Cold War 1947 - 1991

[Alphaless]

1 hour ago, Alpenwolf said:

They can and must be destroyed. You'll need Mk-83's or Mk-84's for each one. Red would also need FAB 250 or better FAB 500 bombs or S-24 rockets to get the job done.

Aye. Will remember this for next time.

[Alpenwolf]

Reminder:

Operation Arab-Israeli War kicks off this Saturday, 12.03.2022, around 1900 zulu.

[MarkMD]

10 hours ago, Miccara said:

@Alpenwolf
Watch Mike-Delta's stream from last night, from 2:07 to 2:11:50 where Red choppers are shot down. Notice the in-game chat at the end. Wouldn't be quite as bad but for the fact the poster has to expose his message, and his frustration, to the Blue side. Calling a long-time, excellent player a cheater repeatedly (not the first time), when there is absolutely no truth to the claim, is truly becoming tiresome for many of us and something that certainly makes non-regular players to the server question the integrity of the player unjustly accused. 2:19 is another classy remark from him. Normally, I really don't care about this kind of thing and would even bother commenting but this complainer has whined enough to have you consider changes to the game missions. Not asking you to comment or confront. I simply want to vet a little. Like I said before... it would be great to get through a mission without the one, single, constant complaining guy pushing his "those cheaters" campaign to every player on the sever.

If this sort of thing keeps up, I’m going to make an extreme effort to make him whinge so much that he will think twice about joining the server.  I’m completely fed up of his comments, I’ve listened to many players and adjusted my game play to conform to real world actions, actively letting friendly fighters die, when missiles are fired and I see it on the map.  Granted, I don’t have to power to show or not show things on the map, but both sides have this feature.  Those that don’t stream or have the morals to refrain from this are at a great advantage.  You don’t see me calling them out.

The missions are great, complex and hard work to coordinate. I don’t have time in missions to follow individual players, but to assume I’m cheating crosses that line.  I’m fair and considerate, I don’t want to ruin others gameplay.  But when you fly from A to B via A to B then your asking for trouble.  Fly different routes, try different tactics, be unpredictable, don’t fly close to ground troops if you know they are in the area.  Would you like me to fly the helicopter for you? 
 

I’ve given you tools to avoid my troops, use them.  
 

You’ve been warned, the next time, I’ll be out to ruin your day, time and time again will I make your helicopter eat dirt, fire and brimstone. 
 

Mike-Delta Out!!!

[MMI_Grim]

I would relativize that statement: "..adjusted my game play to conform to real world actions..." a bit.

After I told you that marking my chopper with smoke without any line of sight, besides the all seeing eye, so the third guy you send after me could finally find me, is a bit much. You recommended me war of thunder. 

Edited March 10, 2022 by MMI_Grim

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

Yet another shining example of the 

20 minutes ago, MMI_Grim said:

I would relativize that statement: "..adjusted my game play to conform to real world actions..." a bit.

After I told you that marking my chopper with smoke without any line of sight, besides the all seeing eye, so the third guy you send after me could finally find me, is a bit much, you recommended me war of thunder. 

Does this mean you are the whiner in question? 

[Miccara]

46 minutes ago, MMI_Grim said:

I would relativize that statement: "..adjusted my game play to conform to real world actions..." a bit.

After I told you that marking my chopper with smoke without any line of sight, besides the all seeing eye, so the third guy you send after me could finally find me, is a bit much. You recommended me war of thunder. 

 

Have I missed something? I've been in the ground war position many times, I don't know of any way to mark something with smoke (you have to be in a ground vehicle to do it), without line-of-sight.

[=475FG= Dawger]

4 hours ago, Miccara said:

Have I missed something? I've been in the ground war position many times, I don't know of any way to mark something with smoke (you have to be in a ground vehicle to do it), without line-of-sight.

I think he is taking issue with the availability of third person view in CA. I think the rationale is once you get in a vehicle, you cannot ever get out or get any visual information except through the optics available inside the tank.

5 hours ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

Yet another shining example of the 

Does this mean you are the whiner in question? 

He is not.

[MMI_Grim]

12 hours ago, Miccara said:

Have I missed something? I've been in the ground war position many times, I don't know of any way to mark something with smoke (you have to be in a ground vehicle to do it), without line-of-sight.

Hi, I checked my track file again since I did not want to make wrong accusation. He did have line of sight with a avanger he pulled down there from somewhere else...for less then 10 seconds, in which he knew where to look thanks too the all seeing command view, and marked me with smoke so I could get rammed out of the sky by an A-10.

So that statement "..adjusted my game play to conform to real world actions..." is a bit much in my eyes, not more, not less.

Edited March 11, 2022 by MMI_Grim

[=475FG= Dawger]

@Alpenwolf In light of all the recent complaints, perhaps instead of addressing the symptoms, you could address the origin. It appears that Hind pilots are of the belief that their aircraft are invisible and invincible. So maybe removing the Mi24's from the missions is the simplest solution.

An alternative is to swap the Hinds over to Blue and give Red the Gazelles. That way the complainers would be on the same side as the object of their complaints, minimizing this unnecessary distraction.

I think a little mixing and matching of assets might do the server some good in breaking up some of the color loyalties.

EDIT: Hinds for both sides is also a very realistic option. That would be a hoot, especially with helos hidden on the map. In fact, I think giving both sides all the helos would be lots of fun, at least from my viewpoint, high in the sky at Mach 1

Edited March 11, 2022 by =475FG= Dawger

[Alpenwolf]

3 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

@Alpenwolf In light of all the recent complaints, perhaps instead of addressing the symptoms, you could address the origin. It appears that Hind pilots are of the belief that their aircraft are invisible and invincible. So maybe removing the Mi24's from the missions is the simplest solution.

An alternative is to swap the Hinds over to Blue and give Red the Gazelles. That way the complainers would be on the same side as the object of their complaints, minimizing this unnecessary distraction.

I think a little mixing and matching of assets might do the server some good in breaking up some of the color loyalties.

EDIT: Hinds for both sides is also a very realistic option. That would be a hoot, especially with helos hidden on the map. In fact, I think giving both sides all the helos would be lots of fun, at least from my viewpoint, high in the sky at Mach 1

 

Swapping because someone is complaining about something that clearly has nothing to do with the mission design itself?! Nah...

Having the same aircraft on both sides would only increase teamkilling. I've always refrained from doing that or pushing towards symmetrical balance. And that's one feature of many the server has always been known for.

Adding the Hind to Blue and the Gazelle to Red is an option, but why? Can you imagine the workload behind that? Reworking FARP's/airbases, editing briefing images, editing briefing texts, adjusting FARP's distances to the TA's, etc. No, man. Not an easy option as you may think.

[MMI_Grim]

@Alpenwolf
I dont think that was more then a trolly reply.

@=475FG= Dawger
Breaking up color loyalties is easy, just join the team with less people.

[Alpenwolf]

Operation Arab-Israeli War - Round 2:

Red managed to capture and hold both Kiryat Shmona and Rosh Pina Airbases. The nuke crates weren't delivered, so no bombing was done. One nuke crate was still available.

Blue didn't complete any objective. They were mostly flying air-to-air. They managed to destroy a few EWR's and blind Red a bit though.

Overall, 28-36 players throughout the mission which ended after 2.5 hours.

[Giskvoosk]

18 minutes ago, Alpenwolf said:

The nuke crates weren't delivered, so no bombing was done. One nuke crate was still available.

There was another?

One in the wood was destroy in the first 10 minutes. Then the other two crates between two 57mm were destroyed in subsequent raids and BDA confirmed it. Unless there was a forth crate, or possibly desync, maybe?

[Alpenwolf]

13 minutes ago, Giskvoosk said:

There was another?

One in the wood was destroy in the first 10 minutes. Then the other two crates between two 57mm were destroyed in subsequent raids and BDA confirmed it. Unless there was a forth crate, or possibly desync, maybe?

I told you they spawn one a time if the first 3 are gone to prevent players from doing what you were doing

[Giskvoosk]

9 minutes ago, Alpenwolf said:

I told you they spawn one a time if the first 3 are gone to prevent players from doing what you were doing

Sorry i'm a bit lost here, neither did i pay enough attention in the intense gameplay. So there would spawn a 4th crate (or more?) if the Blue managed to destroy 3 crates which was suggested in the mission briefing?

[Miccara]

3 hours ago, Alpenwolf said:

Operation Arab-Israeli War - Round 2:

Red managed to capture and hold both Kiryat Shmona and Rosh Pina Airbases. The nuke crates weren't delivered, so no bombing was done. One nuke crate was still available.

Blue didn't complete any objective. They were mostly flying air-to-air. They managed to destroy a few EWR's and blind Red a bit though.

Overall, 28-36 players throughout the mission which ended after 2.5 hours.

For me, not an enjoyable mission in a Huey. Radar showing helos should be put back in. It's impossible for the Huey to defend itself in this mission and slinging crates made me a sitting duck. With missile carrying Hinds and MIGS buzzing around in what was really a fairly small battle zone, a slow moving, armament lacking, sling carrying Huey was easily seen and shot down. Get rid of the sling requirement at least. Crates would give us a better shot at succeeding. With two Hueys, I think we managed 3 or 4 crate deliveries to the first location only. Nothing more could be done after that. Defence at our FARP is really lacking and ineffective, too. Not looking forward to this again.

[Alpenwolf]

14 hours ago, Giskvoosk said:

Sorry i'm a bit lost here, neither did i pay enough attention in the intense gameplay. So there would spawn a 4th crate (or more?) if the Blue managed to destroy 3 crates which was suggested in the mission briefing?

Not exactly.

Look, it would've had been better if Blue stuck more to the objective rather than trying to "annoy" Red. I mean, we could send MiG's and with one rockets run all 10 ammo crates at the Blue FARP would be gone, which then would prevent any sling loading from happening and you wont have a maximum of 20 extra M60's.
There were far more Blue players than Red in the first 20-30 minutes and barely any striking took place which is the objective for Blue. Instead, a single F-5 was flying all over the map hunting EWR's and crates. Now, destroying the EWR's is part of the objective at the observation sites, but not the only thing to be destroyed. The bunkers among other assets were completely ignored, so it was obvious what was going on. You could argue that it's rather of an advantage to try and "annoy" the enemy like that and it is. But is it really necessary and the battle can't be won otherwise? And I wrote "annoy" because it is a game after all, and only because it's a game you get to read the whole briefing, and see what the enemy's objectives are when you actually shouldn't. Neither side should. For instance, as a Blue player you shouldn't even know there is a possible nuke striking mission coming in. But you know there is a chemical factory you MUST destroy, where nuke bombs were developed, so you could only speculate and put your CAP on high alert.

T-55's advancing on the two northern airbases is yet another matter Blue shouldn't have known about until T-55's were literally at their doorstep. It's not like invasions and their plans are announced to the enemy days prior to the attack, is it? There might be some tensions in the air and speculations or leaked information, but the whole picture is rarely complete.

Red planned their move on the two airbases, but shouldn't know about any ammo crates being sling loaded to rearm additional M60's that could join the battle. They only know that because they read the briefing and probably the enemy's objectives. See what I mean?

What could I do?! Add more air defences at the chemical factory? I could, but then striking the chemical factory itself becomes even harder than it is. So, Blue attacking the crates like that (when they shouldn't know much about their existence in the first place) could only lead to me adding more air defences to counter that which would then backfire on Blue. See what happens? Or, just make the crates immortal, right? And then Mi-8's could fly aerobatics if they wanted to because the crates wont be destroyed if the rope is cut due to wild maneuvers. They could simply pick the crate back up again and fly on.

These are the consequences of the way I design such missions, especially, when asymmetric objectives are assigned to the coalitions. I'm aware of that. It becomes more incentive to try and work harder on preventing the enemy from getting his job done. I understand that. We saw more or less the same in the limited editions, only there neither side had the ability to be that "annoying" due to differences in the missions' scenarios and their objectives. In this mission however, the battlefield is very small and things are very close to one another. That's the reality of the geography in that area, which makes it easier to "annoy". I do my part and try hard to make things as good as possible. Always have. And as I always say, it's up to the players what becomes of the missions. And I know it's risky when putting things in the hands of players like that, but there is no other way really, unless we want to go arcady and just kill stuff. The more assets players control and the more freedoms they have (up to a certain limit), the more dynamic things can be! And I've been receiving positive feedback in that regard since day one, so I can't be that wrong with that statement.
The tools at hand are very limited and I can only work with I have in the mission editor and some external lua scripts. We've had tons of intense and great sessions on the server throughout the years and others not so much or rather frustrating. Trust me, it always came down to what players were doing and how they approached the missions and the objectives. When things were rather frustrating you saw lots of complaints here on the forum of players talking about players who were rather doing "annoying" things. Bugs are yet another issue that I'm sometimes responsible for, but quite often they are just beyond me and part of the game itself and not the missions.

On a side note, when I say "annoying", I only mean the above as explained thoroughly. Nothing more or less, mate.

11 hours ago, Miccara said:

For me, not an enjoyable mission in a Huey. Radar showing helos should be put back in. It's impossible for the Huey to defend itself in this mission and slinging crates made me a sitting duck. With missile carrying Hinds and MIGS buzzing around in what was really a fairly small battle zone, a slow moving, armament lacking, sling carrying Huey was easily seen and shot down. Get rid of the sling requirement at least. Crates would give us a better shot at succeeding. With two Hueys, I think we managed 3 or 4 crate deliveries to the first location only. Nothing more could be done after that. Defence at our FARP is really lacking and ineffective, too. Not looking forward to this again.

The first round was a blast, you said. You managed to sling load quite a lot of crates and you guys even defended the airbases well. This time it's the other way around. Red had very aggressive tactics, pushed quickly with T-55's on Rosh Pina Airbase to prevent you from exactly doing what you wrote above and they succeeded at it. One T-55 held the airbase for 15-20 minutes (before troops were flown in) and not a single A-4 or F-5 bothered to take it out? You do that and you're back at it with deploying troops and sling loading crates. You guys destroyed lots of T-55's. The Gazelle in the beginning was very effective too.

Just checked out the tacview file. A total of 5 Hinds were shot down by F-5's. Not one Huey was shot down by any MiG! They were lost to T-55's and sometimes Hinds, nothing else.

I couldn't see my helicopters either. I mean, they're either at Kiryat Shmona ot Rosh Pina. Where else could they be?! Whenever they reported an F-5 roaming above them I sent some MiG's and that was it. In your case it's even easier. You're mostly flying between the FARP and Rosh Pina Airbase anyway.

Not a single MiG attacked your FARP. Some MiG's flew above the FARP chasing down an F-5 all the way to Ramat David to eventually get shot down by air defences. It doesn't mean they were coming after you.

Edited March 13, 2022 by Alpenwolf

[Giskvoosk]

Well the arabic force is fighting against rivals of IDF's caliber, the Red should expect israeli to conduct a strategic strike on the nuke crates when the photos of the target area are obtained. I always speak highly of our virtual IDF brothers in terms of strategic ISR. Prior to the first campaign, a 1:1 chemical-complex mock-up including the 3 identified nuclear weapon crates was built based off the photogenic intelligence. No less than 50 sorties were conducted should the nukes be eliminated in the first blow, which was expected to be within the first 15 minutes of the mission, turned out to be 22 minutes due to several human error from the sole striker F-5. By the way, a fail-safe plan was also discussed in case the nuke was delivered to Tha'lah.
Here I can share some early mission planning first scripted on 2nd March, now that the campaign is over:

Strike Package A demo:

 

ideal Blue EWR coverage & SAM ambush demo:

 

 

 

But why prioritize the denial of the third Red objective? The reason being deducted from available intel the Blue is at a disadvantage strategically:
A) Judging from the wargame simulated by our virtual IDF (again, prior to the first campaign), the aggression of the Hinds from either sides of the Bekaa Valley (both Naqoura and another FARP) can be hardly deterred effectively, not to mention the aggressing ground force and the presence of MiGs.  The Red was expected to have a upper hand over 2 bases in the valley in about 30~50 minutes earliest, however in the actual gameplay Mike Delta managed to stop that from happening despite the clear lack of F-5 CAP over the valley in the first hour of the first campaign.

B) The terrain masking provided by the mother nature greatly shorten the alert time against the nuke-striking MiG, should the MiG stay undetected by blue EWR until the final 25 mile sprint to Haifa industrial complex; furthermore a relatively low chance SAM interception is excepted even after it reaches west of Sea of Galilee. Later was verified via the mission file of the first campaign, Hawk site could neither managed to intercept nor even react to MiG-21 flying M1.1 NOE all the way towards the target, suffice to say it was one way ticket to Haifa .

On the other hand to effectively execute ground attack on 4 Red observatories, the Blue need to establish regional air superiority unfortunately that was not the case in the second campaign or the later half of the first one. The whole point of blinding the Red radar coverage is to conduct better fighter sweep in the AO for the ground pounders. For me as a striker/cap type of F-5 pylote there's absolutely no point of continuing the attack on observatories knowing the constant presence of 2 or more MiG over the Valley or near the Sea of Galilee, and the risk is too high to be justified. Nothing intended to "annoy" anyway although it might be perceived as such. There were way too much for the blue to handle, so desperate time desperate measure. Hope you could understand.

Hope to see the mission modified in a better form in regular rotation on the server.

IKEA 24-7

Edited March 13, 2022 by Giskvoosk
typo

[Alpenwolf]

First of all, you put a smile on my face with this thoughtful type of planning! I like that. And that's exactly what these missions should push players to do. Kudos, mate, and those involved! rossmum also has an incredible plan for operation Eye For an Eye, that we'll roll out again one day. That's exactly what these missions are for. Also, check out Dawger's attack and defence plan for operation The Desert Has Eyes.

The idea behind sling loading the nuke crates is only to make it not too easy for Red to just grab the bombs and go for striking. The nukes could've had been transferred during the night with low visibility for any jet of that era if I had wanted nukes to be there instantly. Instead, I came up with this sling loading task to yet again give players the incentive to get something done. You know, "work hard and reward yourself". Pretty much like sling loading ammo crates to rearm (activate) MiG-29's/F-14's in other missions or complete your SEAD tasking in operation Eye For an Eye to go out on a nuke bombing mission. That's the idea behind it and not really for Blue to strike, otherwise I would've made it very clear for Blue to leave everything and go after the nuke crates. Not your fault though, you did what you had to do and saved the day from any nukes. That I must say. It's up to me to maybe change something or leave it as it is. I'll see what I can do and announce any changes.

Good flying yesterday, mate. You were very effective!

Edited March 13, 2022 by Alpenwolf

[Giskvoosk]

1 hour ago, Alpenwolf said:

First of all, you put a smile on my face with this thoughtful type of planning! I like that. And that's exactly what these missions should push players to do. Kudos, mate, and those involved! rossmum also has an incredible plan for operation Eye For an Eye, that we'll roll out again one day. That's exactly what these missions are for. Also, check out Dawger's attack and defence plan for operation The Desert Has Eyes.

The idea behind sling loading the nuke crates is only to make it not too easy for Red to just grab the bombs and go for striking. The nukes could've had been transferred during the night with low visibility for any jet of that era if I had wanted nukes to be there instantly. Instead, I came up with this sling loading task to yet again give players the incentive to get something done. You know, "work hard and reward yourself". Pretty much like sling loading ammo crates to rearm (activate) MiG-29's/F-14's in other missions or complete your SEAD tasking in operation Eye For an Eye to go out on a nuke bombing mission. That's the idea behind it and not really for Blue to strike, otherwise I would've made it very clear for Blue to leave everything and go after the nuke crates. Not your fault though, you did what you had to do and saved the day from any nukes. That I must say. It's up to me to maybe change something or leave it as it is. I'll see what I do and announce any changes.

Good flying yesterday, mate. You were very effective!

Just read through the post. Rossmum what a mad lad he was in that mission

Good job commanding the Redfor both yesterday and the previous weekend! From the opposing side I've been enjoying every minute of the missions.

[=475FG= Dawger]

I found the mission fairly frustrating due to very poor radar coverage for Blue.

To illustrate the point I created these radar Line of Sight images based upon the actual locations of the EWR antennas in the mission. They show radar line of sight at 100 feet AGL. The coverage at lower altitudes is significantly smaller but I think 100 AGL gives an adequate picture of the issue.

One would think Blue would have a few more strategically located EWR systems.

As you can see, there is a bit of a disparity.

Edited March 13, 2022 by =475FG= Dawger

[Alpenwolf]

2 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

I found the mission fairly frustrating due to very poor radar coverage for Blue.

To illustrate the point I created these radar Line of Sight images based upon the actual locations of the EWR antennas in the mission. They show radar line of sight at 100 feet AGL. The coverage at lower altitudes is significantly smaller but I think 100 AGL gives an adequate picture of the issue.

One would think Blue would have a few more strategically located EWR systems.

As you can see, there is a bit of a disparity.

 

EWR's in DCS don't work like that though. Your EWR's cover Blue areas and slightly further east. Red EWR's cover Red areas and slightly further west. Red areas are naturally larger than Blue areas. You're not flying around Red airbases or anywhere near them anyway. Most fights are across the borderline where the TA's are mostly found.

EWR's in DCS don't cover only the highlighted areas as displayed by you like that. They're not that perfect or accurate. They quite often ignore terrain obstacles. As someone who flies helicopters a lot like myself I can only assure you of that. I'd be hovering in a valley in the Ka-50 for instance, and still F-5's get the call and jump me. Happened way too often to say the least.

Red EWR's are the target. If lost, Red players are literally blind and are only dependent on a human GCI operator if that happens and it did happen in both rounds. That's when I barely had eyes in some areas and couldn't provide good BRAA's. Blue EWR however was up throughout the entire session. Same thing in round 1.

There is a reason why things are setup differently and assets are not distributed equally. I thought that was clear by now as it is the case in most missions, especially, when the objectives are the not the same.

[=475FG= Dawger]

3 hours ago, Alpenwolf said:

EWR's in DCS don't work like that though. Your EWR's cover Blue areas and slightly further east. Red EWR's cover Red areas and slightly further west. Red areas are naturally larger than Blue areas. You're not flying around Red airbases or anywhere near them anyway. Most fights are across the borderline where the TA's are mostly found.

EWR's in DCS don't cover only the highlighted areas as displayed by you like that. They're not that perfect or accurate. They quite often ignore terrain obstacles. As someone who flies helicopters a lot like myself I can only assure you of that. I'd be hovering in a valley in the Ka-50 for instance, and still F-5's get the call and jump me. Happened way too often to say the least.

Red EWR's are the target. If lost, Red players are literally blind and are only dependent on a human GCI operator if that happens and it did happen in both rounds. That's when I barely had eyes in some areas and couldn't provide good BRAA's. Blue EWR however was up throughout the entire session. Same thing in round 1.

There is a reason why things are setup differently and assets are not distributed equally. I thought that was clear by now as it is the case in most missions, especially, when the objectives are the not the same.

The maps reflect my experience in the mission pretty closely, from flying several sorties and sitting in the JTAC slot for Blue.

Also, I have done these same sort of maps for several other missions and developed strike routes based on them. Flying those developed strike routes also closely matched the data created with maps like these, based upon what the RWR in the aircraft is indicating.

Terrain masking certainly works and LOS seems to be the primary factor at play in radar detection.

As an example, below is a map with a route I worked up for Into the Desert. You can see several spots along the route that cross red areas on the map. I flew the route in the server in the last two weeks. In those locations, the RWR indicated detection, outside of those areas the RWR was clean.

I am pretty confident in the accuracy of the maps.

[Alpenwolf]

44 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

The maps reflect my experience in the mission pretty closely, from flying several sorties and sitting in the JTAC slot for Blue.

Also, I have done these same sort of maps for several other missions and developed strike routes based on them. Flying those developed strike routes also closely matched the data created with maps like these, based upon what the RWR in the aircraft is indicating.

Terrain masking certainly works and LOS seems to be the primary factor at play in radar detection.

As an example, below is a map with a route I worked up for Into the Desert. You can see several spots along the route that cross red areas on the map. I flew the route in the server in the last two weeks. In those locations, the RWR indicated detection, outside of those areas the RWR was clean.

I am pretty confident in the accuracy of the maps.

It's the accuracy of the EWR I'm talking about. Not the map. Not sure what you mean by "the accuracy of the map" to be honest.

In yesterday's mission, the Blue EWR was there constantly and it's placed on top of a hill overlooking the entire eastern borderline. You really don't need more than that, although you do see further east as stated above.

"I found the mission fairly frustrating due to very poor radar coverage for Blue". Are you telling me the EWR was that bad it barely responded to any calls?! Didn't hear any complaints the first round or this round from anyone else. No one wrote anything during the mission in the chat window either.

[MMI_Grim]

How do you guys like the A-4?

I played around with it a bit, its a beautiful module. A nice little bomb truck with lots of flexibility.

Have to work on the ground handling to be honest. Any tips on that? 

Edited March 14, 2022 by MMI_Grim