Tango

Aww - so you're not going to implement it?

* Landing gear could use a toggle key (down -> neutral -> up -> neutral -> down ) * Flaps need keyboard shortcut for each position and Warthog flap switch support would be welcome * Air brake needs toggle key

The labels for JATO are wrong on two counts: * It is RATO, not JATO * The switch label is wrong (the tool tip is *correct*) JATO = Jet Assisted Take Off RATO = Rocket Assisted Take Off MiG-21 as modelled has RATO.

Some of the English cockpit labels are in Russian. Not a big problem, but inconsistent.

White cockpit lighting is completely INOP.

Red lighting controls itself. It will turn up to maximum on its own for no apparent reason, and whilst it can be overridden, it will immediately turn itself up again when the mouse is released.

The ARK radio appears to suffer a bug during MP flight. The reception area appears to work correctly, but at the point it is supposed to point to the station, on the client computer it will point perpetually at the nose of the aircraft. When the signal is lost, it will correctly rotate the 045° bearing. If the radio is tuned/re-tuned when in reception range, this *might* cause it to start pointing at the station. Note that morse ident is correct throughout.

Hi, HSI doesn't appear to behave correctly during start up and alignment. When pressing the button to align the system to the sensed magnetic heading, the course pointer moves but not the compass card, then when the course pointer reaches zero, the heading card then aligns and both rotate together. It depends upon the start position of the aircraft as to how apparent this behavior is.

ARK usage and Mach 2.0+ testing.

Really? I'm talking about the lighting, not crosshairs or anything else... Best regards, Tango.

Hi, The red cockpit lighting is permanently on. I turn the rheostat to switch them off but they turn back to max on their own. Best regards, Tango.

I think there is a more general problem. I tried loading: Pylon 5 and 1: R-60M * 2 Pylon 4 and 2: R-3S APU-13MI Pylon 3: SPS-141-100 Pylon 6: Chaff/Flare Dispenser The missiles on 5/1 disappeared (not loaded). EDIT: It appears the bug is in the mission editor. Try applying the loadout again if things go missing. Best regards, Tango.

A-10C could be the lasing aircraft, and CC fire from another direction. Not sure what the AGM-65 required for carriage. You could definitely target it using the HUD/laser scan function. Best regards, Tango.

It's not about exclusivity. We welcome competition. We're not afraid of that. We have a very strong product, that if it could reach completion, would raise the bar for ED as well as other 3PD. The L-39 will get finished by VPJT, only it won't be seen on the DCS platform. Best regards, Tango.

If ED really said this somewhere, please quote it. They never told us they were concerned with the rate of progress. Major points in the history of this project: * May 2012 - Project start * Jan 2013 - SDK access opened up (8 months since start of project) - code re-built * Sep 2014 - Project halted (20 months after SDK access, 28 months since start of project) Until we had SDK access, we could not even develop an AFM, so that has been in development for 1 year and 8 months. Given SE developed all kinds of custom tools to do this, on top of the core flight model development, this is pretty rapid progress for a first project! I fail to see how we were somehow "slow" (and given that the L-39 is one of the most advanced 3rd party projects, of any 3rd party project known to exist, well...). In the meantime I worked on Hawk and C-101 as well! Best regards, Tango.

...and there is the crux of the problem. Our development schedule can't possibly mean that our L-39 will be ready before December at the earliest. Due to the requirement that ED must then put the product into testing with their internal test team means that at best, we are looking at a Jan/Feb release, assuming a fast test cycle and no problems. In addition, ED recently introduced this: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=127280 So now, not only do we have to develop and test the flight model as part of normal development, but we have to produce test data and get it signed off (separately) by ED. It wouldn't necessarily take long to do on our part, but it is still additional work we were not expecting, and is part of getting release authorization. Best regards, Tango.

Different words, same meaning. You suggest we are finished with everything, and are now looking at the cockpit model. You suggest the cockpit model is the only thing left to do, and is delaying release. Your statement is incorrect. As I keep saying, we are under NDA and can not tell you what we know. We would like Wags to clarify his statement: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=129829 Best regards, Tango.

That is totally unfair! We did NOT leave it "until the last minute". If you read my post further up, I explain the timing. The cockpit is in no way delaying the project. http://www.flightsimlabs.com/development-status-update-beta-test-applications/ These guys are not doing it part-time, either. I can't begin to explain how much time/effort goes into software development. If you do it for a living, you'll know what I'm talking about. I'm under NDA, so I can't tell you what we know. Wags knows this, which makes his comments so bizarre. If Wags would clarify his comment about us releasing before ED, then we would certainly consider it. I'm under NDA however, so can't comment on what we know. Best regards, Tango.

I'd personally like to know why ED thinks we are not capable of finishing (as per Wags post). What on earth gave them that idea? If they wanted a development status update, we'd have gladly provided one (see my post further up). Best regards, Tango.

Well given that we have been working hard on the systems dev, the cockpit model was low on the list. We were told 3 - 4 months (starting now) for a complete cockpit model (front and back seats). This would coincide with us completing the systems and AFM dev *and* completing internal testing prior to sending to ED for them to test. Given we were ready mid-August to give the go-ahead for a cockpit model, this put us approximately November/December for completion and ready to send to ED. By the time the L-39 would hit the shelves, we'd be within a month or two of all other known 3rd party development releases. Given the complexity and depth of simulation (not to mention being only the second 3rd party developer to release OUT THE DOOR with AFM, after the MiG-21) we thought progress was very good. Best regards, Tango.

Modelling definitely requires skill, but it is safe to say it requires the least amount of time to complete. Best regards, Tango.

Well, Wags comment is intriguing us greatly. I can't say more due to NDA. Best regards, Tango.

We were about to invest in a professional cockpit model when we got the e-mail from ED. We had been in discussion with a model developer about the project. Understand the systems and AFM are better than Beta status. They are nearly complete. Best regards, Tango.

The item we are missing most is a cockpit model. We hacked together a model so we can get on with the systems and AFM development, but it is the cockpit model that we can't do (we are technical guys, not artists). We are open to offers. Best regards, Tango.

We are not having trouble with anything, thank you. I think in light of the fact that I have worked not only on the L-39, but also the Hawk for VEAO, and the C-101 for AvioDev, should attest to that. If you have seen the Hawk at Duxford (and you will have the oppotunity to fly her again this weekend at Duxford along with the Occulus Rift!) then you will know that I'm an accomplished DCS developer. SE has worked very hard as well on the flight model and some of the aircraft systems, and if you could fly the flight model he developed, I think there would be no doubt left as to the true capability of our team. We find the suggestion that we are somehow struggling or otherwise "can't do it", most offensive. Best regards, Tango.