Snappy

Far OT, but maybe just appreciate that your part of the world at least has some kind of data/privacy protection legislation in place, even if its far from perfect and actual implementation of it is lagging badly. ;) It says more about the website than your country , that they(the website owners) can‘t be bothered to offer a semi-compliant version of it, something most others manage. Anyway back to topic. I can‘t pull 16g either without blacking out long before or , if pulling hard instantly instead of gradually , breaking the airframe. Regards, Snappy

You can tell him to shut up completely:) Actually you can set him to „OFF“ or alternatively to „no talking“ (or similar expression, so he is still doing his thing but not talking).If you enter combat and feel like it, you can reactivate him. However as far as I know Razbam isn’t going to model any backseat AI.So either you fly with a fellow human as backseater or on your own. Hope this helps. Regards, Snappy

Maybe so, but right in your post is the next problem.Different people , different priorities.For you that guy‘s request about the Viggen resolution is ridiculous (and I personally can relate to that).But , next thing is for me personally, I couldn’t care less about the cloud visualization problem, and would prefer not a single additional computation cycle/coder work hour going that way to fix it, given the general performance issues of DCS and other areas which I would like to see fixed way before that. But obviously its a major annoyance to lots of people on here.Its easy to be dismissive of someone else.And honestly , way too often on here, valid or constructive criticism is dismissed by the fanboy/ white knight fraction as whining or being negative nancy. A bit more tolerance for diverging opinions would do these forums well (and hopefully the direction of future DCS development too in the best case) Regards, Snappy

Ok, thank you fat creason for replying so quickly! Appreciate it. Kind regards, Snappy

Well MOHAB , the previous posts were actually useful, problem is, you dont like the opinions voiced. What makes youeven think the current problems are primarily money related? A lot of it has probably more to do with the internal structures of ED, the spaghetti code and their quality management. Personally I don't think throwing more money at them will necessarily have the effect of fixing those issues. It will increase their income maybe (remains to be seen) but you still get no say in how they spend that money.So they could just keep going, churning out new EA cash cows while the core sim and older modules slowly come apart even more.At this point I m no longer convinced they can actually fix their house. Regards, Snappy

Do it whatever way you want. It doesn't make a huge difference in my personal opinion .I've tried both. Recently I fly with it on. Regards, Snappy

I wasn't talking about the drag value, I was talking about the actual tube damage model fat creason announced for the hotfix. Regards, Snappy

So did the torque tube damege tweaks actually make it in? Because the hotfix log by BigNewy has not a single mention of them, not that that means much with EDs sloppy changelogging. Regards, Snappy

Err, are you actually saying they should intentionally push buggy stuff out the door because testing it would delay things and take more manhours to check it thoroughly before release ?? Do you see the logical flaw in that? How many newly required manhours got generated by this bugged update,which now in turn requires another update/hotfix ,which by your logic should again be pushed out without adequate testing, resulting likely in new broken stuff.. If you ask me ED has a quality management issue and not a small one at times.Or maybe the Spaghetti code has become so convoluted thats its impossible to quality-check it adequately anymore. Which would be really bad, because right now it already feels like the bugs pile up faster than the fixing can keep up and don't even get me started on the persistent old bugs that are never really adressed and ported to stable. I mean, its not like the people who paid for the F-5 or FC3 are less valuable customers for example. Some basic care to those products and I m not talking upgrades, but fixing stuff thats been broken for a long time would be very nice. And regarding "they have to do one of those mistakes". Maybe so, but it how about building much more buffer into their announcements for starters, especially given their track record of busting dead lines big time. They should know by now that they're likely to bust their own estimates time and again. So double or triple those estimates for starters. If you underpromote and over-deliver in the end , even better. Regards, Snappy

I was not talking about FM, not tactics.

Hey MYSE, thank you , you were correct.Its down in the Briefing screen. I was going through the detailed PDF documentation and missing that obvious place. Thanks! Kind regards, Snappy

Just kidding;)

Just bought it.Thanks for the heads-up!

Flighter , thanks for adding the new 2v2 area, was able to test it a bit against the 2 AI with a human wingman. Very fun,though the AI Mig-29 can be nasty;-) But thats good, a nice challenge. Thank you for continuously improving the server!! Kind regards, Snappy

Hi all, where can I find the QNH for the enroute segments (as well as departure, attack& arrival QFE)for the red flag campaign missions? The Briefing pdf says that Info is written on the mission line up cards, but contrary to that statement it‘s actually not there. For Example in Mission 2 you‘re supposed to fly around Nevada at 3700 m altitude mainly, but on which reference QNH please. Regards, Snappy

Yea , better dont say anymore ,because you’re wrong on almost every point. Regards, Snappy

Best case It will likely be barely on par powerwise with the op F-18, so all good;-)

Is anyone else still experiencing this with the last update? And is there any workaround to avoid this? I flew Mission 2 two of the Viggen red flag campaign and after following the lead aircraft for what felt like an hour through Nevada Map and finally landing back at Nellis, DCS froze and wouldn’t recover.Slightly annoying the least as I have to do the whole thing again, since the Mission success hadn’t been registered yet.. Kind regards, Snappy

Yes, they likely don't operate as single ships in wartime situations. Of course threat by air is taken extremely serious these days. No one doubted that. Air defense? Sure, but not with each ship having a constant blanket of aircraft cover. It will be ship based defense systems in a lot of cases for many ship groups and many navies, since there simply are not enough or any aircraft at all available for every ship in blue water ops. (Most navies don't have any aircraft all, let alone long range fleet defense) Which makes them vulnerable to air attacks. Will those come at a cost? Possibly yes. And surely the defense systems will take out some of incoming stuff. Tactics yes. But that requires the necessary ressources. And sometimes providing air cover is not possible due missing ressources or circumstances .In a large scale peer to peer war or against a more powerful opponent this is to be expected. It's not always the total dominance you're used to or thinking of, where the US Navy sails in somewhere with Carrier strike group and is able to obliterate anything in the air a few hundred miles out in advance. There are other navies with less equipment and other adversaries on near or equal footing,. So the blanket notion that air attacks on ships are outdated, well I'd reconsider that.. The very fact that Harpoon is still in service and LRASM was introduced should show that it is not true. Regards, Snappy

Well , I did read the relevant parts of the article and the numbers therein.However that article deals with the specific topic of attacking a carrier battle group , including its associated dedicated fleet air defense of F-14(which btw probably accounts for a majority of the expected 50% loss rate). That , however is an entirely different matter than your original blanket statement of, quote : „The notion that ships are still vulnerable to airstrikes is outdated“ Ships, as in, Destroyers,Cruisers,frigates, oilers, whatever, anything that is not a carrier with its own dedicated air defense aircraft (or accompanied by such a carrier) is still very vulnerable to air attacks. If this was not so, among other things, give Boeing a call and advise them to cease the useless harpoon anti-ship production. Regards, Snappy

Even though I don‘t own the F-5( among other things the open bugs stopped me from buying it) I found this behavior by ED super annoying.These are not small bugs and they already got the money for the tiger but still seemingly every minor Hornet and Falcon fix is more important than getting this fixed for their paying older customers. Time and time again it‘s „we reported it to the team“ „should be fixed soon“ by the community managers and still this stuff remains bugged .

NIce! Thank you for keeping it authentic by choosing the Nevada terrain. Happy this often-neglected terrain gets some love too ;) Looking very much forward to the campaign, especially like that is focussed on simulating the training environment. Oh, one more question: Will it also feature the -A variant, once that becomes available? Not sure, whether it will be out before your campaign is released or after.. Thanks a lot , Kind regards, Snappy

super cool news! I take it that it will play out on the Nevada map ? Kind regards, Snappy

Are you talking about a kamikaze attack? Otherwise I don't buy those numbers at all. Especially not with air launched stand off weapons. When even the old cold war soviet antiship missiles have operational ranges of around 200nm and newer stuff surely isn't performing worse in that regard. That standoff capability should more than prevent any direct tangle with the ships direct air defense systems for the launching aircraft. Also where did you come up with the hundred aircraft theory?? Regards, Snappy

that got out of hand fast..