@kouzi said in AIM-9 trail smoke position wrong:
@MaxWaldorf
hi,MaxWaldorf
here some reference pictures
kouzi
On the last the “smoke” is contrail as I can judge.
@kouzi said in AIM-9 trail smoke position wrong:
@MaxWaldorf
hi,MaxWaldorf
here some reference pictures
kouzi
On the last the “smoke” is contrail as I can judge.
@Radium said in Sukhoi Su-27/30/33/35 Shenyang J-11/J-15/J-16:
@molnibalage No.
Your statement was :
So far in every Falcon version I could see non existing pylon and loadout settings for the red jets. The accurate use of the line 4x and 6x MERs never existed. The LGBs were used on a dual pylon which never existed etc.
You implied as always that :
- You know everything about Russian and WAPA systems,
- We are doing shit all the time.
- You are free to do what you want with it for your theaters.
- I will not miss this dicks lenght competitions.
Radium
I still do not get your attitude.
You take every comment or simply question about shortcomings or issues as a personal insult. Here was a QUESTION and your reaction was what it was…
Where was not any “dicks lenght competitions” from my side.
I’m far far being everything about Russian weapons systems. But I’m a bit tired about the sate that simply a ready to apply changes are not applied since ages…
Even just adding two skins or swap a dat file to another.
The point of my comment after 20+ years it would be great to have a solid core DB and not a case where everybody has to play AGAIN and EVERYTIME the DB to have a more or less accurate environment. Which leads to MP incompatibility.
The case is the same just as was in 2007 or anytime.
I open the game and I still see the 3 KAB/station on a pylon what never existed.
But it is hard to speak or discuss about anything where first reaction of a QUESTION is just the usual. I know the language barrier can be hard but so hard…???
I simply wished to check the loadout of the planes in the package because if the current ones are used, it could be improved.
@Atsalis said in Air Defence Radar Stations Network in BMS:
This is an example of radar coverage, and the way it is affected by the terrain shape.
And then I dream of this button in UI map, showing the coverage OF EACH ground radar separately, at certain altitudes that we would chose for our mission planning, instead of the coverage we have nowadays as seen below…
The UI simply does not show the low level / terrain effect. It shows the high alt long range circles.
@pgk007 said in SA10 vs SDB or JSOW:
@molnibalage
One of our best OSINT analysts Jarosław Wolski said it this after the UA Kherson offensive
Please link to us.
@repvez said in On what grounds would you wish 4.37 to be developped?:
Europe theatre would be nice. And It would be nice also If it wouldn’t have a 128x128 limitation and this way we can use the whole Europe land. Everybody can use it same time . Most of the virtual squadrons would have its own airfield and they could visiting each other also like in the real world. Relocation for missions or trainings support.
ATO have issues even smaller theaters. N+1 times has been explained to you which this is pointless, especially that in a NATO vs WPACT or in most of conflicts the size of the theater would be too large and pointless.
In fact I guess there is an objective qty. limitation which such a large and dense map brings more and more problems…