Flagrum

Does that mean that the Harrier will get some more attention in the meantime - despite (iirc) it was schedulled rather after the M2K MLO originally?

If a neutral party supports one side ... how is it neutral then? So, no, neutral airports will not rearm you. You need to use an airport that is controlled by your faction. Side note: ground troops can capture airports, even neutral ones.

C² ... like the mathematical equivalent for CC ... which in this case is the abbreviation for Command and Control (i think?)

That is the wrong way to look at it imho. It's not so important how costly the adversaries weapon systems are (ok, long-term, economy wise for a full fledged war, it actually is probably a factor). But more important is, how much damage (and that not only in money...) the enemy could inflict and now can't. If that MiG-21 carries a nuke, then even 10 AIM-120 fired at that single plane are probably more than worth it!

If these are the most annoying problems, then ED, I must say, is doing something right! Kudos to ED!

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3794952&postcount=125

So, this thread is mainly about the accuracy, right? But what about the pull-up cue and break-x during all these deliveries - are they now modelled correct or also still WIP? Seems that both cues suggest a min alt of about 1000 ft although, as seen on the videos here, it is quite safe even lower to the ground...

I'd say no, not for the collective. Afaik there are no dynamic forces on any real helo. There is usually a friction brake to adjust the necessary force to move the lever in order to ease the handling (i.e. keeping it more or less in place unless you actually want to move it). Even if you would ignore that, in DCS only the cyclic / flightstick are considered for force feedback devices (if FFB is supported at all). So, even if you use a FFB joystick axis for the cyclic, DCS would not care about the FFB aspect.

Tracks are used to replicate the problem, saving the testers the hazzle and time to set up the exact conditions that lead to a bug. They have to replicated it over and over again, to find the actual component or part of the code that is responsible for the error. It is not so much about (not) trusting a bug report, but easing and speeding up the process of testing. Seriously.

"Available now in the Open Beta and coming soon, are two new features for DCS World:" :doh:

I remember it differently. BS1 was a stand-alone game and you could only fly with other Blacksharks online. I don't remember, if DCS:W came first and then the Warthog, or if both "evolved" together? But anyways, the Blackshark then was ported to DCS:W in the form of BS2.

That BS2 was a paid upgrade was/is ok in my eyes - we DID get a huge amount of new content with it, namely flying within one (DCS) world. I would also not have argued against it, if DCS 2 were a paid upgrade, as the new graphics engine and all the added potential (that we are now, closing in on 2.5.5 - and beyond) equals to a huge amount of new content. But EDs business model is different: the base game is free and it was their decision to not ask for money here. But I fail to see the reasoning to pay for bug fixes and graphics adjustment (caused by changes in the base game), that other modules are getting for free. If ED chooses a different business model - however that might look like - where paying for substancial updates is fair(!), then I would not mind...

... and you don't find this rather ridiculous, from a customers perspective?

" and fly it realistically based on what you have, or not." Wow. Great argument. Yeah, even if it was just wings and an ejection seat to keep you in the air, you could still "fly it realistically, based on what you have".

Why should the forum rules not apply for specifically the Harrier sub-forum?

Yup - which was released as OpenBeta on the 23rd and as Stable on Friday, 25th.

Because the update that you had applied this moring was, for OpenBeta, released last wednesday. Changes for that update were collected and prepared for release a couple of days prior that. So if the fix wasn't in, it wasn't probably quite ready for release back then when they did that.

The automatic check for updates is only performed once every 24 hours. After you canceled the update, the updater program probably had started that 24 hour period already. But yeah, having a manual way to apply updates is handy. But I use a windows shortcut for that as well ...

I doubt that. In fact, the ASL moves in the direction of bank, i.e. away from the TVV and usually away from the target. Only if you level out, the ASL swings back and shows a somewhat reasonable solution. This happens instantious, the moment you bank, the ASL swings waaaay off the target. That a short duration of of bank can not cause the release point to wander 10...20...30 degrees. The attitude of the aircraft does not change the weapon trajectory. Ok, it may do actually, considering that a release at a bank angle of 90+ deg. may not be as clean as a separation at level flight - but we are talking about moderat to minor bank angles here anyways. But once separation occured, the weapon is free-falling and whatever the aircraft attitude was before, does not matter anymore. Just the point in space where the separation has happened. If we leave out any wind, the release point should always be between the aircraft and the target. But the ASL shows otherwise.

There are two entries in their bug tracker concerning the ASL. So, hopefully this is not all, yet.

How often do you go through the hassle to swap to open beta? And for repairing ... dunno, I have a windows shortcut that does that for me. Was part of the initial install, I believe.

That is what they (i.e. ex Belsimtek) were doing all the time: prioritizing suddenly and unexpectedly popped up aircraft before the long announced(sort of) Ah-1 ... My expectation: there will be coming at least another 2-3 aircraft, that we never expected, before the Cobra (not counting the already expected ones, like perhaps the Phantom II)

I might be wrong here, but this is what I remember: QTY = total number of bomb to be dropped MULT = "multiples" (not "multiplier" !), number of bombs dropped at once So QTY 1 and MULT 2 would make no sense as the total number of bombs is just one. To drop 2 bombs as a pair, you would have to set QTY 2 and MULT 2 (2 bombs in total and those two togeter at once)

Uhm, could you rephrase that? I read your posing like 3 times, but I still don't get what your point(s) is(are) .... sorry ...

Never heared the indicator/blinker relay in a car clicking? (ok, nowadays the sound may just be an artificial, carefully designed sound, but in older cars that click-clack is a relay ^^)