fjacobsen

I wouldn´t like that model - that would remove the last possible pressure on ED and 3rd parties to finish their modules. It would be better that You only have to pay like 30% of the final price for EA, and once it reaches release version, You pay the last 70% (re-activation of the module). The release version should then not be put on sale before 1 year after release, otherwise You would feel cheated. This would mean that they will get money to develop core sim and modules, but also keep the pressure on them to finish their modules. Once finished the customer can then decide wether they find the release version worth the last 70% or back out - kind of ensuring quality. The ratio could be different ie. 30/70 40/60 or 50/50. Main thing is to keep them "motivated" to finish their products and deliver what the promised. An expected time for developement should also be given, and if delayed beyond a reasonable time, then the last payment should be reduced. Problem right now is that the rebate for EA isn´t that big. Those who buy EA modules actually put a good portion of faith into the developers, but might be left with an unfinished product that takes unreasonable time. If then the release version is put on sale a few month after rlease, then as an EA backer You feel really cheated. An example... I paid the pre-order amount of 64$ for the F-16C when pre-order was opened. The final release price is set to 80$ , so I got a 16$ rebate for putting my faith into this project even before having the chnace to fly it. Now it´s allready on sale for 40$ and it most probably get´s on sale a few month after release !! That kind of business model makes me feel both stupid and cheated and it really shouldn´be that way. On top of that the time it takes to finish the F-16C has been postponed until when ? Offcourse no one forces me to buy EA stuff - no one are foced. But according to ED this business model is necessary for them to fund developement. I just find that it should be clear to everyone that those who really are backing them, and put a decent amount of faith (and money) into their business, often end up been put on the backburner. Just my thoughts...

The biggest problem is communication. The newsletter from yesterday was written a week ago and did not appear as "Unread", so we had to look deep to see at had been posted. Also alot of other communication seems weird. Why do we have to visit Reddit and other sites to read latest news and not see anything is this, which I regard as their main forum and thus should be the first place to tell news, bith official and unofficial news. With proper communication alot of the frustration could be avoided. We have now seen 2 missed releases - SC that was announced for end April, now postponed to ? Then the F/A-18 TPOD update that never came and postponed to ? For proper communication, nothing should be posted elsewhere if not fiirst having been clearly posted in the forum.

You don´t have to, but it´s important to load the non-clipped wing Spitfire before selecting the clipped wing one, and also select the older P-51D before the newer on (I have forgotten which versin is new and which one is older) for each DCS session. Otherwise the controller profile doesn´t get loaded. You can do this by having a mission with the older versions as player aircraft, load that mission, quit and then select the mission with the newer version. This is just one more bug that has been around for a long time and never has been fixed.

Seems they are in trouble of some kind. First the missed release of SC, then the missed "end of April" update of the F/A-18, and now a couple of weeks without any updates. The last update was kind of meager. The consequence of too many EA modules and the performance troubles with 2.5.6 seems to have creeped up on ED. Now we can only hope that there is more "meat on the bone" for the next update, whenever it will come.

Maybe they simply have put their mouthes too full. F/A-18, F-16, P-47D, Super Carrier, Mariannas Map, Channel Map, new lighting system etc. When then also look at the 3rd party developers, like Razbam, who also takes ages to finish their stuff.. That makes one feel to have only half baked cookies in the oven, and even the oven is buggy (DCS core).

It´s easy... I fired 2 x AGM-84D against the "Peter the Great", both was fired in pop up mode and hit the ship from the top down to the deck. The message on screen was "Damage 1%" for the first hit and then"Damage 2%" for the second hit.

I don´t know anything about AWACS radars, but I assume that they aren´t wonder radars either. They most probaly have a scan zone with blind spots depending on altitude and distance of possible contacts. I don´t think they have a full 360x360° scan sphere.

It was not meant to overcomplicate things. But we shouldn´t mix apple and pears. The OP asked what ATA is and ATA is not Kg/cm2. But Your right - they are close. Bara, which is a better known unit, is even closer.

ATA and Kg/cm2 are not the same. Kg/cm2 is normally used as a gauge measurement (relative and NOT absolute), but I think You could say Kg/cm2 abs. Kg/cm2 is not used today, and the time where it was used, it was more common to use Kg/cm2 for positive pressure and Torr for negative (vacuum). Low pressure where often measured in mmH2O, mmHg, InH2O or InHg, but today Pa, hPa, KPa and MPa is the standard, but mBar and Bar together with PSI are also widely used. 1,0 ATA equals 1,03323 Kg/cm2 absolute and equals 1,01325 Bara 1,0 bar equals 1,0197 Kg/cm2

1,0 ATA = 1,01325 bara or 29,92"Hg (absolute) Soviet/Russia uses mmHg (also called Torr) where 1,0 ATA equals 760 mmHg ATA and Bara is absolute pressure ATG and Barg is gauge pressure Todays standard pressure unit is Pa where mBar and hPa gives the same values i.e 1013,25 mBar = 1013,25 hPa. Since we talk Manifold pressure, this pressure is then AFTER the Supercharger.

It needs practise hover the AV-8B, very much like flying Helicopters. @MeerCaT.. Good example with the pen.. Good practice are smooth, small, but determined stick and throttle inputs. Don´t be tense, but try to stay relaxed. The most important thing to learn, is to anticipate when You start to drift and then counter this - but be aware that reactions of the aircraft lags behinf Your input. If it start to drift to the right - give some left input, but don´t hold it there until it starts moving to the left - thats the best (or worst) way to get into pilot induced oscilation. It´s btter to put in some input then be neutral and check reaction then add input again and re-check. Once You get the feel for it, it´s actually not that hard to hover.

Well bitterness wiil be high if they announce a delay tomorrow, after having told that an announcement would be made today. They would most probably know allready know if they cannot release tomorrow - so it must be something else the want to announce - good or bad, time will tell. Wasn´t the Minsk office the former Belsim company, now full members of ED (just a question) ?

Strange... Kate Perederko has not posted in this forum since 2014 ! So what´s so special about the Super Carrier module that makes her want to post now ?

My guess is that we get it a day earlier - maybe to ease Server load. Reason: If it´s delayed Big Newie would have told so earlier today. Right now they work like maniacs to get it ready for today. If they don´t succeed today, then he can always tell about the go ahead for tomorrow. Just to be positive :)

Sure... But the chance of a hit is so much smaller than from the six and relative few pilots had the skills for anything more than some lucky hits. Problem with flight simming in these aircraft, is that we do it with all the hindsight and knowledge that has been gathered afterwards. Back then the normal pilot didn´t know the enemys aircraft performance as well as we simmer do, and fighting the real war was so much different than sitting in a comfortable chair without riscing Your real life. The fighter pilots back then also flew one type and did not have the luxury to try different aircraft ypes and thus be able to rate them against each other and thereby find the good and the bad of their own aircraft type.

My comment on the title: "FW190D9 can't dogfight"... Simply put - the FW-190 (both A & D versions) was never a dogfighter. While it´s roll rate was great, it has never been good at turning compared to the spitfire or Mustang. What mad it a succes, was it´s ability to boom and zoom. And note that the general rule of thumb for the german pilot's where never to engage if they did not have the advantage (either, speed, altitude or position). The FW-190 D9'th main task was to intercept bombers at high altitude, so they would rather evade the enemy escort fighters. Flown right, the energy fighter will always have the advantage to pick when and where to fight, but not necessarily be able to hit the turn fighter, while the turn fighter will have the advantage of being able to evade by better turn performance, but rather be on the defensive against an energy fighter.

I thinks the Op means a template for placing an entire Carrier group with one click. Isn´t it possible to build those Yourself ?

Why not a 2D popup or the IFLOS ?

Thanks alot for the example. Now it works for me too :) I triggered all 4 target marks at once - so no need for seperate timings.

Could You please attach a mission file ? I have managed to generate target points using the mission editor with the names T00, T01, T02, T03... - using trigger points -> Once - Time more than 5 sec -> "Mark to group". But using Ralt+Rshift+8 does not transfer them into the CAS page. Using the F10 map works fine though.

AI Wingmen almost always ends up crashing when ordered to RTB. It seems they cannot "see" trees.

Content is quite meager I find. Not much love for the Hornet, but at least most of the KA-50 bugs has been fixed..

Well.. If I hadn´t gone into this forum, but simply had started the sim, then I would have ben greeted with a box telling that an updatre is available, and offcourse I would have updated, only to fing the very same. But You are right - it´s probably getting fixed very soon, when it is official.

Great... Back to flying the SU-25 and TF-51 in offline mode :doh:

I have attached a trk file for a very simple mission. The UH-1H has only 2 waypoints. The origin (wpt 0) where I have made an advanged waypoint "Embark" -> "Soldiers" (name of the group with 4 soldiers). Then the disembark waypoint (wpt 1) with an advanced waypoint "Disembark" -> "Soldiers". The 4 soldiers has two waypoints (wpt 0 and wpt 1). Wpt 1 has the advanced waypoint "embark to transport" -> "UH-1H" ->"Player_pilot" (name of my player pilot for a UH-1H) and with a radius great enough to containg my helicopter, when landing beside them. Regardless where I am positioned relative to the group of soldiers, I always have the Radio option "Airborne troops". Landing just beside them and opening the radio menu -> "Airborne troops" gives no option to embark, like in 2.5.5 TRK File : Embark_test.trk