Aginor

@Alacc17 Please be fair, there was a lot going on in ED's engine that was slowing 3rd parties down. That doesn't apply to Aviodev alone but to all of them. That being said, I am of course not happy about it, but I am sure Aviodev, VEAO and others feel the same way.

I wonder about that too. I wouldn't care much, but I think Aviodev might be reluctant to release the CC without AFM because of a possible bad reaction by parts of the community. That's why I brought it up.

Would be my guess as well.

Nice looking picture. The more often I see it the more I think they should release it right now, the SFM is not perfect but still better than no plane at all. Actually I am enjoying the EB version quite a bit now, even without AFM. EDIT: Typo fixed. Of course any news about the AFM and/or a release with AFM would be nice, but if the rest is finished IMO it would be a shame to have it sitting there waiting on the AFM when we could already be out there doing procedure training. :)

Type 24 Looking really cool!

I know, I read that news. :) Still there might be things happening again bevause of factors we don't know yet. So I probably wouldn't see the order as set in stone.

I think so. IMO it would be a good order. But who knows, they changed the order at least once already (A-7 was before the Harriers) and they might do it again.

Not trying to be the spoilsport here, I like the A-6 as well, but given its complexity (multi-seat and systems) I'd prefer them - if they do it - to create the planned A-7 first. So if they really manage to create two planes a year (which is ambitious!) it would be Mirage this year, then Harrier, A-7, and then move on to the even harder ones like the F-15E and the A-6.

Ehh... no. I see your points, but I don't agree. I think it would cause major irritations for new players. They see the plane, hop in, and nothing is working.

Hey guys! It seems that after landing and shutting down the engine and turning off inverters and battery there is still power on the systems. I checked ground power, the crew chief told me it was off.

This bug is still present in the most recent version. Just wanted to mention it. :) EDIT: Or is it working, but differently than I expect? What exactly is it supposed to mute in which position?

I have only done two landings in the new version but it seems the brakes are smoother. Perhaps a big weaker as well, but it definitely helps against PIO on landing. Since we now have the chute if we run out of runway we can be a lot more cautious with the wheelbrakes, too. :)

Hey guys! I just noticed in the most recent build (1.5.3.51171.34) one of the static POL tank objects (Structures -> Chemical tank A) has a strange damage model. It seems to be completely resistant to guns like the Huey's gatling guns and even the A-10C's GAU-8 It can be destroyed by dropping a GBU-10 on it (I just tried that), but guns either don't hit it or don't do damage. I think this kind of tank should be destroyable by heavy machine guns though. I tested other tanks (in the warehouses section of the static objects menu, called tank, tank2 and tank3) and I could destroy those with guns.

Definitely!

Yeah, that's because we don't actually know. :D

Yeah it is the same. I guess release version will follow in a few hours or so.

Yeah, the version of the A-10C using the helmet mounted sight is much newer than we have. Ours is not compatible.

Thanks, I know what the OpenBeta is. :) I just thought from what I read that it would be in the release version already. The last few times I updated it was in both OpenBeta and Release simultaneously for me, which is why I was asking. :)

Huh. Just to confirm: This is supposed to be an update for the release version, isn't it? When I start my release version updater it says 1.5.3.50487.22 is up to date. When I use my 1.5 Open Beta updater it actually updates to 1.5.3.51171.34

You are right, CF-18 is the canadian version. :)

Nice changelog, especially by Razbam, but I admit I had hoped for a fix of that... uh... less-than-awesome tanker behaviour.

sounds good. As for the bort numbers: I'd say yes. If someone wants to use the Nimitz as stand-in for the America and just changing the number is enough to help the suspension of disbelief, he should be able to do it. The only ones able to tell that something is wrong are people who either have been there or spent a certain amount of time for research. Everybody else is like "YEAH, I'M ON A CARRIER!!" :D Could you tell the Bismarck from the Tirpitz? The Hiryu from the Soryu? Yeah, probably. I still think that in a PC simulation game two models - perhaps with different textures - are sufficient to simulate those four ships. :)

Ooooh, I forgot some of them. Thanks! Interesting features, some of them are also present in the A-6 IIRC, but in the A-7 the pilot handles them by himself!

Thanks! :)

AFAIK cicular patterns were used in the past, but I am not sure if they are normally used now. The most common pattern is the race-track, but in real life tanker crews have repeatedly done unconventional things to make sure an aircraft can refuel, including circling near a CAS area and towing a plane by the boom to a near airfield. So I guess using a circular pattern - while uncommon - may not necessarily be unrealistic. I also met a few players who dislike the pattern because they say it is harder to refuel, while for me it is easier. That's one of the reasons I asked. Perhaps one of our real life military members can explain more. :)