GaryIKILLYOU

Notice in my post, the part at the start. In my opinion :music_whistling: Also your source helps bolster my opinion: "A fighter aircraft equipped with radar and other special devices which enable it to intercept its target in the dark, or in daylight weather conditions that do not permit visual interception" Would you call the things I listed special devices compared to the other WWII era aircraft you named? I'm sure the USAAF and Luftwaffe would have loved to have the tech behind even one of them and would certainly consider them special. :D Meanwhile.. OT: Yes F-5E today pls.

He's not 100% right, but not 100% wrong either. Just saying. Y'all do tend to push back updates pretty frequently. I get that we're not "promised" updates. I get that we're not guaranteed anything. I get that everything is up to change. However, it's really hard to follow development and get hyped for something/ want to buy something Day-1 when we can't get solid released for mere updates. I'm one of your guy's biggest fans. I remember when the MiG-21bis mod that replaced the F-16A came out and have followed the MiG-21 since then. I love the work you did and do on the MiG-21. That doesn't preclude critique from us though. Have a little fun and playing with the community is fine for a while. However I wouldn't call releasing screenshots (something that takes maybe 20 seconds to do) updates. A .gif? 10 minutes at max. Again don't get me wrong I love the work you guys do, however it's hard to place faith in you guys when we're told something, and then told it's been delayed/pushed back/etc. fairly frequently.

It's not like they don't know about the issue. ED are working on it. Chillax.

In my personal experience, at least in the sim, it doesn't matter all that much. Just increase your touchdown speed in accordance to weight. I've landed a MiG-21 with 4 R-60s and 3 490L fuel tanks immediately after takeoff with no issues. Just had to run in faster than one normally would (and should).

All things considered, that's hilarious.

Because having more information available is for noobs!

In my opinion an all weather fighter would be one with an ILS system, gyroscopic ADI, fire control radar, and some form of radio navigation. But hey. Different strokes for different folks.

Until you linked it in the thread above, many, myself included had no idea. But thanks for the link. :noexpression:

I think as the community grows due to different modules being released and the publicity of the sim increasing we'll have a larger pool of structured guys who will be able to set up realistic scenarios and guide new people through them. Some of this relies on ED doing their part in ensuring the environment we do this in is up to snuff, but also relies on more groups like the 476th showing up and growing. Community outreach could also be improved in my opinion. For example the Message tab on the left side of the start screen could be used for more than just "WE HAVE STUFF ON SALE". Community events and things of that nature could be advertised there. ED is a company and companies are here to make profit, that's clear, but it couldn't hurt if the community were nudged to get more involved. Not saying ED doesn't care about the current meta though. We can tell ED cares and wants to improve the pve aspect due to potential AI changes that have been announced. We can tell pvp is being looked at due to ongoing missile changes as well as flight performance at different altitudes for different weapons/aircraft.

I understand your point. Getting better is an option. I get that. However, when you have people who want to simulate modern air combat with other players, and expect things to run with a semblance of parity to the real world only to discover the most popular server is each side throwing AMRAAMs in the Georgian mountains is rather off putting. I actually enjoyed FC2 pvp for quite a bit, and I enjoy BMS pvp A LOT as I spend most of my BMS time in either pvp or the rare pve blufor vs redfor events when they come up. Sure some people don't like multiplayer games period. That's their choice and for a sandbox type game that DCS is they should be able to enjoy their singleplayer just as much as we do our coop or pvp. Some people don't like the PvPs current state and instead prefer pve and coop. I am one of those. :)

A lot of people feel as if PvP is seal clubbing for new guys. You have people who have been flying PvP for 10+ years vs guys that just found this "game" on Steam two days ago. Especially the FC3 aircraft. Last time I joined a server it was two sides in F-15Cs throwing AMRAAMs at each other in mountains. There was a few M2kC vs MiG-21Bis matchups but it wasn't often. That's not realistic at all and I want no part of it. A lot of new people and vets feel the same way and simply relegate themselves to creating/playing singleplayer and coop missions. Hell I've been dabbling with this sim since LOMAC 1.02 and I've got maybe 30 hours of PvP MP. TL;DR a lot of the "silent" community don't deal with PvP because it's been WIP since FC3 dropped.

Funny this happens on the eve of DLC texture packs. :huh:

I would just like to point out that probad did end his post with the :P smiley. I understand it's semantical, however it should have been an indication of sarcasm to Beamscanner who then went from 0-60 with a "you have no idea what you're talking about" post. That's all I'll say. Meanwhile, back with things that have a semblance of relevance. LN will we be able to use the 4x4 Sparrow config on the Cat using the semi-recessed Sparrow hardpoints?

Good god. I need to clean up now. :joystick:

Alright then I will. I can't bump the quality up any further as these are scans of the originals. And here's my grandfather. Kenneth McGlothlin. May he rest in peace. Unfortunately this is all I was willed from him. I wish I had more but my great-aunt has most of them and she's in Oregon.

As in another thread I mentioned I had a bunch of T-Bird photos from my grandfather who was a flight chief for a LONG time with them. I decided to dump these for you guys to check out. He's the reason I have the interest I do in flight and especially military aviation. I have more if you guys would like to check those out as well just let me know.

We can only hope. :)

So it would take less time to develop a completely new trainer (potentially stunting aircraft like the Viggen and Tomcat) because other developers haven't finished their trainers fast enough? :lol: Don't get me wrong, I love T-38s. My grandfather was a mechanic for the T-Birds and I've been all over T-38s and have quite the photo collection. However, LNS would be the last people I'd ask to make a T-38. Why? Because Belsimtek is doing the F-5E. I'm well aware that they're not the same aircraft but A LOT of system functionality and flight model data could be used, or adapted slightly if Belsimtek was to even make the thing. At that point though, what would be the harm in making a two seater F-5?

A-10C MiG-21Bis Su-25A MiG-15Bis Those are pretty much the only aircraft I fly anymore. Sometimes I'll take an F-15 up for a spin just to danger zone out, but if I sit down and "fly" it's one of those four.

lol

I support it, but only for weapons we KNOW the Iranians used operationally. No R-77 or anything like that and I think it should be country locked. I'm sure Iran will become a faction, so I think only their F-14s should be able to use them.

This. I have my AR because it's an AR, and have my AKs because they're AKs. I can't stand seeing someone "tacticool" an AK. Just isn't kosher.

Yes absolutely. Having had many a bad landings due to battle damage and poor mission designed weather (I'm looking at all of the mission designers setting crosswinds to 30+ kn specifically) it would be nice to be able to at least be respawned to the first unused parking spot in a similar fashion to the repair function.

This could in theory become a community project. Give out a script and a list of requirements. Sort of like the "Best Screenshot becomes a logo" threads that pop up every once in a while. :)

I figured as much. With the L-39 getting it's finishing touches, NTTR and 2.0 being polished off, and work on the F/A-18C running at a steady (albeit silent (this is a good thing, you know they're crunching when they're not spending time posting screenshots)) pace as well as anything else that hasn't been confirmed I'd imagine it's low on the totem pole. Still I think it should be at least a moderate priority given the flexibility of mission design that adding a few legacy AA systems can add. :thumbup: