Kozality

Was all too happy to send him some cash for this one as well. Also, the album dropped on Spotify today. As bandcamp doesn't play nice with Android auto yet, it's a nice way to listen to it on the go. =D

Amazing update. I'm gonna have to be "That guy" as well though....can we get some words on the status of the Bk90?

I think the issue here, as with many other modules, (and much of the game community in general) is that "Early Access" and "Beta" is being used way too loosely to denote products that were not ready for release, but cannot afford to sit in development any longer. Whether or not this is the right business decision to make is one for legitimate debate. However, what I think is worthy of debate is just how long a module can remain "in beta" or "in early access" before it begins to resemble indefinite development. Pushing a product as "Beta" implies quality control is still taking place, that of which cannot be adequately done with a limited test environment. But hiding behind a "Beta" label for months or in some cases, years, as a way to justify unfinished functionality is disingenuous. It's worth asking if these games and modules wouldn't be funded if such practices wern't undertaken, but I think it's worth asking the game community in general if there isn't a better way to set expectations on what "early access" means.

I'd like to know as well. But that being said, it's totally possible to do all of those things in multiplayer. Check out Videos 9 and 10 in xxJohnxx' excellent series. He shows you how to input your own waypoints and calculate QFE. It can all be done in game, and our flight does so regularly. I've yet to play much with the custom cartridge in fact. To make this easier, I highly recommend binding the data panel numbers to the number pad on your keyboard, and make the LS key something like ".". It makes it very easy any simple to enter information in on the fly, even in flight. Hope this helps!

You two should both try playing with us on the 107th server. Look it up in my signature below, and join our Discord. You'll find me there. I suspect you're better than you think, and if not, we'll all get there together. Multiplayer is fun, and it's a great learning environment. You'll get skilled quick. Come play. =)

I've started noticing this as well. Don't recall it before, but in the past week or two I've been encountering it. I can level the plane and then hit the altitude hold, and it'll stay level, but when leveling from a standard turn, it never quite levels out. I'll investigate further.

There's some back and forth regarding the effectiveness of bombs. It seems like what it comes down to is what is regarded as a "kill". The game regards a kill as "100%" destroyed, whereas your bombs may have inflicted damage taking the unit down to 50 or 30% effectiveness. You may have completely destroyed one vehicle, but inflicted enough damage on the rest to make them non-operational. The problem, of course, is that this isn't reflected in the score. You'd have to look at the AAR at the end of the mission to look hit "Hits", and examine the Tacview to see what got damaged. Regarding QFE for the Rb-75, it's not necessary, but it does help place the target location indicator. This is really just meant to give you a general indication of where the target is to help steer your approach. Make sure to take the Rb-75Bs, as they have the enhanced zoom compared to the As. The "T" model contains a heavier warhead for things like bridges and bunkers, but doesn't have the enhanced zoom. I agree, picking out vehicles with the RB-75 is rather difficult if they're even remotely in clutter, let alone IDing one vehicle from another. The B model helps, but even then, by the time you get close enough to really distinguish what you're looking at, defenses can be an issue. But you can pick out targets in a field pretty well. Glad to hear the ARAK rockets do fairly well. I was looking into revisiting these, and I might have to do that some more based on the results posted here.

Cap's posted an update:

I trust most pilots in the DCS community are familiar with the Grim Reapers, a fictitious mercenary outfit flying self-made campaigns in DCS and filming them for our benefit and entertainment. Their output is prolific and relentless, ranging from discussions, tutorials, and of course their hour long (or more!) missions and debriefs, with the odd Arma mission even thrown in. Unfortunately, fortune took a slight turn for the worst as the Grim Reaper's leader "Cap" was diagnosed with late-stage cancer a couple of days ago. While the prognosis is positive, he will be undergoing chemotherapy over the next 9 weeks and will spending most of his time in the hospital. Most of us know the toll chemo can take on the body, and during this time Cap and his family could really use our help. A GoFundMe has been set up by the Grim Reapers to help them during Cap's treatment and recovery. https://www.gofundme.com/dcs-community-fund-for-gr039s-cap If you're able, please consider donating what you can to this pillar of the DCS community. Thanks so much!

Gotcha, I see that now. Thanks for the clarification!

I saw in the patch notes that this was "sans dive bombing". Does this mean there's still work to be done for DYK modes?

This seems like one of those ergonomic things then that doesn't translate too well from cockpit to PC. On my hold x45 joystick, I' had center detents for my dials, which would make this a lot easier if there's indeed an axis to bind. I have one wheel on my TM Warthog, and I'll see if maybe I can bind that when I get home. But for those without a wheel, a "reset to center" button may be useful here.

Can you describe in a bit more details what's going on with the crosshairs? What modes did you set, etc. I don't understand what you mean by "not opening and closing". Help us understand. Thanks!

GR.1 is a First-gen Harrier, while the AV-8B is a second-gen. They're really not the same plane at all. I say this not to step on you, Lordzarj, but just in case there's calls for adding the Sea Eagle to the AV-8B. And yeah, no Harpoon. As I posted above, it *may* have been qualified for it, but it's unknown and there are no references to it, and the USMC was completely uninterested in doing so. If it was ever done, it was to satisfy the Spanish and Italian harriers. HARM seems right out. Thanks for sharing the pictures nonetheless! I've only seen drawings of the Sea Eagle, so these were neat to see. I think the Royal Navy retired them though, yeah?

Reading this, I got really curious about the Harpoon capability, since I've seen it referenced numerous places that it was supported. But I haven't seen a picture of it actually being carried, and nothing concrete akin to a manual stating it's a capability. I wondered if it was one of those instances where a claim was made somewhere, and a lot of other guides repeated it without doing an individual check. I ducked on over to AirVectors to see what Greg said over there. Here's the bit on the Harrier II: http://airvectors.net/avav8_3.html "The USMC ended up in some squabbles with the Spanish and Italians over Harrier II weapons qualification. Although the new AN/APG-65 radar of the AV-8B+ was capable of supporting BVR air combat using AMRAAM, or "over the horizon" surface attack using the AGM-84 Harpoon antiship missile, the Marines were slow to qualify AMRAAM and showed little interest in qualifying the Harpoon, antiship attack not being an ordinary USMC mission. The Spaniards and Italians did want these capabilities, and in fact apparently believed when they helped fund the integration of the AN/APG-65 to the Harrier II that adding such capabilities was the specific point of the exercise. AMRAAM was finally qualified for use by Spanish and Italian Harrier IIs through a software upgrade to the AN/APG-65, and photos of their Harrier IIs carrying AMRAAMs are not unusual; the USMC didn't get around to announcing qualification of AMRAAM until 2009. Some sources claim the Harpoon was finally qualified, but if so details are hard to find, as are pictures of a Harrier II carrying Harpoons." Regarding HARM, I haven't seen anything at all regarding it. HARM requires the HTS anyways though, yeah? I'd think that would be a lot farther fetched than AIM-120 or AGM-84 employment. Sources for the article are at the bottom.