UrgentSiesta

did some digging around in other parts of the forums... i had "easy communications" checked on... didn't think to look there/anywhere as ADF has been working all this time in other modules. suffice to say, turned that to Off and now ADF works as expected.

hey, been spending more time in this bird lately and having a lot of fun learning how to fly without all the FBW stuff ;) attempting to do some cross country flights, and while I can get VOR, ILS, and even the TACAN DME + VOR working just fine, i'm unsuccessful with ADF in any way, shape or form... I've followed the directions in Chuck's Guide and though I go through the steps as directed, all I can get is for the RMI / HSI ADF needle to point to whatever my present heading is whenever I tune the ADF. I'm assuming it's user error - any tips/tricks/corrections welcome! p.s.: because it's x-country, i've usually got the other nav radios tuned in to last/next waypoint, don't know if having multiple nav sources active on causes conflicts / over-rides on the rmi / hsi? p.s.s: i'm on latest DCS Open Beta

Hear! hear! It always takes longer than anticipated to deliver great work. Fantastic update even though it basically says we have longer to wait. ;)

ha ha! It better NOT fly anything like a Spitfire! :)

GREAT NEWS - so glad to hear your still keeping at it!

But it's So Much FUN to piss off Hoggit - not to mention incredibly easy, to boot!

wasn't interested... ...until I saw the HMFIC's resume. Sign me up.

can confirm i get the distorted instruments as well...

quick question: for those of us who enjoy the back seat, do you have any plans to improve Ice Man's piloting? Not to imply a desire to RIO for a full mission, but rather to allow more time & focus on RIO & B/N activities as engagement distances decrease. Many thanks for this detailed update filled with good news for BOTH modules! Very much looking forwards to Forrestal!

Many thanks for this news and the promised changes to get Gazelle updates moving again. Though it takes time and effort to keep news flowing, please regularly give us at least brief updates on whatever you're working on. We don't need guarantees or Dead Lines, just knowledge that you are making progress. I'd say that emulating the Warthog and Blackshark updates as being periodically shared by ED would be warmly welcomed - and keep the haters at bay. Looking forward to the fixes for Gazelle, and your new module as well!

DCS Falcon looks FANTASTIC - another dream come true from ED. @Glowing_AMRAAM - superb work, as always. the JFK speech relevance & tie-in really heightens my anticipation for the module. Would be great to have more in the future where possible.

Skins? you mean functionality that already exists in the game? Next. Never said 6% was "unworthy" - stop lying. I said time and resources should go where they're most desired by the paying customers. Same story for the primary language of the game (not to mention that English, or rather, American, is THE language of aviation IRL). Women (at least the ones blessed to have been born into first world western democracies) do as they please. Those that are strong enough and talented enough and determined enough to become pilots...do. Same thing applies to men. Women simply overwhelmingly choose to do other things with their careers and lives. Want to be able to skin your character by sex or race? I already stated I have no problem with that - to the point that I would be fine playing as the opposite of my IRL self if that meant the true priorities of the game were addressed. So get your like minded folks together and take it up with ED. They'll go where the money is, just like any smart business does.

This white man already committed to playing as Tracy Chapman until they fix the much more important shortcomings of the...you know...combat flight sim. That's how little I care about gender / racial identity in a game: I don't need the game to change to reflect me, I need the sim to be REALISTIC about it's subject matter. As to giving representation to CUSTOMERS, I think it's always a great idea. And that feature requests should always be weighted where they'll do the most good for the most folks in the least time with the least effort. A quick Google shows only about 6% of pilots are female. I'd say it's reasonable to posit that the percentage of female DCS pilots is even lower (happy to hear any facts around this). So let us, indeed, represent the wishes of the paying customers in proportion to their desires. Isn't that fair and equitable; y'know, like a democracy?

OUTSTANDING! Looks incredible already - will be simply fantastic when the "paint" is on. Can't wait to fly (and have some IR flyswatters to go with it)!

This shows how extremely little you know about app dev, particularly in a sim like this. Hey, ED, this *IS* something reasonable. Please put it on the priority list right under reasonable AI.

Lookin good so far (that control stick is amazing!) Very much hope you all can see this through to a released mod, and thanks for all the hard work so far, and much more to come!

However, the team that *does* work on non-revenue projects still needs to get paid, and that clearly comes from module revenue. Obviously they are paid, but viewed from out here the progress on The World is agonizingly slow. I personally would rather be able to help prioritize features by directly funding them (through a paid base game, subscription, paid premium features, or whatever works) you folks make money off me because i'm an airframe collector. I love all your modules, own most of them, and will continue to buy most of the new ones. But some (many?) folks only have one or a few. Perhaps b/c they can't afford more, don't want more, or don't want to support what they view as "perpetual EA" And they want (and deserve) to be able to have new features in The World without needing to buy more modules they don't want or need. The problem is that module-only funding skews the metrics/perception used to forecast demand and allocate resources, etc., etc.

you've given a good reason to avoid subscriptions, but then given the exact reason its one of several good ideas. a subs model needn't have anything to do with the modules, but rather with World upgrades or premiums (like campaign, atc, weather, etc.). and/or a transition period where everyone who has purchased a module gets to keep it, and new modules go on subscription. and/or if you stop subscribing, you keep the module playable, but no further updates, or no MP or whatever... many ways to make it work. the point is not a single monetization idea, but rather ANY one that incentivizes ED to maintain and improve The World itself as much or more than any module. B/c let's face it, The World *is* the game and affects every single module.

I just bought BlackShark a few months ago. Given the substantial increase in defensive and offensive capabilities, no problem paying a reduced/upgrade price for this new variant. Wags & NineLine, I'd LOVE to have similar options on variants for other modules, too. Please figure out some way we can help you pay more attention to upgrading The World itself, too. A small monthly subscription, or a premium plan for upgraded features, or a version upgrade fee, etc. I realize it's difficult to balance the biz aspects with the tech aspects of a unified multiplayer sim, so I'll leave it to you. Just realize that while many of us love all the choices of modules (and I've purchased most of them just in the last 6 months), we'd also like the most important module, The World itself, to progress at a similar rate & depth as the airframes. Please pass along my appreciation for the hard work you folks put into this sim and all the modules. It's a long time dream come true for me.

wow...crazy that there's no images yet of the cockpit. Even the newer F-35 has stuff we can see now. Hopefully you'll get enough to work with soon. Fine exterior model work!

Hellreign82 recommended them just the other week or so.

Incredible work. Hope to have a flyable someday - I need some landing practice!

I think perhaps we might be kindred spirits, so just some friendly advice / constructive criticism from someone who's already walked several miles in your shoes.

Even though I 100% agree with your sentiment, it's phraseology like this that get's under people's skin. Just cut everything off up to and including "...but..." and it'd be unassailably perfect.

I'm really sorry to hear that. Of all the reasons not to allow a feature, I thought, "Because you'll burn your elevators off, that's why" was about as good as it gets. I simply don't know enough about the minutiae of (any) aircraft to make a call like this. But I have been around long enough to know it's generally a losing strategy to appease immature temper tantrums. They always find something else to be outraged about, so better to stick to facts and reality and stand firm whenever you have the chance. Anyhow, I'll be happy to fly the Falcon, and if 4 Mavs is the right number, 4 is what I'll load.