Koty

If I can be honest, you claiming that the leak, regardless whether it's real or not, must have come from rb is already a big speculation.

I'm not sure which part of what I said is a speculation, but whatever.

This is, in fact, misinformation. How ironic. On the one hand, people ask for transparency, on the other hand, when faced with said transparency, they talk about making a private matter public. Or would you have prefered the development to be paused with no word out as of to why or that it is even happening? Whether you choose to accept only information from ED or not is up to you, but please, try not to throw logic out the window. You are right there is still information being kept private, for legal reasons. But with that in mind, why the need to speculate?

To be fair, even without going into the whats and whys, are people really expecting the modules to be supported for free? That said, yes, sticking to official announcements is good. As opposed to some people believing information that does not come even from the "unofficial" conversations, and is just pure fabrication.

I mean, I personally have a free pass on it But no, plenty people do that. It's just normal feedback. But there's a difference between critique and flaming. And while the latter gets you banned off any -cord, I mostly see people leaving the RB cord off thier own decision after they realise people don't agree with them. EDIT: (Yes, sometimes mods get trigger happy, but it's not like it goes unnoticed. I should also note that for the past couple months, we had people joining with the sole purpose of riling the mods into banning them, just so they could go cry elsewhere about it; I sincerely wish people would stop doing that.)

This is simply not true. It's no easier than getting banned off the dcs forum, or ED discord. The rule is very simple, do not try and rile people up just for the sake of it. Also not sure why you'd conflate the dcs exposed subreddit with rb cord.

That is kinda strange, considering that's like what most people agree on on the RB discord. I guess it's just Ron being Ron...

Mary base would be such a great addition and actually make so much sense to add...

Сложно объяснить, но в принципе это только начальное освещение; в дальнейшем оно будет доработано так, чтобы корректно выглядеть как внешнее освещение но всему свое время

1) small typo, the airborne control was Tu-126 2) You say they never did independent patrols, but that's exactly what that diagram is formation for independent search for when automated control is not available But I will agree, vozduch-1/1m is an important part of not just the PVO, I sincerely hope it will come into DCS at some point.

Well yeah, its part of my frustration - this is why talking about whether the sam is OP/easy to defeat/etc. is pointless. My point is that relatively speaking its underperforming, because of the SAM not being modelled right, which in turn is caused by lack of appropriate code in the engine of dcs itself which makes the SAMs greatly simplified. Hope this makes sense.

And have _you_ presented a point or evidence? I'm not trying to be abrasive here, what I'm trying to say is you've presented an anecdotal evidence and then got assinine, as you call them, responses. And I'm not a fan of those either. Two points to conclude, 1) No, it's not OP 2) It's simply wrong

But will we get a new one somewhere in the future to get our cold-war fix?

Yes, model is 11D (V-750), you can gauge which generation it is by thrust values if you manage to open the files: You are right, it's not this effective. In reality it's more effective due to things I and Okopanja mentioned earlier in this thread. Majority of the playerbase also suffers from profound skill issue. That is no way to gauge if the system is modelled right. What you do need to look at is if it actually works the same way as in real life or not. Which it simply doesn't, for both better and worse. Missiles currently use proportional navigation instead of appropriate method of command guidance. This brings advantages and disadvantages. The missile will lead the target perfectly, but also bleed way more energy on a manoeuvring target and can be simply driven into ground. The system also works as a part of wider IADS system, which is simply not a thing in DCS, in reality you will have your air defence brigade HQ pick up targets and distribute them to subordinate detachments for destruction, who would also coordinate with air defence fighter regiments (though for a lot of the conflicts these systems were in, this was either not used or worked on the basis of people simply relaying information via phone or even radio). Missile proximity fuse does not react correctly to chaff or jamming either. And this is simply down to how the DCS engine works. You are not going to make the system perform correctly using the current missile API. You'd need a custom missile code. And while I'd love to see this rework, all of these "bug reports" which are simply posts about "how come i got shot down in a game" are not helping, in fact it's doing the opposite by filling the forum with clutter. Because conversely, how do you know its overperforming other than comparing kill probability statistics from wartime use with a million different factors coming into them and not accounted for? And for that I'll just quote the following post:

ah, fair enough, to be fair its too new for my taste so I'm not surprised I never heard of the Volga, but looks interesting.