Jester986

This just seems like a bad idea and is putting up red flags for me. I’ll probably wait for the map to be complete before considering a purchase.

Big Newy, I remember a long time ago the towed decoy was on the roadmap for the F-18. I’ve seen it mentioned for the F-16 but not the 18 recently. Is it still planned for the 18? also I love DCS and the progress it’s made this year. I especially love the integrated comms. But the Yak-52 still leaves much to be desired and does not receive updates. I know it’s not making you money. But we paid money for it. How should I determine which modules will be completed so I can avoid buying an abandoned one in the future?(rhetorical) FIX THE YAK.

While I’ll get the Afghanistan map since I spent a little time there, I am over it with the Desert maps. This isn’t anger or complaining. Just expressing my opinion for the sake of feed back.

Hoping to see a solution for infantry not taking cover or entrenching. But otherwise great news! Can’t wait to see it in action.

Looking forward to it!

While I don’t think a slow news week is anything to care about I wholeheartedly agree on the Yak. I feel really let down on that one. I trusted ED to put the same effort into that product that bears their name as anything else that does. Obviously I was wrong. I love DCS. But not more excuses for the Yak. How it’s been handled is just wrong.

Just discovered this bug myself. Looking forward to its resolution.

Honestly I only skimmed this, but as a Huey pilot she does feel a little weak to me and the tail rotor authority is a little lacking. But I can’t be bothered to break out the charts and really dig into the weeds. In my opinion she’s close enough and the autorotation performance feels shockingly right. My biggest complaint is that we don’t have a weight and balance and performance planning options. We should have a weight and balance graph showing our load and way to calculate HOGE/HIGE in game. How are we supposed to be able to plan a mission without this? How many troops can I take? How far can I take them? What altitude can I drop them off at? No idea. It would also have the benefit of putting the performance accuracy question to rest.

It was a prototype. Is ideal? No but you work with what you have. Like the KA-50 vs the 52

Developers are people too. They’re building the plane they can get enough information on. I imagine it would be disheartening to be excited to announce your new module and have people crap all over it. Are their planes I would have preferred? Absolutely. But that doesn’t mean the J-8 won’t be a great addition. Of course everyone is welcome to voice their opinions. I’m just voicing some encouragement.

Uboats and team, I’m sorry to see people complaining about the aircraft and variant we’re getting. You’ve done great work with the JF-17 and I’m excited for the J-8II. Keep up the hard work.

This. While I’ll get the BS3. It’s a bit of an annoyance that these mentioned modules are in much greater need of a refresh than BS2.

It might be a good idea for ED to mandate the use of the advanced damage model to maintain consistency across the platform.

Oh I agree. There’s no reason not to use it in the maps we have. I was trying to undercut those arguments before they were made.

La-7 is pretty cool. Now here comes everyone who’s going to complain there’s no map or assets for it…