Thump

To be fair, clouds were on the 2012 roadmap. I'd call that "a continuance of patience."

Because they can as the community accepts this as just the way it is with ED. They have zero incentive to actually finish a module. It also is a hazard for them to complete a project as it sets a precedent of a full delivery that other module expectations can be made from.

You'll have to wait for another 3 to 4 months at best if you want to see any mention of the A-10CII. This is how it goes with modules ED has maxed their profit intake on.

There's never a thing and "too many radios." I would say the rest of them would be useful in some capacity on a given mission depending on what you're trying to do.

And this is the crux of my issue when it comes to previous module support/completion. Hence, the cycle.

I think you misread my post. I was referencing the dereliction of the A-10CII and the standard cycle that ED goes through when releasing a module into EA. The point is that the modules previous to it get put aside for about a year (or more if you're a SC fan) until the uproar is annoying enough for them to do "something" that shows that they actually remember that they released that module. The initial effort for those unfinished modules will be minimal so as to keep the hype for the new module going by giving it 'maximum support.'

Refueling is definitely a perishable skill and takes practice. As you've pointed out, the tanker isn't going to be in an exact speed so it's all about just doing what it takes to stay in position. The good news is that the boom has an envelope kind of like a rectangle, so you really don't need to be perfectly in place, those visual cues are just to give you something to reference to tell where the middle is. There's always minor corrections being made with the throttle and stick throughout the refueling so making small adjustments when needed is a natural part of it. Good Luck Thump

I definitely don't get it perfect every time (my squadmates can attest haha) but I appreciate the complement. If I can offer one more piece of advice since you mentioned throttle control, the key thing with that is stabilizing in precontact. Your ability to remain within the refueling envelope for the tanker will be directly impacted by how stable you were in precontact. Once you have zero closure for about 5 or 10 seconds, you are in a good enough throttle position to move to contact. As you find that position with the throttle that keeps you pretty close to the same speed as the tanker, use that as the a "zeroed position" or "reference position." From there, you only want to move it very slightly so as to create a 1 to 3 knot closure rate (if it feels like too fast of a closure rate, it is..just back off on the throttle a bit and you'll be good). Whatever you put in to generate that closure, you are going to have to take out. Think of it as two "steps" forward on the throttle, one step back (from reference position) to arrest the closure and then return to the "reference position." The smoother the throttle movements, the more stable your closure control will be. Here's my settings for your reference, hopefully it will help a bit. I misread your post and didn't catch the lighting issue. I can tell you that the tanker is definitely not lit properly (I think it's both a KC-135 model issue and a DCS lighting issue to be honest). Cheers, Thump

Engines 1 & 4 nestled on top of the left and right rear view mirrors about 1/4 of the way from the upper end gives you forwards/backwards reference Boom "wings" on top of Center rear view mirror gives you vertical displacement Boom entered (i.e. not angled at all) gives you centerline reference. Flying these references will help stop you from "chasing the boom", create a stable platform from which you can make small/controlled changes, and take away your dependence on the PDIs since they tend to get blotted out by the structures of the two aircraft. Another thing to keep in mind is that you may be able to solve boom extension (i.e. what might make you think you need to change your fore/aft) by ensuring the vertical is fixed first. Another technique for closure is to start 1,000 feet below the tanker's altitude, stabilize at a mile out, and as you close gain 100 feet in altitude per .1 NM until you get within pre-contact. Pick up the visual reference and drive up and forward at about 1 to 2 feet per second (a very slow and gradual closure...it can feel painfully slow sometimes) until in the approximate envelope for them to plug you. Once linked up, maintain visual references with very small changes. Lastly, be aware that a change in one aspect will change things in another. Work the vertical, then the for/aft, then the center. Hope this helps Cheers, Thump

McAnders, Here's a quick set of pictures to help with visual references. Just note that you need to get into a decent enough position for them to latch you as the references are based upon being latched. With how the AI handles air refueling, this can get wonky as the boom operator tries to decapitate you.

To point 1: It is frustrating to watch them continue to walk the path previously trodden by the Hornet/Viper debacle in 2017/18 (zero lessons learned it seems). They are continuing to add projects to an already overflowing plate that is now at such an unsustainable rate that their previous year's teaser aircraft has not even been released into EA before the next aircraft is announced (and taking already maxed resources away from any project completion). To Point 2: The A-10C II has been relegated in the same fashion that the Hornet, Viper, and Super Carrier have been in the past (there are currently zero devs working on it). It was released effectively 90% done due to being a derivation of the original A-10C and has yet to be completed. This speaks to the overall frustration of projects being started but never completed. Simply put, their current way of doing things is exponentially unsustainable (especially if they are going to continue to pursue modern aircraft like the F-16 which are insanely complicated). They would be far better served completing what they have and shifting their focus to Gen 3 (Vietnam to Cold War) frames that should in theory be easier to complete as they do not have all of the gizmos and gadgetry of Gen 4 fighters. Coupling this with desert fatigue, the logical decision would be to go to Korea or Vietnam. With the teasing of the F-4, I'm hoping this is their future plans but we'll have to see I guess.

A fair point but something that could have been included to increase interest/hype.

Not too sure what remains left to be interpreted. Can you clarify which part of either gripe is unclear?

Artistic lettering in a corner that cycles in a stylistic fashion which draws some attention during action shots but doesn't detract from the scene. They figured out how to tease coordinates for Bagram....

Bold choice to tease an aircraft before your delayed teased aircraft even sees EA. Starting to fall behind even in EA releases. Also a conspicuous absence of the A-10.

unregard...it was not a picture of the arc-210 itself

It's not important, what is revolves around ED being completely unable to finish a module, let alone one that is already 90% done having been based on their very first DCS module as they left LOMAC. It is their lack of commitment when it comes to module completion and the constant stringing out of their backers.

This is simply the ED cycle. They will miss taking care of the A-10 and will promise more help early 2022. They will then address one or two of the non-critical issues as a sign of "working on it" in Q1 with nothing really being done until Q3 after much frustration being voiced. It happened with the Hornet when the Viper came out. It's happening with with the Viper as SC and Hind came out. And, it will happen again when the Apache comes out.

Start projects, not finish them, and then sell new projects? That's not a sustainable idea unless people are willing to get partial products indefinitely.

People keep paying so there is very little reason for them to change their approach. It's what happens when a company knows they are the only game in town.

Staying Tuned

So that would be zero developers for the A-10C II...that's how subtraction works. I wish I could say I'm surprised. Wouldn't want to set a precedent of completing modules.

Standard

Bump...