Tucano_uy

And a small community will be fractioned even more. Far from the ideal single battlefield most of us would love to see one day.

I understand that ED needs money to keep going. I want a quality fighter jet sim one day. So I will buy this upgrade. The problem is, DCS modules were supposed to be compatible with each other, that was always stated from the begining. Some forum members wrote that is an individual option to buy it or not. This is not real. The only real option to continue interconected with other modules (as it was supposed to be) is to pay for the upgrades, otherwise you fall off the wagon of DCS and became a single player. I do understand the people who are pissed off. Maybe if ED had told the community that the plans had changed, there would have been a lot less frustration.

The tree's roots are actually collidable. Fly low enough and aim for the roots. My chopper explodes 100% of the times. GUARANTEED!!!!

I haven't read "collidable trees" yet. Something must be wrong.

Nate Maybe having an integrated battlefield with every platform simulated in high detail costs more than $60 per product... I doubt it will ever happen. The closest we will get to that is Arma2 or whatever comes next. There isn't a market for a massive multi platform study sim. There's barely one for a 3 platform sim, and I'm counting here DCS:Fighter. Unfortunately

The problem, in my opinion, is that people keeps calling and thinking about DCS products as "Modules" (parts of a larger common thing) as it was announced years ago. It seems to me that DCS with time took another route. The truth is that nowadays the 2 DCS products that we have and probably the future ones, are modules of nothing, they're actually stand alone simulations that can be interconected (sometimes, and to get that, we have to pay). That's not bad per se, or a criticism. It just doesn't seem to be the original plan or the ideal. Guys, make peace with it, that's the way it is and DCS needs to get money from us every now and then to keep going. Ideally, in my view, updates or upgrades to the core module (executable files, installation folders, scenarios, maps, ME, physics, textures, etc) would be common for all aircraft and then aircraft modules would sort of plug into that structure. I'm sure that this can't be done due technical reasons and not just because. It is obvious that with the current model, in the future it will be very expensive to keep everything up to date, and I'm not talking about the aircraft themselves but the scenarios and game engine. And compatibility then it will be a nightmare. Until there's a common playground, if it ever happens.

Or unless you're flying over the sea

Wow!!! I never thought that an antitank system would shot a Logitech mouse...

what if you add 3 sucesive waypoints, each one with a target area, being the target the same ship? In theory it will make the Tu22 re-engage at every waypoint... or not?

I was very impressed with a display performed by the Brazilian Air Force aerobatic squad when they visited my country. They used EMB312 "Tucano"s (toucan in portuguese). I thought that the callsign would suit me also because of my rather large nose hahahaha. UY comes from my home country, Uruguay. I had to add it to the forum nickname because, even if I couldn't find a Tucano user, the name appeared not to be available. By the way, if anyone knows how to modify the forum name please advise. I'd would like to get rid of the _uy

I wouldn't just stick to a scenario that might be realistic at a given historical moment, we never know what would happen in a couple of years. That reminds me of the Iranian F-14s or Venezuelan F-16s.

There are in mine, I have a DVD-ROM :D

Maybe he was sitting in the pilot's lap... (hope there was no turbulence)

My first sim was Delta Wing on the ZX Spectrum. Lot's of fun, 5 "bases" to protect, 5 "bases" to attack, 1 fighter opponent, 5 bombs (if I'm not wrong) and guns. You could land anywhere you wanted, but had to be close to a base to rearm. All that in 48Kb, amazing.

"go to waypoint X" action please!!

USA, the east retaliates and take the war back to the west. Carrier ops, Cuba ops...

But if that's the only reason, it would be enough to announce that you'r e lauching/shooting/dropping, no need to specify what you are engaging with (Russian style, as we've just learnt). RWR warnings maybe? Debrief in case one of the pilots is not available anymore (MIA/KIA)? A bit off topic, do semi active missile launches interfere each other? example: Lead and wigman have both stt locks on different targets and both launch AIM-7. Won't the STT radar returns interfere each other and confuse the missiles? If that's true, then there is a reason to avoid stt or launch 2 semiactives simultaneously and therefore announce that you've launched. I'm asking IRL, not sim.

I agree. I was just saying what would be for me an ideal situation. (Actually the ideal situation would be to have multirole figthers from both sides.)

It may sound silly but maybe is worth to check if your key is correctly mapped. You know, first thing to troubleshoot an electric appliance that it's not working is to check if it is plugged in :doh:

I understand that the Fox/pickle/guns-guns-guns callouts are to inform other pilots/controller that you've launched a missile, drop a bomb or fired your guns. But what are the tactical implications or needs for such calls? Is there anything else beyond the obvious "watch out, missile on the way?"

Please, I'd like to change my forum name. I couldn't find anywhere to do it in the User CP.

Is it possible to set triggers in a mission to activate AI fighter cover IF there is no human players in the role? AI fighters are of course not match to a skilled human in A-A but at least they will delay the enemy fighters and force them to spend ammo, giving the A-G guys a chance to do something. Like running away. The ball is on the Mission Designer's field, me thinks...

If I'm not wrong, I think that I read somewhere that there is (was?) a problem with MP refuelling if there is wind and the refuelling acft is not being flown by the host. Were you Revelation maybe referring to this?

Please ED: -Make the GUI, ME and terrain one single, common and independent application for all modules. -Make A10C and BS sort of plug-ins that fit into the previous mentioned app. -Give us a DCS:F15/Su27 in one package. -Ditch FC and UBI forever. -Have a beer on me afterwards!! Wouldn't that work great?. If you need to upgrade the graphics engine or the sound or the ME, there would be only one patch for all the modules. I hear you say "that's not possible/unprofitable". Dreaming is free.

Thanks for the answer. Yes, I use TacView, most probably that's the culprit. Any way to fix it, keeping TacView working? The ping problem is a big issue where I live (South Africa), I hoped it wouldn't be a problem for FC2 MP but I see it is... I will keep trying though. Your english is clear enough, no need to apologize!! Regards