msalama

Deleted what, your illogical argument(s)? Only serves to help you. EDIT: OK, so you really don't get what burden of proof means. Judging from your old posts I'm not really surprised, TBH.

Deleted the superfluous wall of text. Yes, he is. No burden of proof required. Whereas you're contesting it, and that sets the burden of proof right on you. Now, do you understand this or do you not?

THIS. So much this. This is the thing that gets my goat every single time. Are people really so stupid that they just can't understand the burden of proof being ALWAYS WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS on the claimant?

Nah. An Albatros D.III, be sure.

No idea. Suggest you either ask the manufacturer, or provide evidence of this being wrongly modelled if in doubt.

And how exactly would your wish fulfilled result in more realism than what we've got now? Where's your evidence?

Right :D But he's off to a good start though so it's not ALL that bad...

This has been broken for a long time and it affects all AI. You can put two hostile infantry platoons face to face and regardless of lighting, they won't engage if they think it's still night.

So judging from your 3-post history, you joined the board because your life's mission is to tell the world how ED is the mother of all evil. Heh :megalol:

IIRC the P-51's Merlin has had this modelled from the beginning.

Just wondering why this comment ended up in a P-51 "just wondering" thread. Maybe it's the passion rearing its ugly head again?

It's here because said passionate geezers like to be passionate all over the place. :D

Nope, not fixed. TBH, I'm getting tired of patches breaking up old and supposedly stable content all the time.

VirusTotal says the installer EXE is infected. So thanks, but no thanks.

I don't think anyone has said one should pay for pure visual updates, such as cockpit touchups etcetera. But you'll most likely need to pay for new content regardless.

So what's supposed to be free? Touching up old content? Perhaps, ED's time and overall situation permitting. Any new content and / or functionality? Certainly not. There's lots of work and expenditure involved and I'm afraid we'll just have to pay for that.

Well, what Harpoon said. +1

So you do. What you don't seem to grasp, however, is that it's actually ED's prerogative to charge us for new content if they so choose.

Right, this I didn't know. Thanks for the correction.

So what you're saying there is that you know better than ED's main FM designer what these values are for and how they're used. OK...

The installer wouldn't work correctly if you didn't have to change it after an update.

Naaaah. After all this blethering, what we need is a Biffer F-4. Now, is there a context for it to fit in currently? Naaaah. But who gives a crap? We need it ANYWAY, because that's just the Biffer that's... the serious Biffer. Right?

Well they're too weak for armor busting, but very effective against soft targets regardless.

Same here flying the ZA. Control surfaces move, the stick does not.

Links, please. And ones containing hard and verifiable evidence, please, not just your usual feel-based BS which we've heard already. Am asking because the physical effects in question have actually been present in every single DCS prop plane I've flown so far.