Rex

I periodically get hit with a bug in the ME where the ME thinks the right mouse button is being held down, when it is not. How do I know it's not a problem with the mouse? Because I swap out mice and it doesn't change. Also, if the right mouse button was stuck, I would have trouble doing most anything in Windows. When this happens, I have to switch tasks and kill -9 the DCS task from the task manager. I can't select menu items properly, but I CAN CTL+S, and the mouse briefly goes back to normal for about .5 seconds as the disk write is actually taking place. Very strange. As bugs go, it's perhaps the most uncommon one I've encountered. Over the past 4 years, this bug has bitten me between 10-15 times, but it's not been frequent enough where I could spot a correlation with a particular action on my part. Just FYI.

May I please have the 109 that this guy gets?

It doesn't really matter how much I like or don't like it, if you call people unmanly for using MW-50, it's probably fair game. If you want a "historically accurate" Normandy Summer 1944 mission, you'll be flying around Normandy largely unopposed, mostly strafing ground targets. If the point is to fly against other humans, outnumbered and with disadvantaged DCS planes will be a tough sell to motivate them to provide that opposition for you. As regardless how historically-accurate it is, most people just don't relish being cannon-fodder for other people. And while I get what you're going for, insulting you potential opponents is likely not going to make a lot of them want to give it a try. Especially when a large percentage of the DCS community is already too intimated to fly MP as it is. Fair enough, but who are you going to get to fly them? Newsflash, you aren't the only one who enjoys prevailing every now and then, and I think you're seriously overestimating the number of DCS pilots who are chomping at the bit to be your foil. Hell, with the K-4 we can barely get a decent Axis side going for very long, how do you think it's going to be with an older 109? Again, I get what you're saying, but the Axis in DCS isn't being forced to fly under threat of being court martialed. They'll only do it if they enjoy it. This is the achilles heel of "historical realism". Everyone trips over themselves to be on the winning side, leaving very unbalanced contests. I doubt making it even more unbalanced is going to improve this. You'll probably have to be content with flying against AI planes, which I suppose isn't always terrible, but there likely won't be enough Axis planes on SRS to team up, and after getting shot down three times in a row by Allied team tactics, chances are, you'll see a disconnect message and never see that pilot again. At least on the Axis side. We can argue all day whether this is right or wrong, or represents character flaws in these Axis pilots, but it doesn't matter. It's what will likely happen, and efforts to shame them in the forums for doing so will likely be unsuccessful. Of course, I could be wrong, but you might at least want to consider it. Careful now, it sounds like I may not be the only one obsessed with make appendages. DCS folks skew significantly older than games in general, and most of them have wives, kids, jobs, etc. They don't care if they're "called out". I'm sure some do, but generally speaking. With the exception of certain hours during the weekend, you've pretty much summed up the current reality of the WW2 server situation. People have already taken your advice. You win. Well done. LOL, original. Do you mind if I ask how old you are? I'm just curious. See you're the one who began whining about your outnumbered opponents having an advantage. If anyone else does the same, it's a "skill issue", but somehow, your whining is an example of impeccable skill, and you seem to be completely unaware of the weird self-serving hypocrisy. And once again, I just offer my own observation. People who are genuinely skilled in any given endeavor tend to have humility, not all, but probably most. Perhaps you're a rare exception, but I reiterate, I've never encountered anyone who uses phrases like "get good" who was anywhere as good as they wanted people to think. If I'm wrong, then I'm happy for your skill, but the fact is, most people aren't good at flying planes that were made 50 years before they were born, and aren't really motivated to do so with people like you running around saying "get good" because frankly, they can be challenging planes to fly well, and not much fun when people are crapping on you. One has to start somewhere, though, and in my humble opinion, people like you are chronic repellents to that potential. Which is kind of a shame. Unless you really, really love flying against AI. Yeah, what DD_Fruitbat said. Nobody wants to fly with me. Thanks for rubbing it in Fruitbat, if that is your real name. P.S. Nobody reads my posts. Unless they're severely mentally disturbed.

Well sure, when the opportunity presents itself I do exactly that. Participation can get really low, though, Axis is typically worse than allies, and often he few people on aren't using SRS. But the times they are (which also happens), all of the MW50 planes tend to get snapped up first. And why wouldn't they? Why would I not want to use MW50? Why would I NOT want the 400 extra horsepower? Group tactics vs MW-50 ... what does one have to do with the other? Most pilots do both when they can. They're not really related. As far as not using MW-50, I could dogfight in the F/A-18 without using afterburner too, I'm just not sure what the point would be. Because some guy on the forums says I have a small willy if I use afterburner? I gotta be honest with you, it's just not a compelling enough reason. What do I care if my opponent doesn't like what I do? That's a good thing. And if we ever hope to attract more people to the WW2 servers, chances are, they're going to probably use MW50. I'm not going to come on the forums and insult them. I'd hope the rest of you wouldn't either. Every really really good DCS pilot I've met has had humility. I haven't met one that's worth a damn who insults the less skilled pilots. They certainly don't hang out on the forums telling other people how <profanity>ty and unmanly they are. That's just not something that skilled people tend to do.

LOL, yeah, no kidding Einstein, you really cracked this case wide open <shrug> Although then again, not really. I suck with our without WEP. WEP just makes me suck a little less, and it allows me to keep my engine running based on the fact that I practice with it. We didn't all pop out of our mothers baby makers with the innate skills of flying a WW2 fighter, and there weren't many WW2 pilots with 70 hour/week jobs in a completely separate area, so yeah ... undoubtedly a skill issue. Hell, who am I kidding, if I did this full time I would still suck. I have the gonads of a mere mortal. It could also be my frilly pink dress dampening my coordination. But seriously, preferring the ability to have WEP if needed is a "skill issue"? I would imagine that the best pilot in the world would prefer to have it. Yeah, it's about 250 extra kg, akin to carrying a medium-sized bomb, but it gets lighter as it's used and it's also 400 extra HP. I understand why the Allies don't want us to have it ... but then again, that's a skill issue on their side. (which you neglected to mention ... oversight I'm sure) You know, I always wondered the WW2 servers were so terribly underpopulated, but in the course of one thread, you solved this mystery as well. There are just not enough manly men like yourselves out there to fill out both sides. Oh well, at least you have each other to play with. By the way, which one of you is in charge of bringing the ruler? Sorry, I meant, yardstick, I totally meant yardstick. There's not a ruler been made that could measure the meat sabres on you guys. Oh dear, somewhere in this world there's a middle-aged woman (or man) who's in for the 45-second ride of her (or his) life tonight. Be gentle, fellas, Martha (or Mitch) is not as young as she (or he) used to be. "WEP? WEP? I don't need no steeeeeeeenking WEP!!!! I can take on any comer at half throttle! Quarter throttle! Hell, as a glider! Just give me two or three wingmen, and we'll totally take the enemy down! That guy doesn't have the skill or testosterone to defeat the four of us! It's historically accurate you know!" - Skewgear (slightly paraphrased)

Never played War Thunder a single time, but even if I had, you're spouting rules you have no ability to enforce. You'll get the mentality you get, and beyond whining about it online, will be powerless to change it. I fly DCS for enjoyment. You're the one crying because Bf-109 pilots use MW-50. "Waaaaah, the enemy uses War Emergency Power, they're not manly like me, waaah, it's all because they're unskilled, waaah, and they deserve to be outnumbered because I'm me and they're not, waaaah" ... yeah, real manly. Sorry ladies, he's taken! I'll continue to use MW-50, because I get more enjoyment out of being able to use WEP ... especially when I'm outnumbered. Historical accuracy always comes second to my personal enjoyment, because, fortunately, I fly as a hobby on my free time, and not in defense of a nation in a war. Of course, it's always the guys who always had the enemy outnumbered during the war that are always the ones screaming "historical accuracy" because it favors you. Not really a complex psychological profile. Real Jagdwaffe veterans flew outnumbered because they had no choice. Exactly zero of them would have done so on their free time for their personal enjoyment. I'm very confident that they would understand perfectly. And if your really going for historical accuracy, you probably shouldn't have any opponents at all since the Luftwaffe wasn't around much during the Battle of Normandy. Hey, that should be fun for you! You can win every battle! Or just spawn all of the Luftwaffe planes pre-crashed, and you guys could spend the session bragging over SRS about how you totally wiped out the enemy just like in real life! GOOD TIMES! I mean, why re-fight it, it's already been decided, amirite? And you won! YAY! Historical accuracy for the martha focking win!!!! USA! USA! Come on, everybody now, USA! USA! you folks in the back I can't HEAR YOU! USA! USA! USA! USA! Ah yeah, that's the shiznit right there! But get down on your hands and knees and thank your creator the Allies had the enemy outnumber because pilot vs pilot, the Luftwaffe waxed Allied fanny to a fine mirror polish. Now, look, you're wasting valuable time that could be spent for making excuses for the top allied ace having only 40 kills while the Luftwaffe had 77 pilots with 100 or more kills. "They had more enemies to shoot! uh uh, the soviet pilots were bad!, oh wait there were triple-digit german aces in the west too, um, it was MW-50, yeah, that's it, the MW-50 did it which means the Krauts were actually girls!, real men would have flown without MW-50, and without wings too! ... uh wait, the Allies only went after bombers, uh, uh different tactics yeah different tactics, uh uh look over there, a bear in a tutu doing the Macarena ... yoink, haha I win! made you look! ..." Egads man, come on, we need you here DD_Fendrir (if that is your real name). What we need is a historian like yourself to straighten this mess out!

I think it has more to do with always being significantly outnumbered on MP servers. I fly the 109 and cannot remember the last time I fought 1 vs 1, it’s usually me vs 2 or 3, and we need all the HP we can just to survive. Then you always have some Douche screaming “coward! He’s running away! Man up and fight fair and square ’ Because in real life all Luftwaffe pilots gladly participated in 3 vs 1 fights If Red ever gets numbers, Blue disconnects en-massse. You oh-so-brave uber-fighters who need travel pods just to hold your testes only get mouthy when you have numbers. “No thanks, I don’t want 400 extra HP, I’m a real man!” I guess real manly fighters in your world are mentally challenged. Real men argue that his opponents should give up benefits to make it easier for the real man to win. As if you’d willingly do the same. Hey, you want us to refuse to re-arm too? Is more than half a tank of fuel unmanly? How about we only fight with flare guns? I bet real men could fight with nothing but their flares. ‘Not self-serving at all. Should we all ask our opponent’s advice on how to configure our airplanes? I mean, it’s always the other guy that has too much power, right? You ever hear anyone say ‘dammit, I have too much power and it’s unfair to my opponents”? If you can’t win in the current Spit, and win often, with or without your opponent using MW50, the problem is you, not us feminine 109 pilots. There’s two dozen Spit guys out there that make minced meat out of every 109 that has the misfortune of crossing their path. Don’t ask me how I know. Count me as one who will ALWAYS take an Mw50 plane if one is available, and hate it if I have to fly one without. Main reason is I fly with it 99% of the time, and have little experience without it, so I end up blowing up my engine. There are only so many hours ins day, I don’t get to fly full time like a real pilot, and I simply lack the requisite time to brassily my testicles to your clearly-high standards.

I'm more partial to sed and awk, but I understood your point and it worked. Thank you very much!

It would greatly help if we could abort a load that was just not happening. For instance, I've been stuck here for 20 minutes: 2024-04-08 04:24:05.236 WARNING BACKENDCOMMON (12032): Need to reprocess [DDS] image '/textures/land_rover_101_fc_exterior_Normal.dds' 2024-04-08 04:24:12.595 ERROR LUA-TERRAIN (Main): getObjectPosition: object is not exists 2024-04-08 04:24:12.687 WARNING LOG (28412): 1 duplicate message(s) skipped. 2024-04-08 04:24:12.687 ALERT LUACOMMON (Main): Error: GUI Error: [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_mission.lua"]:1996: bad argument #1 to 'loadstring' (string expected, got nil) GUI debug.traceback: stack traceback: [C]: ? [C]: in function 'loadstring' [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_mission.lua"]:1996: in function 'load' [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_toolbar.lua"]:594: in function 'func' [string "./Scripts/UI/ProgressBarDialog.lua"]:140: in function 'updater' [string "./Scripts/UpdateManager.lua"]:64: in function <[string "./Scripts/UpdateManager.lua"]:40> And I'm going to have to change tasks and kill -9 the DCS task. It would help if we could just exit out of a load that wasn't working ... for whatever reason. Or better yet, the load itself should time out after a sane amount of time, 90 or whatever, instead of hanging for eternity.

This is the error I see in the logs when trying to save it (I tried 3 times in succession): 2024-04-08 00:50:17.065 INFO EDTERRAIN4 (21900): ITerrainContextImpl4::setTrafficDecimation(0) 2024-04-08 00:50:17.065 INFO EDTERRAIN4 (21900): ITerrainContextImpl4::setDate( day=1, month=7) 2024-04-08 00:50:17.065 INFO EDTERRAIN4 (21900): ITerrainContextImpl4::setTextureMode(full=1) 2024-04-08 00:50:17.066 WARNING SCENE (21900): Scene was removed with 102 alive objects 2024-04-08 00:50:17.081 ERROR LUA-TERRAIN (Main): getObjectPosition: object is not exists 2024-04-08 00:50:17.169 WARNING LOG (20056): 1 duplicate message(s) skipped. 2024-04-08 00:50:17.169 WARNING VISUALIZER (21900): terrainSampleOptions aren't set for DemoScene with terrain rendering 2024-04-08 00:50:34.943 WARNING LOG (20056): 2 duplicate message(s) skipped. 2024-04-08 00:50:34.943 INFO LuaGUI (Main): Loading Static Template: Ships - Post-Invasion.stm 2024-04-08 00:50:51.308 ALERT LUACOMMON (Main): Error: GUI Error: [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_mission.lua"]:3955: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value) GUI debug.traceback: stack traceback: [C]: ? [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_mission.lua"]:3955: in function 'unload_static_groups' [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_mission.lua"]:4282: in function 'unload' [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_mission.lua"]:4445: in function <[string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_mission.lua"]:4432> (tail call): ? [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_toolbar.lua"]:767: in function 'saveMission' [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_menubar.lua"]:777: in function 'func' [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_menubar.lua"]:261: in function 'onChange' [string "./dxgui/bind/Menu.lua"]:26: in function 'callback' [string "./dxgui/bind/Widget.lua"]:368: in function <[string "./dxgui/bind/Widget.lua"]:363> 2024-04-08 00:53:02.590 ALERT LUACOMMON (Main): Error: GUI Error: [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_mission.lua"]:3955: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value) GUI debug.traceback: stack traceback: [C]: ? [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_mission.lua"]:3955: in function 'unload_static_groups' [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_mission.lua"]:4282: in function 'unload' [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_mission.lua"]:4445: in function <[string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_mission.lua"]:4432> (tail call): ? [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_toolbar.lua"]:767: in function 'saveMission' [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_menubar.lua"]:777: in function 'a_fun' [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_menubar.lua"]:222: in function 'hotCallback' [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_menubar.lua"]:229: in function <[string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_menubar.lua"]:229> 2024-04-08 00:53:06.290 ALERT LUACOMMON (Main): Error: GUI Error: [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_mission.lua"]:3955: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value) GUI debug.traceback: stack traceback: [C]: ? [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_mission.lua"]:3955: in function 'unload_static_groups' [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_mission.lua"]:4282: in function 'unload' [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_mission.lua"]:4445: in function <[string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_mission.lua"]:4432> (tail call): ? [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_toolbar.lua"]:767: in function 'saveMission' [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_menubar.lua"]:777: in function 'func' [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_menubar.lua"]:261: in function 'onChange' [string "./dxgui/bind/Menu.lua"]:26: in function 'callback' [string "./dxgui/bind/Widget.lua"]:368: in function <[string "./dxgui/bind/Widget.lua"]:363> 2024-04-08 00:55:14.900 ERROR_ONCE DX11BACKEND (20444): texture 'soldier_wwii_us_spec' not found. Asked from '' 2024-04-08 00:55:14.903 WARNING BACKENDCOMMON (20236): Need to reprocess [DDS] image '/textures/shovel_summer_normal.dds' 2024-04-08 00:55:14.907 WARNING BACKENDCOMMON (20448): Need to reprocess [DDS] image '/textures/jerrycan_summer_normal.dds' I obviously can't attach the mission file since it's an empty file.

I've been playing with manual prop pitch, trying to eek outa bit more speed, but I'm a little confused. Everything I read says higher RPM = more power = faster, but given that the blade bites less of the air, I don't understand why this is. Does anyone know how to use the manual prop pitch to get more speed than you can get with the auto setting? I keep thinking back to this excerpt I snipped a couple of years ago (from where I forgot to record):

Do yourself a favor. Get this tool called "JoyPro": https://github.com/Holdi601/JoystickProfiler Grim Reapers has a YouTube video on how to use it, but you can use it to configure all of your devices for all of your planes at once, and backup the config. It will save you a ton of time and effort. P.S. Here is the GR video. I love this guy's videos. He's made DCS so much more of a joy to fly for me.

Awesome, thank you!

I don't think they lowered the resolution on 1.0, but you're doing yourself a significant disservice by not upgrading to 2.0 Not trying to be flippant about finances, I'm not rich and I know budgets can be tight, but the upgrade is grossly underpriced IMHO. The addition of London and Paris alone is worth three times the upgrade price. The level of detail is so different we're lucky to even get an "upgrade" price. Get it, quick, before they realize their mistake. When I was a small child, my mother used to tell me, "Rex, some day you must avenge Germany's terribly loss, but you must do it virtually, using the technology of days to come." It wasn't until Normandy 2.0 came out that I truly understood just what she meant. Now, I drop Spitfires like Dave Chapelle drop microphones ... I drop Thunderbolts like well-fed horses drop road apples ... I drop Mustangs like Justin Timberlake drops panties ... I drop ... well, you get the idea. Join us, and may the force be with you!

I make labels for all of the airfields in Normandy 2.0, and I had Biggin Hill labelled as having 14 slots for AI fighters, but I just used it today and found that it has 20 slots. That's still quite a bit fewer Manston, Kenley, Lymington, Gravesend, etc, but it's still more than I thought. With that said, Biggin Hill does have a whopping 10 ammo stations, which is massive, and speaks to a possible greater importance. I am admittedly quite new to WWII history, so forgive the likely-stupid question, but how major of an airfield was Biggin Hill in reality? I always thought Manston swung the biggest beef jerky in Southern England given it's location to the mainland, but I could be wrong.

I created a new mission and spent an hour+ designing Blue WW2 airplane groups, Nothing at all out of the ordinary. Just fourships of Mustangs, Spitfires, and Thunderbolts, configured for CAP, CAS, Fighter Sweep, bomber formations, etc. Fairly standard stuff, but I figured I could save myself some time for future missions. The most complicated thing in it was a Big Bomber formation of 4 x 4 (16) bombers, and a fourship of Mustangs/Thunderbolts escorting each bomber group (so 16 fighters in total escorting). When I was finished, I saved my groups as a template. Then I fired up my main mission, loaded the template, and only part of the template loaded. I tried to delete the units it had placed and try again, but I couldn't delete some of the units I had placed with the template. I could edit the ones I could not delete, but not delete them. I deleted everything I could, then restarted DCS, but noticed the mission I had loaded the template into now had 0 bytes. It nuked the entire mission. This is what the log has to say when I try to load the template: 2024-02-29 07:50:34.186 INFO EDTERRAINGRAPHICS41 (12872): ClipmapGraphics::init("colortexture") 2024-02-29 07:50:34.207 INFO EDTERRAINGRAPHICS41 (12872): ClipmapGraphics::init("splatmap") 2024-02-29 07:51:02.333 INFO LuaGUI (Main): Loading Static Template: Aircraft - BLUE.stm 2024-02-29 07:51:02.419 ALERT LUACOMMON (Main): Error: GUI Error: [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_mission.lua"]:2810: attempt to perform arithmetic on field '?' (a nil value) GUI debug.traceback: stack traceback: [C]: ? [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_mission.lua"]:2810: in function 'createStaticTemplateObjects' [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_staticTemplate.lua"]:228: in function 'load' [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_staticTemplateLoad.lua"]:193: in function 'onChange' [string "./dxgui/bind/Button.lua"]:22: in function 'callback' [string "./dxgui/bind/Widget.lua"]:368: in function <[string "./dxgui/bind/Widget.lua"]:363> And that is exactly where the log ends.

I forgot to set my 1,000+ units (mostly ground units and statics) as "Hidden". Is there anything I can do that won't take hours of menial manual clicking labor?

Ahhhh, okay, got it. Thank you!

I own Flaming Cliffs 3, but I can't figure out how to download the new update?

Oh yes, I forgot about the in-game encyclopedia! Definitely should have checked that. It's weird, it's the only boat I can't really find anything from Google about. Anyway, thanks!

I can't find information on this boat type anywhere.

Gotcha, that makes perfect sense, thank you! BTW, I got the 6-12 guns/battery from ChatGPT. In fact, I just asked again, and now it thinks they "generally consisted" of 12. I don't think it's quite ready to take over the world User How many guns did a typical German Light FLAK battery have in Normandy in 1944? ChatGPT A typical German light Flak (anti-aircraft) battery in Normandy around 1944 generally consisted of 12 guns. These were often the 20mm Flak 38 anti-aircraft guns, organized into three platoons with four guns each. However, the exact number could vary depending on the specific unit, location, and time during the war.

Normandy 2.0 map. Attempting to load a static template made up of Allied WW2 Aircraft (mostly spits, mustangs, and jugs). 2024-01-27 22:32:42.272 ALERT LUACOMMON (Main): Error: GUI Error: [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_mission.lua"]:2809: attempt to perform arithmetic on field '?' (a nil value) GUI debug.traceback: stack traceback: [C]: ? [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_mission.lua"]:2809: in function 'createStaticTemplateObjects' [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_staticTemplate.lua"]:222: in function 'onChange' [string "./dxgui/bind/MsgWindow.lua"]:99: in function 'callback' [string "./dxgui/bind/Widget.lua"]:368: in function <[string "./dxgui/bind/Widget.lua"]:363> [C]: in function 'WidgetSetVisible' [string "./dxgui/bind/Widget.lua"]:69: in function 'setVisible' [string "./dxgui/bind/MsgWindow.lua"]:153: in function 'show' [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_staticTemplate.lua"]:225: in function 'load' [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_staticTemplateLoad.lua"]:193: in function 'onChange' [string "./dxgui/bind/Button.lua"]:22: in function 'callback' [string "./dxgui/bind/Widget.lua"]:368: in function <[string "./dxgui/bind/Widget.lua"]:363> 2024-01-27 22:33:35.833 ALERT LUACOMMON (Main): Error: GUI Error: [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_route.lua"]:2426: attempt to concatenate local 'action' (a nil value) GUI debug.traceback: stack traceback: [C]: ? [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_route.lua"]:2426: in function 'waypointActionToType' [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_mission.lua"]:920: in function 'fixWaypointForGroup' [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_mission.lua"]:2887: in function 'createStaticTemplateObjects' [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_staticTemplate.lua"]:222: in function 'onChange' [string "./dxgui/bind/MsgWindow.lua"]:99: in function 'callback' [string "./dxgui/bind/Widget.lua"]:368: in function <[string "./dxgui/bind/Widget.lua"]:363> [C]: in function 'WidgetSetVisible' [string "./dxgui/bind/Widget.lua"]:69: in function 'setVisible' [string "./dxgui/bind/MsgWindow.lua"]:153: in function 'show' [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_staticTemplate.lua"]:225: in function 'load' [string "./MissionEditor/modules/me_staticTemplateLoad.lua"]:193: in function 'onChange' [string "./dxgui/bind/Button.lua"]:22: in function 'callback' [string "./dxgui/bind/Widget.lua"]:368: in function <[string "./dxgui/bind/Widget.lua"]:363>

I know that this is a four year-old post, but it came up in a search, so forgive me. I have the "Luftwaffe in France" doc too, and I use it for mission building also. One thing that's always confused me was how they define a "Flak Position". For instance is that one gun or an entire battery? If almost seems like a position == 1 gun, because, for instance, if they are talking about batteries, then most light batteries had 6 -12 guns. I think. If we take an average of 8, and then multiply that by "21 light Flak" positions at Abbeville, that would equal 168 20mm guns at Abbeville alone. 168 guns within 3km of the center of the airfield. I could be wrong, but that seems excessive. Especially given that there were only 14 heavy guns. I'm more inclined to think that there were 21 of said guns. Does anyone know?

I don't fully understands what the NOTE text means. Does this mean "while using MW-50" or simply "If the MW-50 system is installed"? It would seem to be the latter, although I don't know that it makes sense, as all K4s were capable of using MW50 (I think), meaning the Take-Off and WEP were never relevant, so why are they even there? It's confusing. D God help you online if you can never go past 1.35. You're going to make the Allies, who typically greatly outnumber you, very happy.