Ornithopter

Are you serious? No, after seeing their lack of response to recent customer comments in this thread, your quote doesn't mean anything to me now. As I've been reading this thread over the past several days, I frequently saw the names of some of the official Aerges people at the bottom of the screen, concurrently reading the thread. And THAT actually annoyed me, especially since people were starting to get nasty with each other. If the sentence you've cherry picked from an obscure video about a VR headset is still applicable, then obviously one of the officials reading this topic could have re-asserted it right here and right now. Why didn't they?

Well, of course you would have, because that is the courteous thing to do, and you're probably a polite guy. The +1 stuff earlier, and the back and forth that followed would have alerted you to the fact that some people are getting annoyed. And then you would come on to the forum and say, Hi guys, sorry for the lack of news, but we've been busy working on X,Y,and Z. That seems like common sense, because a few sentences would probably cause this topic to go dormant again, or at least cancel some of the negativity. And yet, they've let it drag on with nary a word, to the point that the ED moderators are now taking notice and telling people to dial it back. Why aren't they addressing the commotion themselves? I too approached this thread with the attitude that people were being a little too demanding, and that they just need to shut up and quit pestering the developers, but as I've seen the thread play out, with no logical response, I've changed my mind. To me, something seems a little off. Hope I'm wrong.

Funny? You mean funny like a clown? This amuses you? We make you laugh and we're here just to amuse you? What do you mean by funny? Funny how?

Have we? Well, the Nike Hercules is only about 2 measly kilotons, so what's the big deal? Just kidding of course, but isn't there already a gadget about that size included with the MiG-21 module? Never used it. And from the way I see it, If Ghengis Khan, King of the Mongols can use an ICBM against a horde of annoying Longbowmen in the game Civilization, then what's the problem in DCS? We have a Cold War era map of Germany, which is the very definition of WW III had it happened. And those missiles, if ever included in the game, were very much oriented towards destroying their targets with a humongous explosion. Realistically they are never going to do that in DCS because of what you say, and I'm fine with that, but I'm just putting in my 2 cents about the missile. Instead of being vaporized in a painless instant, one could always have their body riddled with about 1000 fleschettes from a beehive round or something equally horrid. So it's pretty bad any way you look at it. The horror, the horror. If they ever have the Nike Hercules, I would vote to have it as it was and let individuals and server operators be able to check a box if they want such things included in the game.

4 months is apparently a short period of time from your perspective. That's fine. You aren't everyone. Ostensibly, we all paid for the Mirage, enjoy the Mirage enough to remain interested, and are wondering when the module is going to be complete. Perhaps the developers are so busy that even the 20 seconds it takes to say 'Hi' on the forum is just too much.

In fairness, most people probably are enjoying the first 3 installments, but are naturally curious what became of the 4th. I sure am. Like I said above, it's probably premature to freak out, but just like when you leave a message for a friend to get back to you, and they don't, you begin to wonder if everythng is ok. I'm sure you're aware there are popular concerns about a few other 3rd party developers who have stopped talking, and the last thing DCS players want is for there to be troubles with another one, because that might start to indicate a disturbing pattern within the DCS ecosystem. When a developer just stops communicating for no apparent reason, their silence starts to raise some eyebrows. All it would take to get ahead of speculation is an official statement such as "don't worry Mirage fans, all is well, so just leave us alone."

Polly, It's been a while. Would you like to have a drink with me sometime, just to catch up? Orni

I think the Normandy map is most certainly worth getting just to fly around in. It really is wonderful for every type of flying. It doesn't matter what you fly around in it with, whether that be an Mi-24, a Focke-Wulf or a JF-17, its still a map worth having, imo. If you want to fly WWII airplanes against appropriate air defenses, or otherwise just see what a F-4E can do to a WWII Panzergrenadier company on land, or an E-boat at sea, then you should buy the Asset pack as well. Those new units can be plugged into any map. They say it's a Sandbox, and so it is. Have you tried the free TF-51 and decided what you think of it?

I hear that's one hot helicopter, that Gazelle. In the Huey, you just pull the collective back a little bit, and learn to work the cyclic and pedals until you can hover in front of a fixed object through trial and error, not much different than learning to ride a bicycle when you were a child.. And that's the tutorial for that helicopter. You guys that use the Gazelle as your ab-initio helicopter trainer must really have the right stuff!

Please see the following bug report: Basically, FP created in Mission Editor not showing up on the NS-430. Only seems to affect C-101EB and CC.

Additional information: Tested, and only appears to affect C-101, both variants, both front and back cockpit. I tried it in the Mi-8, which I also have the NS-430 for, and the flight plan from the Mission Editor succesfully propagated into the NS-430. Also, tested the same flight plan in the Hornet, as made in the Mission Editor, and it showed up as expected in the Hornet's Nav computer. Tested on Normandy and Marianas maps

Up until recently, probably the very last update, I would make make a flight plan in the ME, and it would automatically give me a nice magenta line on the GPS. The FP and it's waypoints are no longer showing up. It happens I was using the C-101 on the Normandy map, but I don't know if that's relevant or not. I'll try it later with a different aircraft, but I know it most certainly used to work on the C-101.

I guess this is a different thread than the one I was looking at last night, and the issue came up. I didn't realize before that the comm transceiver and vor/loc capabillities are actually built into the 430. I thought that they had to talk to the onboard radios of the aircraft, but now I know better after looking it up. For me, it's not that big of a deal, but why doesn't ED just correct the product description? If people are not buying something, or feel like they aren't getting what they paid for, then how hard can it be to change a sentence on a web page?

Oh stop Rudel, and just go back to your Jazboom Mugage 2001D

Well, three out of four ain't bad these days for them young developer folk. Seriously, is there really a "situation"? Seems a little hyperbolic right now. There certainly is no reason to think that yet. Well, at least we hope not

They should make the description a bit more accurate about what it does and doesn't do. Other than that, how was the rest of the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

Well, you might be right. It would be pretty cool though if there is a MiG-29 that could do one of those L/VNAV approaches coupled to the autopilot, with just a 430W, wouldn't it?

I don't happen to be in DCS buying mode, despite the current sales. I have enough aircraft for now on backlog. I've been flying the Chinook and the Aviojet lately. I'm flying the Aviojet because I'm keeping myself current without killing too many braincells. I haven't bought the Mig-29, and maybe someday, but not today. But, I have to ask, is a single sentence in a product description really that big a deal? A lot of people are loving this aircraft clearly, and they couldn't care less about a minor mistake in a one page description for a new airplane. Most likely the new college grad they hired to write the description just made a simple mistake after looking at the website of the real-world analog.

In the real world, when a GNS 430 is fitted to such an aircraft such as the MiG, isn't it more of a kluge? If you stick one in a Cessna with Bendix King radios, obviously it will allow tuning of both nav and comm radios as an alternative to the dials on the radios themselves. But these are Soviet era radios. In the real world, when such a device is put into some old Soviet aircraft, does that kind of integration with the nav/comm system actually even work? I always assumed that they just mounted it somewhere (or duct taped it) only to provide basic gps and show the pilot a convenient position reference. I have this device fitted to both the Mi-8 and the C-101. I never expected it to actually tune the radios, even though I know the device is capable of it when properly wired in. If ED makes a Cessna 172, then yes, I would absolutely expect it to do all of this stuff. Product description for the MiG-29 aside, is my assesment correct?

Thanks. I always appreciate it when somebody comes in and can lighten it up a bit.

Coop need not be PvE. And PvP need not occur on open free-for-all servers. Obviously one can have a private server, with opposite teams both playing for "realism", thereby avoiding the pitfalls of the open servers. I've seen Milsim groups though that not only don't do PvP, they consider even the concept of it to be "unrealistic" as if it were some kind of blasphemy. I never understood how that could be...A skilled human opponent instead of a predictible AI? I hate to say it, but my guess is that a large number of MilSim-style/PvE only types would get their butts handed to them on a platter if they had to fight against a skilled human being. IMO, its an entirely new level of difficulty and requires a much higher level of skill. The open server people might not know how to communicate like a real pilot, fill out a comm card, or keep a tight formation, probably can't even navigate in the dark, but when it comes to shooting down the enemy, they are GOOD.

Of course, but I hope you'll at least be willing to indulge me as I relate an analogy from my youth, to better explain where I'm coming from: Back in school, there was this girl I was attracted to. I asked her out several times. Instead of saying "No", there would always be a polite excuse that left the door open just enough that I wasn't sure but still retained a little hope. Eventually, I finally gave up and lost interest. Ironically, 6 months later, she called, and asked me out. I told her no. The time had passed, and I wasn't interested anymore. I'm a passionate DCS helicopter fan. I own all the ED helicopters, but none from Polychop. I wanted both the Gazelle and the Kiowa on and off, but I could never bring myself to purchase them because I didn't have the confidence in the company making them. Perhaps, through fear of missing out, I've checked back periodically all these years to determine if I should change my mind. But it seems like there is always something going on, and when questions are asked, the answer is always to just to wait around a little longer. Ok, totally fair. But I've started to feel like Charlie Brown when Lucy takes the football away. I don't want to be like Charlie Brown. At some point, just like with the girl who wouldn't date me but was keeping me in reserve, up on a shelf, it's time to stop caring, and just move on. And when that point is reached, it really doesn't matter what the explanation is, because my own interest has expired. I hope this situation works out for the people who have purchased the Kiowa or the Gazelle.

Oh, I agree. I wasn't using "get good" in the literal sense, I was using it ironically. In DCS, I too learned the ropes of MP iteratively, not by jumping head first into the shallow end of the pool with a bunch of random people on a server, but by linking up with a group of experienced people who could provide that iterative structure, within a closed server environment. That's why I said earlier that joining a Squadron is a good thing for players new to the MP scene. There are people to help. Even for the most experienced of players, how does one find success in MP other than through effective teamwork? My first multiplayer experiences were in a different game. After I got tired of getting knocked down and frustrated every single time, I decided it was time to find mentors, wingmen, and teamates. I would imagine that story is not unique and describes the journey of many players from SP to MP. Yes, it takes practice, and who you choose as teachers makes a lot of difference. Choose wisely.

I can think of several reasons, but I won't get into them now. The point is, a new flight sim helicopter pilot first develops the motor skills to fly a helicopter without all the fancy stuff. If the Gazelle fills that role well, then that's just fine. I should have also pointed out that it took me an absurd amount of time to be able to fly the Huey with even a moron level of competence. I'm glad I took that time and put in the work, the old school way. Becoming a decent flyer was a lot more than just going through a tutorial once or twice, with a few notes, like most people do when getting a new fixed-wing aircraft. It was a whole new realm.

I do have advice. Start with the UH-1. Fly it, and practice it until you can hover it over a dime. Get a book from Amazon about flying Helicopters. It will explain things like steep approaches, pinacle landings, etc. You probably will need to get good rudder pedals and a joystick extension. Once you do that my friend, you will be able to load up any helicopter in DCS, map the basic controls, and fly it around the world first time, no probs. Avionics is a different matter and will try your patience in some of the more modern helicopters.