Richard Dastardly

Part of the problem with the AV8A was the USMC had no money to maintain the things. They were tricky enough even when they were looked after properly, if you check the RAF loss rates early on... also didn't the USMC recruit helicopter pilots? Admittedly cold war loss rates were high for any a/c, training was very intense & as realistic as possible.

Or German bombers over England, although not in any great number by then. Maybe if someone does a Beaufighter... My grandfather was an expert in various period electronics - mostly vacuum tubes & other devices relating to electromagnetics ( found patents from the early 40s with his name on them, wish they weren't government owned coz 1940s radar shares a lot with microwave ovens! ) & worked on most types of wartime radar, so those sorts of contraptions ( not really any other way to describe early radar ) always fascinated me. I suspect ATA pilots of both sexes weren't issued with ammo because they both weren't military and weren't trained to fight, so regulations would say "no way". At least everyone got paid the same...

Quote was for the FRS.2, which was a *vast* improvement on the FRS.1 - proper radar, Link 16, fox 3. The UK had always signed up for F35 - 20%ish of the F35 - every F35, not just the UK ones - is nominally British ( if you can call BAES "British" anymore ), but the out-of-service date of the SHAR is still a bit contentious. Harrier OOS was always meant to make room for the F35, it just didn't arrive when it was supposed to...

Is AAR not related to ongoing services? discrete releases of modules are not ongoing services. Moderated dynamic campaigns *would* be an ongoing service. If I buy a module, sure they have my money, but they aren't getting any more of it for sitting around doing nothing. If I have to pay constantly to fly my aircraft they've got a constant income stream without doing anything at all - they don't have to pay ongoing upkeep on a piece of software running on my own machine.

I actually like flying these things at night, but I'm in a bit of a minority I suspect. I have a family connection with practically all WW2 British radar though, so there is extra interest there. Don't think there's any Moilins equipped ones left - there were only 18 of them anyway, generally rockets seemed to be the popular choice ( even if you can't hit the side of a battleship with them... ). If you include the Candian & Aussie variations on the one we're getting there are a few more to choose from, one of them flyable. The museum is at Salisbury Hall, where the prototype was built ( it's still there, too ).

Until you point a modern IR sensor at it, and then it shows up like daylight again. Stealth is a bit more than just RCS, the IRST in some modern aircraft seems more capable than their radar... Also, just as classified as two years ago.

The FB VI wasn't even in service until 1943, so that's out. I suspect we're getting whatever they went & clambered over to take pictures of ( and got flight data for ). There's one in the DeHavilland museum, a flyable one in NZ - given the PZ serial on a screenshot I am thinking that one had some input - and a couple more in pieces, so we might have an idea of what it looks like ( also we have some screenshots so we can see the exhausts, at least ). I can't help but think how interesting a NF version would be, if we only had a use for one... The Mustang was designed for the RAF after the war started - the early ones which arrived in 1942 were a bit bad & were really only used for Recce / CAS, wan't until late 1943 the Merlin engined ones became available.

Is there any proof of a lack of revenue *at all*? people seem to think that slow progress means lack of income; I suspect slow progress is more to do with people not having enough hours in the day, but there is a certain ceiling to team size before it actually starts impeding progress It should be pointed out that there are no jets in the schedule from ED this entire year, which suggests that yes, they don't need to push out loads more modules. I hope the Hind will be a major success but I get the feeling helicopters are a slight niche, and iirc the WW2 programme is almost a completely seperate thing ( it had a kickstarter, right? ). I don't see any signs of an ongoing desperate cash grab. I would consider signing up for a large managed dynamic campaign, or something along those lines, because that's an ongoing service with recurring costs - but I mentioned that.

Harriers are small because they were originally intended to be forward based - *very* forward based, the RAF ones in Germany certainly trained for forward based CAS missions & the USMC ones could also be called forward-based if they flew off LPDs. You don't need to carry much of anything if you can just land & refuel a few miles away. If you're operating out of an airbase there's no need for the unique feature of a Harrier, so at that point it seems unsurprisingly a bit underwhelming. The only reason for the Sea Harrier is the RN getting rid of it's last conventional carrier & deciding that yes, CAP cover actually was a good idea after all. The radar was a bit rubbish, the range was bad & it carried 2 ( later 4 ) Sidewinders only, but it was all that could be done. I suspect that's actually close to the decision tree behind the Yak-38 too. Zhukov - the Yak uses a seperate lift engine, no? the F35 only has one engine, like a Harrier.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=255290 - was done at length recently. Answer is still no, unless it's a service. As far as accountability goes, if people have to sub to fly their already owned aircraft, ED have *zero* pressure to release anything new.

German VTOL, eh? can't ignore this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_31 -- On topic, Yak-38 would be interesting but yes, it's a little limited - I can't help think that few IRL pilots would have chosen to be assigned to one if they could help it! there are a number of Russian 3rd gen I'd like to fly first. Can't really compare to the 35 because it has a seperate lift engine - the 35 just has a fan. Can't help thinking up ways you could use the fan thrust for more than vertical flight really...

If you're pretty sure you're going to get it eventually anyway, no point waiting unless you don't have the funds at all. The 16 release annoyed the pants off me enough that I haven't flown it yet, but it's starting to get a feature set finally, and I guess it's funded a year of ED's jet team working on it and the Hornet rather than anything new...

The real thing was horrible on the ground too, by many accounts... could very easily overheat it ( either oil or water ) taxiing in a crosswind/downwind, let alone any issues with the taxi process. Seems ok to take off, ok to land unless there's a crosswind element. I don't think I've managed a crosswind landing without scraping a wingtip yet. If any aircraft needs a force-feedback seat it's possibly this one.

Does not update in the cart/checkout for me, but I transferred my Hornet key over from Steam, so maybe there is a problem there ( checking purchase history instead of licenses? ) There are many people getting both bonuses, so we know it *can* happen.

Yes, but the P-51 kinda pushed it aside in the ETO fairly fast, it just didn't really work too well in Europe for a variety of reasons. Would seem to fit more naturally in a Pacific theatre aircraft group, if they do one. This is the wishlist for the European theatre though... The RAF ordered some, tried a few & sent them back because they didn't like them.

Fairly sure we know exactly what planes we're getting, wasn't it listed on the kickstarter? P-38 might be a big deal for the Pacific, but for Normandy '44, not really.

From what era? not current, at least.

Let people be excited. I'm not particularily ( I don't get it either ), but everyone has their own tastes.

Seems great so far! you may want to set the sqn & aircraft codes in the mission editor though. Board number entry of CKC011 as an example will give CK squadron code, C-charlie aircraft and MH011 for serial.

Odd repeatable crash on a friend's server, happens if he sets dynamic or static weather: hop in a C-101CC, and 2020-01-14 06:47:55.107 INFO EDCORE: G:\Games\DCS World OpenBeta\bin\Weather.dll 2020-01-14 06:47:55.107 INFO EDCORE: # C0000005 ACCESS_VIOLATION at A21C13C4 00:00000000 2020-01-14 06:47:55.108 INFO EDCORE: SymInit: Symbol-SearchPath: '.;G:\Games\DCS World OpenBeta;G:\Games\DCS World OpenBeta\bin;C:\Windows;C:\Windows\system32;SRV*C:\websymbols*http://msdl.microsoft.com/download/symbols;', symOptions: 530' 2020-01-14 06:47:55.108 INFO EDCORE: OS-Version: 6.1.7601 (Service Pack 1) 0x100-0x1 2020-01-14 06:47:55.510 INFO EDCORE: 0x00000000000213C4 (Weather): Weather::IAtmosphere::getTurbulenceInLayer + 0x164 2020-01-14 06:47:55.510 INFO EDCORE: 0x0000000000022C92 (Weather): Weather::StaticAtmosphere::getAtmoWind_w + 0x242 2020-01-14 06:47:55.510 INFO EDCORE: 0x00000000000954AB (FMBase): EagleFM::AerodyneFM::simulate + 0x98B 2020-01-14 06:47:55.511 INFO EDCORE: 0x00000000004DB11E (DCS): (function-name not available) + 0x0 2020-01-14 06:47:55.511 INFO EDCORE: 0x000000000036527F (DCS): (function-name not available) + 0x0 2020-01-14 06:47:55.511 INFO EDCORE: 0x00000000003620BF (DCS): (function-name not available) + 0x0 2020-01-14 06:47:55.511 INFO EDCORE: 0x0000000000002D11 (World): (function-name not available) + 0x0 2020-01-14 06:47:55.512 INFO EDCORE: 0x00000000000031DF (World): (function-name not available) + 0x0 2020-01-14 06:47:55.512 INFO EDCORE: 0x0000000000574132 (DCS): (function-name not available) + 0x0 2020-01-14 06:47:55.512 INFO EDCORE: 0x0000000000585688 (DCS): (function-name not available) + 0x0 2020-01-14 06:47:55.513 INFO EDCORE: 0x0000000000556994 (DCS): (function-name not available) + 0x0 2020-01-14 06:47:55.513 INFO EDCORE: 0x00000000001C8FBF (DCS): (function-name not available) + 0x0 2020-01-14 06:47:55.513 INFO EDCORE: 0x000000000073B946 (DCS): (function-name not available) + 0x0 2020-01-14 06:47:55.513 INFO EDCORE: 0x00000000000159CD (kernel32): BaseThreadInitThunk + 0xD 2020-01-14 06:47:55.513 INFO EDCORE: 0x000000000002A561 (ntdll): RtlUserThreadStart + 0x21 2020-01-14 06:47:55.648 INFO EDCORE: Minidump created. I've seen threads suggesting weather-related crashes were fixed, but not this one it seems... Crash dump for that was auto-sent to ED, can upload it for you guys too if you want. This is from current Open Beta.

"Stores" would be the other generic one I've heared. "away" is just a generic word ( it's an actual brevity word ) to say you've dropped something ( so "stores away" in this case ). "Ripple" is also one but I've never heared a callout use it, so I've no idea when you would ( maybe firing multiple unguided rockets off? *shrug* ) I'll shout out if I launch a missile if I'm on my own because nearby A-10 pilots or others with missile warning will get very jumpy otherwise, but unless I'm working with someone then who cares if I drop a bomb. Given most comms on generic MP servers seems to be on guard, only calling a release when you have to helps a lot...

It was Wags' interview for the Fighter Pilot podcast, iirc F-4E and the Cobra were "on the list of projects we'd like to do" or words to that effect. Next project after the 16 has been the Hind for some time now IIRC. After the Hind I don't think there's anything scheduled for the core team, which might mean something like a comprehensive rework of assets given there'll be modellers with no project.

Hmm, ok, well it *feels* like it's locked with stick aft :p I have less problems with the I-16 wierdly, but maybe it's just the individual brakes. Don't really have problems in the Spit anymore unless there's a crosswind, and then all bets are off.

Don't try and move in all three dimensions at once - if you can't get the probe lined up with the basket as you're coming in, stop moving forwards rather than trying to "grab" it, just fly in formation with it & work on the other two dimensions. Other thing I found really useful is to watch the horizon line in the hud all the time ( mostly in your peripheral vision ) & make sure the velocity vector is on it, that'll help reduce PIO considerably.

You can refuel a F-15 with a basket in MP at least ( watched with great amusement as someone managed that... ) so there's nothing special about the actual fuelling process - don't think it'd be a giant stretch to pick the fuelling method based on the aircraft who's expressed intent to refuel.