NeilWillis

The GR3 Harriers in the Falklands were operated from a FARP in the final stages of the conflict. It's not a huge leap to allow the N/A to do so is it?

Releasing the Harrier on 29th will probably just apply to 2.1, with the release into 1,5 following after Christmas is how I read that. It also, naturally, means 2.5 will not be happening before then of course.

Didn't you see the comment on the newsletter about it being part of a training program?

This is a great announcement. The Yak 52 was operated out of Halfpenny Green near Wolverhampton by a company called Skytrain in the 90s, and I provided publicity shots for them in exchange for a few hours flying. It's a great airframe, and in the hands of Genady Gerasimov, incredibly aerobatic too. His speciality was fly9ng along the runway inverted, and doing a half loop to land. Unfortunately they wouldn't allow that manoeuvre during his air show sequences.

It would be a very welcome update. As I read it, there will be a Huey 2.0 released at some point in the future, and I would be most surprised if multiplayer crewing isn't one of the new features packaged with that. The Huey was released before multi-crew was even coded by ED, so it's likely it needs a lot of re-working to achieve it. The developers have said it will be added, but frankly you may have a long wait for it to materialise. I have to say, it'll transform the module. Especially if you could get a human in all the crew positions at the same time!

Moral of the story - "Wait til you've been bitten before you start hollerin'." Ref: The boy who cried wolf, Aessop, published yonks ago.

Updates usually go live around 15:00 Hrs Zulu (GMT in case you're wondering). However that can vary.

Radio comms would be fun.

I guess the real solution to the water issue is to weight the weather to make it easier - cold and high atmospheric pressures will negate the problem nicely I suspect?

Well, now we know!

Necessity is the mother of invention. The AH-64s were made to work in Iraq, and Harriers operated in extremely sub-optimal conditions in the South Atlantic during the Falklands crisis. Routinely, it might not happen, but when push comes to shove, people just find a way to cope, and get on with it as best thy can.

I don't think that post says anything other than "soon tm". It will be released, sure, but this week? I think you're making a big leap there in assuming soon means this week.

Right place, right time. Superb image.

I have seen a sketchy report regarding a tragedy in the Philippine sea near Japan: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42078318 What an awful event - but shows the cost of maintaining a strong military presence in one of the world's hot spots. Condolences to those, and all military personnel who lose their lives, and their kith and kin, whichever flag they serve.

Fly south for the winter?

I have never had any issues with the two, though I am now using VR, so things may have changed recently without me being aware.

Wouldn't it be easier all round if the additional countries could be added as a mod via a template provided for the purpose by ED? It'd mean every country could be represented, which is the way it ought to be.

How do you read what I said as a contradiction? I was stating - very clearly indeed - that there is no evidence that ED are "conspiring" to order the releases according to any agenda apart from when it's ready, it's ready. Unike your tongue in cheek comment which was completely obscure, my statements were both complimentary, and built on each other to build an interpretation of a picture namely - 1. The AV-8B is on presale before the F/A-18C - there is clearly a benefit to releasing first in the fact that people with limited finds would be drawn to buy the first released. Ergo, the evidence suggests that there is no pre-planned release schedule. Is that not clear enough for you?

Excellent stuff. Thanks or the update guys.

ED have the final say on when products go to market I suspect, and no doubt all developers are involved in the decision making process. I suspect however that what determines release dates is having the product in a sufficiently complete condition. I also suspect that following past experience, they will be insisting that the modules are much closer to complete before entering closed testing prior to release. My conclusion is therefore that it is never as simple as we think, and that there are a lot of factors governing launch dates, not the least of which is development progress. I can't see that ED would choose to allow another developer to get their product out first - as in the AV-8B and F/A-18C race. It stands to reason that the first to the market would get most sales. So I have a feeling there is still a first come, first served reality to releases.

There is a free trial, so what are you complaining about? Cut your teeth on the SU-25 or Mustang, then quit moaning and do what everyone else does and spend the money ED rely on to continue developing DCS World. Reality check - the world owes you nothing, you have to work for everything you get!

Historically, the 109 rudder was at the limits of it's usefulness on take off. This is something quoted by Erich Brunotte, who flew both the 109 and 190. He says that differential braking was needed in taking off in the 109. It would be useful for these analyses to dig out some of Hannah's interviews too. He flew both 109 and Spitfire. Winkle Brown may also be a useful source, though I don't remember him making direct comparisons in his assessments. To answer a previous critic, I was not suggesting making comparisons is futile, I was saying that it is important to see the bigger picture, and not jump to conclusions based on flimsy evidence. It's a bit like the arguments put forward as to the over effective dogfighting qualities of the MiG-15 based on anecdotal evidence of the numbers downed in the Korean war. Statistics often hide the facts. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is an oft quoted, and very relevant comment. Just because a lot died in 109s doesn't mean they were harder to fly than their contemporary aircraft, it just means that statistically more died trying. Statistics cannot provide analytical evidence as to the reasons behind them, which are very often huge factors, and do not reflect assumptions that may be getting drawn from simple numbers.

Why do you think the Spit was any easier than the 109 to fly in reality? There are lots of pilots notes out there from current pilots who have flown both, and from what I see, the high mortality rate from 109 take offs anecdotally may well be down to inferior training due to the pressure to get pilots to the frontline in WW2. The pilots state that they're both a handful, and that the 109 has issues with longitudinal stability. They don't say that either one is easier to unstick, so maybe you're reading things through the eyes of what has been said in the popular media about them? My money would be on the fact that neither is a perfect rendition in their flight modelling, but both are close. Also, bear in mind that they're both ongoing projects.

It's really a question of priorities. And there are plenty of voice activation packages that allow you to do almost anything with them in combination with DCS World. On the other hand, I don't know of many 3rd party programs to fix bugs in DCS World, or to hasten the release of 2.5. Which do you think really needs to be implemented first? Just get Voice Attack, and stop slating ED for doing what they feel is the most important things with their limited resources. They're not a huge software house with unlimited funds and manpower.

I believe that was what is known as a bug.