Flagrum

That is not a rhetorical question? If not, then the answer is simple:

Interesting question. Wikipedia: "The closest airports (Gelendzhik Airport, Anapa Airport and Krasnodar Airport, situated 33 kilometres (21 mi), 53 kilometres (33 mi) and 172 kilometres (107 mi) away from the city, respectively, offers flights to many cities in Russia."

That raises some questions right away - perhaps PolyChop and/or PolyDynamics are willing to address these: - how does this affect the 3rd party dev status of both parties? I assume for PolyChop nothing changes, but what about PolyDynamics? - beyond what Oliver stated, are there any other personal changes in the team(s)? I.e. will PolyChop perhaps lose other team members that were previously working on the Gazelle? - or to be more precise: does this split affect the further development and maintenance of the Gazelle module? edit: oh, and of course: all the best to both teams! Hope you guys keep on going stronger than ever! :-D

Ok, understood. I was just under the impression that we might be missing a feature or so when it was only about a bug.

This is not new, it is like that since ... dunno, since the Wright Brothers.

You set the Bx-waypoints, including the descent waypoint, direction change waypoint, etc. ... what exactly are we missing there?

Could it be that you have the Upgrade key for BS2 and a regular key for BS2 bound to your account and that DCS is just asking if you want to install the module for the Upgrade key - although you already have the module installed for the regular key? Maybe post a screenshot of that message where DCS is asking you to upgrade BS2...

Seit den Patches (1.5 und 2.0) vom 7.4. ist das Starforce Thema bei der MiG-21 abgeschlossen - alle DCS Geschmacksrichtungen sind damit auf dem letzten Stand hinsichtlich Starforce. Oder was meinst du genau?

It is not an approach to learn a module - I never said that! And if I do that, I don't do it to prove where a module is faulty - I never said that either! First of all, it is a way to explore things - and with things I mean the aircraft, not the module. The difference, again, is to explore the capabilities of what the aircraft can do, not what the module or the module developer can do. Computers, computer games and also simulations give us freedom to do things that we could not do otherwise. That is what it makes fun, right? If I want it to be exactly like in real life, well, I would do it in real life. Yes, sometimes this leads to discoveries that a modelled aircraft is lacking in one aspect or another. But if that is explainable, for example in a situation that can not be simulated exactly because nobody can possibly know what exactly would happen ("is the tail boom of a helo strong enough to land on it vertically?" ;-), or for example that calculating the results would be too demanding for our computers ("which parts of which sub components would how be damaged by the fractions of a bullet that hit the 22th rived of section X? And would the swinging/vibrating hydraulics line be cut open by 1 or 2 milimeters?"). But for generally well understood concepts I would hope for reasonable simulation results, even at the limits of normal, real life, operating parameters. And if I find something that seems unreasonable ... but can be explained in a reasonable way, then I am the first to admit that I am happy to learn something new. "It is good as it is" is, btw. NOT a explanation - an explanation must always answer the "why".

The system does not support mixed A2G loadouts. You either load ARAKs or RB75.

"Vorsprung durch Technik" :smartass:

Cyclikc left/right - bank left/right Cyclic fwd/aft - pitch nose down/up Collective up/down - increase/decrease lift Anti torque pedals ("Rudder Pedals") left/right - yaw left/right Throttle (twist grip at the collective) - adjust engine power The throttle is controlled by a govenor and under normal circumstances during flight, you don't use it manually. To make the helo for example go forward (faster): Cyclic fwd (pitche nose down) and increase lift by raising the collective.

Omg, I think, I slowly start to understand Swedish, lol. "Taktikska Anvisningar för Jaktvörband" german: "Taktische Anweisungen für (den) Jagdtverband" not too different, imo. :-D

It is not so much about what we do or not do to fly an aircraft realistically. It is more about what the aircraft does or does not do to fly realistically. Smalll, but important difference! I mean, that is the beauty of simulations: we can experiment and try out things we would never do in real life. That "What If..."-factor ... it starts with "What if I were a pilot?" and continues with "What if i try this or that maneuvre" over "What if I try to kill F-15s with my Gazelle?" to "What happens if I eject while flying NoE ... inverted.":D

? Maybe because that are the aircraft he payed for and that he could fly (and not the list of aircraft of developers he likes or would encourage anyone to buy from) :doh:

Das Ziel darf auch nicht zu weit entfernt sein. Der Laser hat nur eine gewisse Reichweite - bin mir gerade nicht sicher, wie weit tatsächlich. Ich würde versuchen < 3-4 km zu bleiben (zusammen mit "Unsichtbar" sollte es auch kein Problem sein, den JTAC nahe ans Ziel heranzubringen).

Some ideas for improving the kneeboard(s): 1. Make it usable with the mouse. Flip next / previous page, Go To page, open a specific section (see #2) 2. Add index tabs (ofc mouse clickable). I.e. one tab "Comms", one tab "Maps", one tab "Check Lists", etc. Ideally there should be a common set of tabs available across all modules, like the ones mentioned above, but also "Settings" (Gunner settings, Loadout config, etc.) and probably a few more. Module developer decides which of their pages go under which tab. 3. Scratch Pad. Allow the pilot to add free-form notes (typed text). Maybe even mouse-drawings? Or allow the mouse to be used to draw on every page (i.e. circling or underlining important stuff). Maybe these user creations can also (optionally) be saved to be reused between missions.

Thank you! :thumbup:

I think, I said it already, but this is seriously some AWESOME work. Thank you for that! But maybe it is possible that you share the source files of the pages - so that one can reformat/rearrange the the content a bit - for better offline printing?

Trading license keys is not allowed, afaik. Trading license keys that ran out of activations and thus can not be used is even worse. Can it be called fraud? Maybe a better option would be to provide more information on what you did and when concerning your DCS installation (version, when updated, what happened then, provide log files, whatever) to get help here. And/or contact support to get your issues sorted.

Should be implemented already:

The changelogs never really cover all changes. And I am not even talking about all those smaller fixes that sadly go unnoticed sometimes - but often the changes of a whole module is missing. Sometimes a 3rd party dev did not manage to get their list of changes to ED in time, sometimes they don't even keep track of the changes for their customers at all ... ED, maybe you can change the build process: make it mandatory that any changes to a module that were uploaded to your servers by a 1...2...3rd party dev must contain an updated "changelog.txt". This should help the devs to not forget about the changelog of their respective module and this should also help you, ED, to automatically collect and compile the info for the DCS changelog posting here on the forums.

ED, please extend the auto updater in a way that additional messages can be displayed before performing the actual update. I am thinking about an additional window to show warnings or other cruical information concerning the update - like the DRM issue with the latest Mig-21 update. The user then should be forced to deliberately accept/acknowledge that the text was read (i.e. not just another "ok" button!). Make the displayed text HTML, so links to, i.e. forum threads, can be used as well.

I agree, that would have been better. The thing is only, this kind of action required to be performed by the user, is something that was never needed so far in the past. The auto-updater is just not capable of showing such kind of warnings and would need some code changes first. (which should be not too difficult to do by ED, though). So, this is a somewhat "corner case" - it is imho not exacly just M3's error (althought the warning could/should indeed have been comunicated earlier), nor EDs error.

There was an advisory note posted together with the change log regarding the Mig-21 and the DRM system. At least for the latest update of 1.5.6 stable and 2.0.5 OpenAlpha. Yes, that was missing for 1.5.6 OpenBeta ... but then, well, it is Open Beta and you can not expect that never ever anything could go wrong with that install ...