shagrat

Up to 1.5 tons internal cargo capacity or up to 2 tons external as slingload seems to make a lot of sense to me...

Evtl. die Throttle-Achse(n) auf den/die Schubhebel-Achse(n) gemapped und in der Idle oder Cutoff position? Ich hab das, wenn ich bspw. nach dem Landen, alles ordentlich abschalte und die Throttle auf "Cutoff" stehen habe. Sobald man dann, beim nächsten DCS-Flug in einen Air- oder Hotstart springt, synchronisiert mein Virpil-Throttle die Achsen und die springen auf IDLE, bzw. Cutoff und die Triebwerke gehen aus. Ist man schnell genug, und schiebt die Schubhebel auf 100% ist nur das GPS unaligned (aligned aber innerhalb von ein paar Minuten) aber die Triebwerke kommen zügig und die Generatoren liefern Strom.

Pretty much answers everything itself, I gues...

In Google earth timeline 2010 you can clearly see Chinook Helicopters parked on the Pegasus ramp at Bastion Heliport. Currently those slots only allow smaller helicopters, to be placed. No big issue, but it would be cool to be fixed. So we can use the slots for the coming Chinook and already place blocking CH-47D on those slots.

Yeah, the Flight map is misspelled, it should actually be Girishk. That's a common problem with american translation to US English phonems. But at least it is a realistic representation.

Als Beispiel wurde hier von ED auf die Normandy 2.0 Map verwiesen. Im Multiplayer ist sie zu Normandy(1.0) kompatibel, es sind aber mit der 1.0 nur die niedrigen Texturen zu sehen und die Gebäude, obwohl alle vorhanden, nutzen eben das Klötzchen LOD ohne Details für die Teile der Map, die man nicht erworben hat. Es wird also ein "3. Gebäude von links" geben, aber ob ein Talk on mit "das Gebäude mit dem Flachdach an der Ostseite" funktioniert, oder "hinter dem Gebäude mit den Drei Fenstern an der Nordseite"... vermutlich eher nicht. Wobei ich denke gerade diese Map lohnt eben extrem als ganze Map, weil sie am Ende ein Riesengebiet abdecken wird.

Because, that file, may be multiple files, does exist in a framework and uses an API to get/send data from/to the DCS environment etc. or a bunch of other potential issues...

...and you are 100% sure that specific fix isn't causing one of the game breaking issues? So you can assure us ALL other modules are fine, if they do that? Or should they, maybe look at it and do some testing before rushing it out? Just saying...

...and in that exact post(s) he mentioned, he now has time to UPDATE the missions with the new assets. I guess that means he worked on the campaigns, added maybe a bit more than just a tent here and there and put the results into the branch for the current patch? And that's where he and the campaign testers likely tested the triggers work, the AI buddies don't kill you on taxiways, etc.

LOL I am waiting for Afghanistan since "DCS: A-10C Warthog public beta" back in 2009/10... So next week or in two weeks, we will get there.

That's how bugs make it into releases... And yes, they need to compile at least one new build and test/QA it with the beta testers if the bugs are fixed and no new critical bugs are introduced. So splitting this into two releases only adds more workload.

That doesn't work, as it means compiling a build minus with the campaigns and the current (!) DCS version that needs to be tested, to ensure the Campaigns at least work somehow decent enough... and that's assuming the Missions don't use any new script/trigger feature that requires the new build... The eternal circle of development hell.

That exactly was my suggestion. It's not even too many "irons", it's the self imposed pressure of release dates, way before a release is ready to be released. That doesn't mean there won't be any bugs in the patch, but it will stop the drama...

Not if there is no announcement that there is a plan. It will work for future patches. Simply announce a date AFTER you have a tested and release ready patch. ED could even delay the patch for weeks if necessary and as soon as they have a patch ready announce the "planned" release of that exact build in a week from then. The development isn't impacted as that is done in seperate branches anyway. Thus no delays, patch will always drop on the planned release date a week after it is done.

I don't mind waiting, what I mind is getting a promise every day that tomorrow I get my present. I would prefer to walk into the living room and "surprise" my present is standing right their...

Yes, but I rather prefer an announcement of a working patch after the patch is ready instead of an advance announcement, that basically is the "hope" to manage to have a working patch in the near future, with a date that's unreliable anyway. What's the problem with a surprise announcement: "Today is patch day. Patch is live." ?

I'd like to add, that Kandahar (KAF) was home to a constant detachment of US and UK aircraft, during the depicted timeframe (2008-2011). Well, actually since December 2001, both FOB Rhino (later renamed Camp Dwyer) and Kandahar Airport (KAF) were established and under coalition control, so landbased operations for aircraft in Helmand is a reality for anything, shortly after December 2001(!), let alone 8-10 years later.

Oh, so you really missed the 3 tweaks that already happened? How come?

Huh? My job pays my wages. I am a normal customer, when it comes to buying DCS modules. And what triggered that reminder, was the "at release" comment, which hinted at the usual perception, that early access, equals release and thus claims to a certain feature set, necessarily implemented. As i said, my educated guess is, they will have trim at early access, but not the sophisticated real life features. Force Feedback support would be a nice to have, but I remember a time, where non of the modules had even basic FFB support and only in the recent years were new FFB sticks available, usually home made "3D print prototype" turned small business. It took some effort for ED to get their hands on old working MS FFB-sticks etc. to even be able to develop/test FFB implementation. I hope they do have basic FFB support on early access, though. Worst case I need to use the Hardware "Force Trim Release" Emulation.

Man unterschätzt, allgemein wie wichtig generell das Scenario und die Mitstreiter sind in so einer Mission. Der Spielspaß kommt ja nicht ausschließlich vom "Dinge in die Luft jagen". Das meiner Meinung nach große Problem der Huey in DCS, ist die meist sehr feindselige Umgebung, die gerade im Multiplayer häufig, schlechte Jet-Piloten animiert, auf wehrlose Helikopter jagd zu machen, die mangels funktionierender CAP ein angenehmeres Ziel sind, als gegnerische Abfangjäger, oder mit absurd überzogenen SAM-Stellungen geschützte Bodenziele anzugreifen. Da hilft nur selber machen, in kleiner intimer Runde.

Btw. I am confident "basic trim" is meant as opposed to "Advanced trim system of the real helicopter, that has hovering assist modes and other highly advanced stuff, like the Apache's hold modes, that took a couple updates during the early access phase to be implemented". Just speculating, here.

No need to rant. You can always NOT buy, like in every store in the world... That's how a store works. Offering something... and if you don't like the offer, you need to decide if you buy it, or pass, until you find something that suits you. Do you go around shops in your town and complain about all the stuff they offer, that you don't like to buy? Edit: and the release(!) is still years away. The early access phase is next, and that's what they deliver for early access. So of course it is incomplete! That's why it's called "early access".

Offering to safe some money through pre-order or early access purchase?

Jedes Jahr mit der BO ist ein gutes Jahr!

Nee, ist genau dasselbe. Versteckte Statics sind auf der F10-Karte usw. unsichtbar. Nur George und Petrovich "sehen" sie trotzdem. Eigentlich sollte der FARP mit diesen Settings in game komplett unsichtbar sein, sowohl F10-Karte, als auch auf MFDs...