Flagrum

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 ...

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)

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 ^^)

He is only talking about the Hind.

Afaik you can define radio settings, like frequency, for every unit. For the role as jtac, only the jtac action settings are relevant. Think of it as a team: one Humvee - the driver has his own radio and the jtac on the back seat has his own, portable radio.

Sounds more like ED News instead of Community News. But that's probably just me ...

... then CheeseCake sneaks in and leaves a mysterious posting!

When I am in the mission editor, I can save the mission whenever I want. Not sure, how smart the devs have to be to be able to do that, but ... whatever.

"Community News", eh? Rather fake news *face palm*

Interesting idea, tbh. To add to the discussion: a free (or cheaper) trainee license and a instructor license (costs similar to current regular license?). The trainee then can only fly when connected to a trainer license. New players can get a trainee license easy (i.e. for free), but can only enter aircraft controlled by a instructor license.

The BLG 66 is used by Razbams M-2000K and now by Aviojets C-101cc. Browsing through the .LUA files, I saw that the weapon is now defined two times, independently from eachother. This is ... suboptimal? I.e. the way the submunitions is dispensed differs from the "usual" US CBUs and therefore require some special coding (I suppose). This would have to be done twice - and that in a way that the end results do not differ (i.e. BLG should behave exactly the same, no mater what aircraft it was dropped from). Therefore I kindly ask Razbam and AvioDev - and perhaps ED - to find a proper solution. For example, making the BLG 66 a standard DCS weapon that is used by both modules. (see also here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3734184#post3734184 ... + sorry for xposting)

The BLG 66 is used by Razbams M-2000K and now by Aviojets C-101cc. Browsing through the .LUA files, I saw that the weapon is now defined two times, independently from eachother. This is ... suboptimal? I.e. the way the submunitions is dispensed differs from the "usual" US CBUs and therefore require some special coding (I suppose). This would have to be done twice - and that in a way that the end results do not differ (i.e. BLG should behave exactly the same, no mater what aircraft it was dropped from). Therefore I kindly ask Razbam and AvioDev - and perhaps ED - to find a proper solution. For example, making the BLG 66 a standard DCS weapon that is used by both modules. (see also here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3734185#post3734185 ... + sorry for xposting)

Afaik it is somewhat hardcoded in the DCS basis install which type or coordinates are used for which country? coalition? aircraft? At least the mission maker has no say in that, though.

"Player" skill is not bound to be set to the flight lead, you can set it to any aircraft in your flight. I.e. you can already have an AI fly as lead and you as player fly as wingman. But it's use is probably somewhat limited as the AI does not really know the role of a flight lead - i.e. does not communicate with you accordingly, etc. ...

Which manuals are you refering to?

That is probably scheduled for DCS 5.0

Basically all modules. Some older modules, like the ones you mentioned, are part of the base install of DCS. ED started to use CoreMods only after those were already in the sim. But you still have all the AI stuff for those as well, but just so nicely separated into one sub-directory.