TheGuardian

Looking for a open-beta squadron to fly with that is US. I have been flying in DCS for almost three years. Looking an A-10CII unit or F-18, A-10 would be my first choice, likely to transfer to F-15E if/when we ever get that in DCS. Able to fly almost any week night after 1900 CST. I own all the current maps.

@BN or other Moderators, can you close this thread. Don't want to start a flamewar, Newy answered my question. Thanks

@zhukov032186 didn't say it was an "issue", was just trying to understand the logic behind it. I agree that the rules don't have to be like, but trying to better understand? What's the problem with that? Flamewars are typically started and ruled by fan boys (of both sides) that can't follow other forum rules. I'm talking only about civil discussions that confine with every other rule and the sections of 1.15 that are "directly" prohibited. I'm not leaving here cause I enjoy 95% of the discussions and help this forum provides. I am simply asking to understand something better. @Rudel_chw I agree it is completely logical and is widely used by many different sites. Again, I'm not talking about direct review or comparisons as a whole. I am talking more along the lines of "blah blah used a good system for counter-measures, making it smoother and faster. I wonder if ED might be able to come up with something similar that works better." You have to have a reference for what you're referring to. I've seen comments in the same topics were one is deleted for directly saying a company name, the other is left because the didn't say the name but said the exact same thing. Seems hypocritical given that, in spirit, it still violates this rule. @probad I get the overall spirit of the rule. I get them not wanting comparisons or reviews of other products. I said as much in my OP. Was unaware asking for better understanding of the "what did you mean" places topics in a particular "age". Words have meanings, rules have words, without understanding the meanings it tends to lead to more rule violations that are not intentional. as for that last line.........damn dude tell us how you really feel? @BN, given that I reached these forums through the address of forums.eagle.ru, I'm well aware these are the official forums and am well aware of the propose of these forums. Asking for clarification doesn't change those facts. Stopping arguments is the main purpose behind rule 1.15 as per a ED CM. Awesome, could of just lead that.

I have wanted to ask this question for a while but....just now reading "Go talk on Mudspike.com if you can't do what we demand you do" kinda makes me wanna ask now. For those that are unaware of 1.15 (shame on you, you should have read the rules right after you learn where the "Search" function is) 1.15 It is not recommended to discuss gaming products of other companies on the pages of our forum. This can provoke flame and verbal bickering between adherents. These discussions are also not conducive to maintaining a smooth working relationship between manufacturers. For this reason, review or direct comparison with products from other software vendors is prohibited on our forum. Posting information about news in the development of third-party software, as well as advertising third-party software, are prohibited (except as agreed with the administration of the forum). Violations by other companies or their affiliates are also not tolerated. The administration of the forum reserves the right to delete any post (message) at its discretion, which violates the established rules and regulations. What was the overall idea behind this? I can totally understand not bashing on other games/game companies out there. I can even kinda see where not wanting comparisons on ED's Forum is important to them, but the enforcement of this rule seems really arbitrary and way too based of "feelings of the admins". If manufacturers/developers can't maintain a smooth relationship because someone on some forums somewhere compared two products, maybe those companies should re-think their business approach. I'm not trying to "flame" anyone, I would just be really interested in understanding this a bit more. Where is the cut-off point? Line one says "not recommended to discuss gaming products", while line three outright "prohibits" reviews or direct comparison to ED's work. Not recommended seems like that should revolve around following other rules (1.2 mainly) in discussions. Stay civil and don't review or compare to ED and you're good. Why are we allowed to even use stuff like "that other Viper sim" and that tends to be ok but if you use the CNT name it's deletion on the spot? Is simply saying "this feature works quite nicely in ABC game I wonder if something like that is possible for ED" enough to break this rule? Then again, the rule doesn't point to only Game Development companies (not in the "not recommended" section at least, even then it's kinda loose) or similar products on the open market. It says Gaming Products, so why are we even allowed to discuss Virpil vs Thrustmaster vs Logitech? It can provoke the same kinda of "flame and verbal bickering" as talking about Those That Shall Not Be Named, yet is almost always allowed to go on WAY too long. Why the double standard if the goal is simply to protect from "useless" conversation that is more troublesome rather than constructive. I don't understand the want to make people scared to talk about other companies in any light just because ED wears its feelings on its sleeve to often. The rule makes sense in selective situations/discussions but it's shouldn't be used as a one size fits all blanket. I think a re-work of this rule should be looked into. Not to do away with, but to fine tune so as to allow for adult discussions (within the confines of other rules) that could benefit ED as well us users. Just my thoughts. TL;DR What the hell is the point and why the constant double standard?

I thought BN and 9L said only those that had the C before the II was released would have both. The old A-10C is un-purchasable now, but I hadn't heard them say if new players got both.

I think Wags or BN said they are working on some. Training missions would be nice, but honestly Wags videos do of great job of walking through the new systems. There is a Instant Action A-10C Syria mission (if you have Syria) that is honestly great for messing with the new weapons and HMCS. Just open it in the editor and change the plane from for the A-10C to the A-10C II. I use it a lot for working thru the new systems. There are also a few voice walkthroughs in the User Files section for all the new systems. Not official but better than nothing.

Which isn't that big of a surprise when you roll in with the reality of the Kuznetsov (just watching it operate physically hurts). It was, is and forever will be a hunk of Soviet/Russian junk. But hey, I support people wanting it sold separately, then ED can sell a $5 Fire Control Team to put out the fires below deck every 30 minutes (I kid, I kid). Might be a better push to have Deka Ironworks work on the Liaoning variant. I'm have to wonder though, why are you so hard up on ED doing the Red forces? We know they are being worked on by other devs, so what gives? Again, ED has given not given any reason for us to believe the BS3 price point will be any different from the A-10C II. You're making assumptions based only on your point of view without reviewing the track history of recent releases. Which makes any discussion of this particular topic, frustrating and useless.

They did also say owners of the A-10C were going to get a "substantial discount" and we know where that ended. So at this point there is no reason to think they would do anything different. There honestly may be no hope for Red Air from ED, but that doesn't mean 3rd party won't take them on. The JF-17 sure got plenty of love from the community, and Razbam has been showing progress on several earlier Red aircraft. It sucks to not get HF modules of more modern Red air, but we don't know what the limitations have been put in place from a license stand point.

I've been fairly lucky so far one has handled light armor, every now and then I find one that needs just one more rocket. If I aim to the front of a vehicle I can usually get 5-6 off and they will hit, but midway or farther back, nope last one always misses.

I had it happen last night when I was playing around. Once I deselected everything from the DSMS page, I was able to get the reticle back on the HUD. Would be interested if ED says that is normal or not.

Personally I disagree with your reasoning there. I'm from the States, hell I'm not far from Ft. Rucker, where they used to train in the Apache. I remember seeing them flying overhead as a kid and I think the Mi-24 is more interesting. Now that's just me. If they dropped both right now, I would buy both of them. We are hopefully getting the Kiowa within the next year and I hope that it fills some of the voids we have in the attack helicopter arena. At best you looking 2022-2024 for the Apache, depending on what they have done behind closed doors (more then they let on I believe :music_whistling:) I don't think ED would have chosen the Mi-24 if they didn't feel they could make money off it. I think a lot of us are happy to have the Mi-24 in the arsenal and we will be just as happy when they officially announce the AH-64. Don't get me wrong man, I love the Apache and you're right on about how iconic it is, I just don't think that is their sole motivating factor. I would rather they snatch some low hanging fruit and then blast one out of the park later.

As far as the F-16 goes my understanding is it can carry/fire six if it had to do so. It doesn't carry 6 six because the most inboard mav on each side could damage the flaps/stabilizers if fired. As far as AGM-88s, it was flight tested to be able to carry them. You don't flight test if you can never fire one. Plus, I have only ever seen F-16s carry tanks on the inboard stations, so it is what it is. Also the USMC could and did use the Litening pod. That being said, I agree with you that we ask for things that aren't realistic all the time. I would still be hard pressed to believe they would finish the 16,Mi-24 and never support them again. They haven't done that with any other module that I have seen anyway, but at some point they have to move onto the next module. Money is always the driving factor, but I think ED also "tries" to bring balance, within limits. This whole topic is centered on why ED didn't do the Apache though, and as I have said, I would think they didn't feel they could do it to their standard back then, hoping to be better able to do so now or in the near future.

True, but we also have to remember the limitations ED has with some Russian equipment. They don't seem to have the same problems from the NATO side. I am talking only about ED though, as 3rd Party (they have said) doesn't face those same limits from the Russian government.

I find this statement to be both parts truth and comically false given recent history. Sure they have said an A variant of the Apache is what is most likely for them to do, but I think they would want to bring the most realistic features and capabilities to the module. I don't see how you can honestly say it would've been more loved then the KA-50. There is simply no way to prove that statement. Given recent modules being removed from EA, added to EA and planned modules from ED and other 3rd party devs, our lovely little community would rip them apart for it not being accurate. We have done it before. To me it makes more sense for ED to back away from the Apache back in the day, as this allows them now to bring us a more in depth, feature complete Apache today/in the future. I also can't buy into ED "abandoning" the Mi-24 just because they figured out how to make the Apache better midway through Hind modeling. Sure, those of us from Western countries would want more NATO, but we aren't the only customers ED has. It just doesn't really fit with everything ED has done up to this point.

I edited a few of the A-10C missions so I could ground pound in the 2, saved them as My Missions for the time being. That being said, I do hope it isn't too long before we get at least a few from ED.

And thread lockdown in 3.....2.....

This is kinda sad. Polychop and ED seems to have been pretty forthcoming with information about this issue. They announced it, are working to fix, expressed it would take time. I don't understand what more we can ask from them at this point. Let them work, without the torches and pitchforks and I think PC, ED and us users will reap the rewards in the end.

Maybe I am and he is absolutely right to want the game/sim to work to his enjoyment :lol: Agreed on all of us needing to get out during all this. :D

Again, you don't get it but I suspect that will continue no matter what is said unless it is agreeing with your point of view. May your weapons find their target and the skies stay friendly.:pilotfly:

In the case of WWII P-47, realistic mixture control, boost lever, propeller pitch, Engine Cooling flaps, fuel tank selection, bomb/tanks jettison, weapon release, gunsight brightness.....etc etc... and that's just the P-47. Either way I don't think this is the path to take to prove your point.

:doh: really? like really really?? I don't think startup is the only reason to have a clickable cockpit. Even if you are a "HARDCORE" simmer and purchased the WinWing throttle and flight stick and 3 Thrustmaster MFDs, mapped everything to be identical, you still need a clickable cockpit to realistically operate the F-18.

They could call is Shoots and Ladders for all I care, it still doesn't change the point I'm trying to make.

Straight up, can you tell me exactly which campaigns you are referring too. I thought ED only had just that one little 5-7 mission. I know Serpents Head 2 is hot start. But the Aggressors and Raven One cold start the planes. It sounds like you've focused on the F-18 ones so that's why I'm asking.

That is awesome, I don't cause well it's boring and pointless but more power to you if that's what you enjoy. See how that worked. You and I disagree on something, but I don't rake you over the coals and put you down saying you'll be the doom of DCS. I understand my likes and your likes are probably as far apart as a baseball stadium is to a football stadium (Raiders moved from Oakland so you can't use that). My opinion isn't any more valid than yours is, yet you want to change the way someone else enjoys DCS. You keep bringing up Auto-Start and fast forward, but like VpR81 said it isn't really about the time it takes. You are still making someone else play the way YOU want them too and I think that aspect of what you're suggesting is wrong. You keep ignoring the suggestion of removing Cold vs Hot from the ME, this would be the best fit both ways. You're in the "Wishlist" section, why is that not equally a good enough suggestion that benefits all of us and allows all of us to respect the different approaches we have to DCS.

^This guy gets it. Bravo good sir