Rainmaker

That’s an incorrect statement. The one sensor lacking is SE is the TGP, and that’s because its still using ‘unadjusted’ coordinates as the pod always knows true coords. The other sensors are tied to the nav info provided by the jet.

Key word there. ‘Future party agreements’. You know that RB signed one? If you don’t best for everyone not to hang their hat on it over and over as no one aside from the parties involved know if that even applies. It keeps getting repeated over and over as if it’s gospel.

GBUs have quite a bit more range IRL than their slick counterparts. Beyond that, yes, a lot of issues are being made bigger than they are due to everyone wanting to release at the edge of the envelope vs waiting for the ‘in zone’ cue which allows for the additional maneuvering. The aft stations exhibit some additional problems vs the others, but again, can be mitigated by not trying to send them at max ranges. Convincing people to do it is another story though. As far as dumb weapons are concerned, can be lots of things. Can also be improper designations, lack of proper use of AGR ranging, etc which falls on the user. Just saying they fall long or short is almost like saying nothing at all.

To the point, it all certainly comes down to legal matters in which case, its all decided by the court, not parties involved. Not one going ‘I’m keeping money because….’ The initial statement probably had to be made at some point as the modules were losing support if things had just gone dark, it was in no way going to work in RB’s favor. The mobs would have just assumed that there was no work being done, the company was getting paid, and just not producing any results. Obviously, it has somewhat come to light that is not the case. There is obviously more to that single narrative that would have been the initial thoughts. Again, party B has almost admitted to the fact that money is not changing hands. Whether either party handled it correctly is up for debate. But, to the point of my initial post where ai quoted you, asking why it was still for sale and laying that in RB’s lap as a responsibility is poor as they don’t own the store front. We’ve already seen a host of issues with the store when it was put on sale, etc when it should not have been. It can be derived by comments from both parties that money was/is not going to RB at the current time. Would you want someone being able to take/utilize profits at your expense when you are not being compensated at the moment? Would you continue to support something knowing future sales are still being withheld? I certainly wouldn’t. If in fact its being withheld because of a completely different product based on different circumstances, without a legal decision to do so, that should tell you a lot of what you need to know at this point. Holding things for ‘ransom’ to circumvent legal action if you think someone is in IP violation, specially when it doesn’t involve said product, is a poor way of doing business, regardless of who is right or wrong in the court of law that is in no way decided yet.

So if one was withholding payments to someone based on supposed IP infringement based on a completely unrelated module/modules, I think we are already past the point of going tit for tat on things. That ship has sailed.

I don’t understand your post’s relevance here. I commented about the module still being for sale. Lets do simple math here. - Entity A says they have not been paid. - Entity B makes no denial of withgolding payment. - likely equals entity A not being paid. -Entity B makes claim of IP infringement. Likely the justification being used to withold payment. ‘IP infringement’ being something typically decided by a judge in a court of law. You see any rulings around here? Or are we using the ‘it is because I said so’ rule of law? So far, that’s the only actual ruling. - Entity A stops support due to not being paid for work. Again, no denial from opposing party that money is not changing hands. - Entity B continues to sell module on store and presumably make income from said module. Entity A seeing apparently seeing no percentage from sales. Again, based on ‘IP infringement’ not decided in court of law, only by an involved party. Again, there was blame being put at an entity that doesn’t control the store and apparently is seeing no money from sales. That makes sense how exactly?

Who you think controls the store? So whom is happily still accepting money for them? These kinds of questions take about 2 seconds of thought.

Actually no, it doesnt really sound that way IRL. It does dissipate too much in game too quickly, but wouldnt do it in the way you describe. The sound is vary much impacted by line of sight. Current operation is also very much a DCS-ism.

There isn’t a button bind to enable steering…only disable.

That’s due to a long-standing bug where you can’t have axis inputs when designating. The work around is to lead the target and let the vehicle come to the crosshairs.

Durandals are and have been bugged since the beginning. They have tons of internal core issues. Until some of that stuff is resolved….wouldn’t even bother with them.

I am not a member of RB, so not sure why you are tagging me. Lol.

Doesnt exist. Wont ever come. This kinda stuff is not a ‘bug’ either BTW.

Sta 5 gets a -10. No reason to go 4k on a side when you have a perfectly good cererline.

1. Known issue. Literally one of the last types of bugs to even worry about. 2. Correct as is. NLG does not retract unless handle is cycled.

Bottles recharge. You ‘do not’ need to always use the second bottle.

Yeah, IIRC, the light and VW have never been enabled to this point. I don’t think they have ever come on.

Looks kinda like you are on stable judging by the caret in the center of the screen. Stable currently has a known bug where the radar does not scan.

In a way, yeah. The CFTs and tanks can both be thought up as external gas. Fuel goes external to internal. It should do either the CFTs or tanks and then the other once empty. It doesnt currently, but I wouldn’t say its an issue, just needs more development.

They are designed to be that way. One holds more fuel than the other. They would eventually balance out, but not until they are draining below full. Its a known thing/not implemented yet.

Just post it here so the devs and ED testers can use it.

For that potential issue, a track is needed. No way to understand what’s happening or what the trigger is/isn’t without it.

No. You are looking at a very simplified block diagram of the system. The real thing has a ton of components in the mix. The -1 diagrams arent meant to show it all, they are there to supplement what the -1 is saying earlier. That’s why they are supplements and not GS/SD diagrams. Manually transferring gas is something that can only be done by mx crews using the ground check panel below the aircraft. None of that stuff pertains to aircrew, so zero reason to go into it in a -1.

If not in a tracking state, the pod will move during aggressive maneuvering. Best way to stabilize is to enter a tracking mode (ATRK, PRTK, etc).

Well, not even that really. CFT pumps are designed not to run when external bags are transferring (not currently implemented). The only way to transfer into the CFTs like that is manually through a ground initiated process. Fuel is designed to transfer external to internal, not across external.