Rubberduck85

Again, realism as you intend it is only about how ANG use it as standard loadout, just doctrine. Again, this is not a doctrine simulator. You ARE telling people how to have fun by saying that the way they use it is not realistic enough, hence your idea of realism should translate into having them play as the ANG flies by their doctrine. This is called presumption. About the "sides" argument, i really don't get it. No one literally cares if you mount 1 agm65 with Lau-117 or 2/3 with lau-88. To me, it's even hilarious that someone is frustrated by it to the point of wasting time on it, still you do. So yes apparently it only applies to your "side". I will always stand against this "doctrine police" mentality, regardless of which game/simulation/module is discussed. I know, it's a lost cause with some people but then again maybe I'm presumptuous, maybe i don't realize that pretending to be a ANG pilot that flies according to a specific doctrine is the only true emotion in an otherwise dull existence. Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

The current mav implementation is possible but not a standard loadout. ED's word. Possible =/= unrealistic. Not standard =/= impossible. No one is being unrealistic, someone likes using non standard loadout if they want. And guess what? It's not my case. Again DCS is a sandbox simulator, not a doctrine simulator. I would never dream to tell people how to have fun. If this fact represents a problem to the point that it's unbearable, this is called "OCD" in the clinical field and might require professional counseling. Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

Even better, more time for ED to focus on issues as this isn't one. Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

Now it ain't about what we like or don't like? You explicitly mentioned arcade players and arcade way of playing, their mere existence ruining your personal immersion, influencing server missions. Had you refrained from such expressions i would have believed you. By the very same logic (simulating USAF/ANG 2007 BLK50 viper) let's remove Greek and Turkish liveries, as they are not operated by US air force. I'd go even further: let's make it impossible to play this module unless a 800€ force sensing stick is detected by the sim. I really appreciate ED's renewed progress on the module, I don't care about "only" 2 harms, and it has been discussed to death that mounting 2 Mavs per wing is not valid because by 2007 the only thing they were bombing were middleastern insurgents. Still they are there, man hours of development have been sunk into it and I'm perfectly fine with it and thanks to ED i have the privilege of choosing to go John Rambo style or pretend to be part of an air force. Again, do we want to simulate a warplane or a doctrine? I say let's stop telling people what they should do, give options and live a happy life. Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

And i don't see the sense in your proposal. Because arcade players exist, and they enjoy the product even with 6 mavericks whether YOU like it or not. Arcade/simulation liberties are even taken by ED, Just look at BS3, a "what if" of a prototype. You, with your proposal are telling other people ,unrelated to you, how they should have fun, and this is illiberal. The bit about: "These players would very likely still fly their singleplayer missions with 6 Mavericks" is really golden. As if Average Joe, playing singleplayer dcs on Friday night after a week of hard work is acting against nature by flying with 6 mavericks. My proposal allows freedom of choice and believe me, you are not alone: there will be multiplayer servers oriented to full hardcore realism. Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

How about creating a "checkbox system" in the editor where in a mission, specific weapons quantities are allowed/forbidden? So you can have a mission where only 1 agm65 per wing is allowed, or 2 or 3. This way everyone wins: those who wants to be "one man air force" and those who cannot sleep at night knowing that "one man air force" people exist. ED could also call it "enforce the righteous realism upon those who err" checkbox, so it can make mission editors feel empowered. Also: can we have this consistent across all modules, even 3rd parties? Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

Maybe with markpoints created through TGP one could be able to cycle them after each JDAM release? Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

I never run 3 fuel tanks, mostly in preparation of the upcoming (202X) ECM pod. Also probably the drag of 3 tanks negates the benefits of additional fuel but i could be wrong. Generally, I try to fly as sleek as possible for greater range/endurance and speed. Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

Hi, A question. As mentioned by =Panther= the pylon currently used is not part of the aircraft but part of the external fuel tank. Is this being accounted for in the currently on-going FM review? I mean: 1)the current "pylon" is removed together with the tanks if tanks are jettisoned (reducing drag) 2)A new pylon is offered to mount weapons Thanks Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

M-SEL completly missed! This time I was able to set it and with good results. Thank you!

Hi, I've noticed that the VRP function in F-16 has been somewhat enabled after finding this video on youtube: however when i try, i cannot obtain any visual cue on the HUD. my workflow: target steerpoint currently selected (in my case STP 2) list -> 9 (VRP) dobber right to select "VRP to PUP" data entry for a PUP circle: STP 2, TBR 220.0° RNG 24000 feet, alt 6000 ft (roughly 4 NM to SSE of a STP located on the southern lakes in Caucasus Map) master arm is on, AG selected, CCRP selected. tried with CBU-87 and MK-84 but no luck. Can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong? Regards

Afaik all litening tgp are modeled in the same way, no matter what aircraft is lasing. You should try again and if you have problems post a track in the bug section. Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

Yeah it's a shame there is not code to enable "dual mode" refueling for the MPRS, would be neat! Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

Not gonna subtract from your post, just a thing about not being able to find a suitable object for boresighting. Have you considered placing a allied vehicle at a steerpoint between starting airbase and fence in? You can then use it to boresight. And if in a multiplayer public server, have you tried finding an allied vehicle and write down its position as reference for steerpoint editing/creation? Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

So June 41st is "correct as is"? Is the calendar based on Mars revolution around the sun? Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

Yes It's a ACM only thing, apparently even HAF Vipers have it, you can see here in this video I found: During this mock dogfight (sim mode is engaged) at 0:39 switching to vertical scan, then bore and obtaining lock (with VMS " lock" call) at 0:52. I said apparently because of the description contained in the video. Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

Are maps still flat or was curvature modelled? Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

Can you share more information? Not operable for the specific version/tape simulated by ED or in general? Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

Are you pushing the stick forward while releasing the bombs? Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

So do i get it correctly that: F-5 / F-14 / F16 /AV8 do need to set from the kneeboard page the LGB laser code while on the ground While A-10/F-18 can do it in flight with store management page? Shouldn't this be consistent throughout all modules as it depends from the weapon? Also how does it work for CBUs in reality? Set on the ground and while in flight you put the corresponding setting to allow correct release calculation on HUD? Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

It is true now, It should however be a digital COMBAT simulator and focus equally on what happens outside the cockpit as much as it focuses on what happens inside. They'll get there eventually (i hope...). OP has a point, this is the first true gunship coming to DCS. As it's not a dedicated tank killer, its role is mainly air assault/ground support/being cool. Strafing/rocket runs its routine. What is outside the hind in an appropriate hind scenario ( not super high tech) *Few infantry models *A cheating AI that snipes you with ungodly accuracy with BMPs, magically aware of you presence any time/weather *A definitely not user friendly mission editor to transform targets into moving targets *Not so good damage model for ground units *Beautiful maps (especially sirya) All items of which ED is aware and working on. So yes, in the beginning the hind will be great for learning to fly a gunship in it's marvelously rendered cockpit, maybe not so for fighting as one. Not everyone plays dcs just for the study aspect, also for the combat one And we can only hope it improves. Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

I have the steam version so I'm not sure about this but I will keep it mind, and and the current rate of update release (which I'm comfortable with), it's ok. Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

I missed that update, thank you! Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

Are they really adding soviet-era heavy flak? With fire control radar director? Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk

Thank you! I guess it's time for spring cleaning the hard drive from unneeded skins. +1 on your proposal, makes absolute sense. Regards Sent from my MI 10 Lite 5G using Tapatalk