustmaster is showcasing the DCS F-18C Hornet and who knows what else.

The lighting is so impressive over NTTR.

And you miss my point. We would still be awaiting the A-10C as a counterpart for the KA-50 would need to have come first. Additionally FC3 was NOT going to get added to DCS initially. So there goes your other point. Balance is achieved through mission design. I can create a very unbalanced mission with just A-10Cs on the BLUE side and nothing but KA-50s on the RED side. So now you contradict yourself. Case in point: So which is it? You mentioned it incorrectly. You stated that it was a "grab" by third party devs, in which no licensing has been given to any aircraft or third party. That is up to the third party Devs to decide if they have access to enough information is it not? Why do YOU, whom has no financial interest in a Development Team, get to decide what THEY can or cannot do? Further, third party Devs must also demonstrate the level of knowledge and access to information to get an "official" third party status for a module. Then the KA-50 would fall into the same category since it never really saw combat. It was never bought or manufactured in large numbers and it was basically dropped in favor of the two-seat variant, the KA-52. Ultimately, Devs should do what they want. Let the market decide what is good and what is bad. No. People are arguing against your logic. For instance, I'd rather see ED forgo all WW2 stuff and focus on Gen3+ aircraft and time-era maps. The difference, I realize that ED is a business that I have no financial interest in and they can simply ignore my desires and do what makes business sense to them.

A lot of inaccuracies in your post. This is simply not true. Several third party Devs simply created a wishlist of aircraft they'd like to create at some point. No where did it state that they had a license or were reserved a certain module. No. I'd like to see Devs develop aircraft that they are passionate about and will put in the time into the authenticity of the module. This simply isn't based on any factual information and it is entirely your personal opinion. No. So you would rather not have any third parties then at all as you would inevitable restrict them out of the market. You would further hinder the development of DCS as whole with your bad thought process. If the above was the case, we would still be waiting on a DCS level counterpart to the A-10C. Further, the F/A-18C would have to be scrapped as there is not a DCS level counterpart. So the F-14A/B would have to be scrapped as well. The Viggen would not have been produced and what; so you're basically stating that Leatherneck/Heatblur studios should have never formed? You are absolutely wrong. No. For this to work, ED and third party Devs need to create modules that people want to buy. That is how this all works. Just because you don't understand simply economics does not mean that any third party Dev should lose money or close their doors because you are incapable of creating scenarios in a Mission Editor that makes sense.