Charly_Owl

White Crows is just one of these tracks I'll keep listening to while flying in Virtual Aerobatics when I want to relax. This one has the vibe of the old Diddy Kong Quest game on the SNES I liked to play when I was a kid. :) Brilliant stuff!

Thanks guys, I'm writing all of these things down.

Fantastic news, I really dig Grim Memories! :)

Well, I expected that. Here's why: - Many WWII-centric squadrons are used to Il-2 1946, CloD and BoS/BoM/BoK as their baseline for the level of complexity of an aircraft. Some folks just don't want to learn new things like start-up procedures, and there are many of them. - At the moment the WWII assets are getting fleshed out slowly but surely. Personally, I'd like to see more variety in air units available on both sides. It's a matter of waiting for these new assets. - New damage model is being worked on. I'm personally very very eager to see this implemented. B-17s are nice, but a small burst can tear a whole wing apart. Flying fortresses could take a brutal beating and still make it home... that is currently not the case with the current DM. - New effects are being worked on too, lots of people waiting for those too. - Continuous support of multiplayer servers is difficult to have at the moment since there are very few established WWII communities in DCS at the moment. - Many are simply waiting for the big 2.5 merge because they're tired of having two or more installs on their cluttered SSD / HDD. - Lack of mission variety for ground pounders like me (P-47 is being worked on... and hopefully maybe one day a twin or quad-engine bomber will be made available). IMHO DCS WWII has its place in the flight simulation world: it's the only study simulation (apart maybe from A2A stuff for FSX) of aircraft as old as WWII, which are among the oldest aircraft in the world still flying today. 20 years from now, I think I'll still be treasuring this simulation even more for its tremendous historical value. However, I fly CloD, BoS and DCS for different reasons and, most important of all, to do different things. TLDR: Normandy is still in alpha, playable but it still needs more work to unlock its full potential and ascend to greatness.

Blow out does not seem appropriate in that context... a blow out is during a decelleration fuel schedule of the engine where the engine flame goes out. Engines are supposed to be protected against that a bit like they're supposed to be protected against surge. Did you mean dry cranking or dry motoring?

Hello folks, You know it. I know it. We all know it. My Mirage 2000 guide is in dire need of a coat of fresh paint. There was recently a little trouble with my links, but they're back up now. I haven't really had time to keep track of every change nor re-read the whole manual with each new patch. I intend to do so, but first I wanted to ask for the community's help in this endeavour. There are currently some parts of my guide that are out-of-date. I would like to know which ones. If there are some volunteers, please provide me a list of everything wrong/out-of-date with the page number and a brief description. I'd like to go through every page, every paragraph, every word of it and make sure it is up to date with the Mirage we currently fly. Hopefully, I know Zeus, Prowler and CptSmiley are super busy at the moment, but if Razbam could give me a hand as well with feedback (since I know they are about to update a bunch of things on the Mirage once the Harrier blitz slows down) it would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance, Chuck Original Guide Thread https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=157056

Links should be fixed now.

I can't keep up with tracking every change with each patch... keep in mind that I don't do this full-time. If you can help me identify what's currently out-of-date, that'd be appreciated.

Guys... I still have all those documents (and more importantly, the ppt files) on my hard drive, no worries. I wanted to re-organize my google drive folder structure. So... I made some back-ups of the files, re-organized my files, and then deleted the back-up files. Just kidding - I actually deleted the originals and kept the back-ups by mistake. That's why the links are all screwed up. It's a honest mistake. I'm currently out of town for work and access to google drive is restricted due to company policy on military sites. Therefore, I won't be able to update the links until I come back home in a couple of weeks.

I should've probably removed that slide... the english cockpit being natively available is a recent addition by Belsimtek.

Very unlikely.

All right, sorry about the super long delay. I double-checked and yes, you're completely right. I'll have the changes updated by the end of the day. Sorry for the inconvenience.

During the initial Normandy alpha release, will it be a separate install or will it be merged with NTTR from the beginning?

@IvanK: I had this exact same issue. What I would advise you to do is to go through the pdf guide attached in the first post of this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=185325 The step I didn't do was the one called "Deleting product registry entries (skip in case of successful deactivation)". Failing to do this step caused a mismatch between starforce and my registry file. I thought I could skip it since I assumed my deactivation was successful. WRONG. I think the "skip in case of..." part should be mandatory. Apparently, you have to do it no matter what (at least for me). Once I deleted the registry manually, I was finally able to re-activate my module for Open Beta 1.5. Follow steps 2a) through 2d) and you should be able to reactivate your license properly. Moral of the story: When writing "you can skip this step if..." in a guide, one should assume that the user will inevitably go "har har I'm lazy, therefore I shall skip this step anyway". Even for experienced users like me.

I may have written this section while looking at John's video at the time. I honestly can't remember if the logic and documentation has changed since the early dev build I had or if I simply made a mistake. I'll have to check. I'm planning a big update to the guide near the end of may after university exams, so I'll double-check every procedure to ensure they're up to date.

Make sure your delete your Leatherneck registry key (using "regedit" commadn in windows) as instructed in the pdf file and follow the instructions in that file. That should do the trick. For some reason I forgot to delete my registry and the mig-21 pop-up asking me for my activation/deactivation of the module would never allow me to re-activate my key. Deleting the registry manually did the trick.

You don't want to picture how real engineering works? Well, you're being willfully unreasonable. You haven't proven anything. Not a single bloody thing. That's the beauty of a forum: you are free to express your opinion on things, and I'm also free to assess whether you're talking out of your arse or not. Evidence seems to point to the former rather than the latter. Being a customer does not entitle you to drive design decisions of a flight sim product. If the FM changes makes your experience in the MiG-21 unbearable for some obscure reason, you can revert back to the previous patch and never look back.

Doesn't matter: being tired is irrelevant. Put yourself in the shoes of a flight model developer for one second. Pretend you have coded the whole flight model by yourself and you know it inside out. Can you picture this? I'm sure you can. Now imagine me coming to you and telling you that "FM is broken, fix it. It's horrible and unrealistic." As a developer, I am sure that you have the best intentions in the world and want your module to be as accurate as possible. Your thought process to approach this situation will very likely going to be something like this: What aspects of the FM does he think is broken? Is that feedback credible? What is he basing himself on to know that X or Y aspect of the FM is broken? What data is he using as a reference? Does this data contradict the data I already have? Does he have any experience with the real aircraft? How am I going to fix anything if he can't tell me what exactly is wrong? The chances are that, with feedback that is vague and unsubstanciated, you cannot answer a single one of these questions. Therefore, the only viable options are either to ask for more information, or to disregard that feedback since you don't have anything you can work with.

Mate... if you want to be taken seriously, provide MEANINGFUL feedback with actual quantitative data and your testing method instead of throwing a tantrum. A FM cannot be tuned or corrected with meaningless feedback like "roll inertia is complete gone", "I won't post any track" "this is nuts" "fix it" "worse FM"... The "feedback" you provided won't get anything solved. Be practical. Be accurate and exhaustive. Otherwise, it's just senseless whining, which is of no use to anybody here.

Haven't received mine either (living in Canada). I sent you an e-mail last week.

I am a tester for VEAO's P-40. http://www.mudspike.com/qa-with-veao-p-40f-preview/

In my humble opinion, I am not really questioning the price of the package... I am however quite skeptical about the sale of the map and unit pack as separate entities. I think it's a safe assumption that someone who buys Normandy will de facto want to buy WW2 units as well; selling a Normandy + WW2 assets bundle as a standard package is a no-brainer. For me, at least. Don't get me wrong, I think the price is fair and comparable to what we paid for NTTR. But like Bounder said, the splitting of the multiplayer community base is a very real issue. Normandy is being marketed as a WW2-era map with WW2-era airports and scenery. I do not believe expecting the map to contain era-specific units out of the box is unreasonable. The necessity for a one-size-fits-all package stems from a desire put all Normandy users on equal ground and streamline/facilitate interactions within the playerbase.

I have a list of a couple of items to fix in the Viggen guide. I'll get to it when I have the time. If you find more inconsistencies (since there appears to be many, as stated by Accipiter), please let me know and I'll have them fixed. I'm just a man. It's easy to be overwhelmed by the sheer amount of information for this plane. Mistakes are part of the deal.

The link to the Spitfire guide is here in the first post: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-uSpZROuEd3Y1dhWFhKSVpPbms Just click on it, click on download, and you'll be able to save the pdf file wherever you want on your computer to see it directly or print it. The other guides I do are located here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=135765

Good catch, Blech. Fixed.