EtherealN

Good question there: the stated loadout of the Gripen in question was 4 IRIS (but only one physical). Question is whether the phoons had 4/4 _simulated_ weapons but were they physically present too? Since it was clear that the simulated weapons load was not necessarily the same as physical training weapons on hardpoints.

Aye, hard to call. I've seen C's do quite spectacular takeoffs, but that was airshows and I suspect it didn't carry anything more than strictly necessary, so that would also be a bad source of judgement. As a theory - well, more a speculation - could it be that the Gripens need a bit more speed than the phoons to reach optimal climb, and thus "relax" after takeoff longer than the Phoons would?

At MTOW, C/D Gripens indeed do have a considerably weaker T/W than does the Typhoon. E/F is getting a nice upgrade on that note. Not knowing the exact situation you observed them in, of course.

"Robot" is a guided missile, any type of seeker. From little sidewinders and all the way to ICBM's. (In swedish: "Interkontinental ballistisk robot") The word "missil" has started to overtake the word "robot" in general, layman's swedish (as a loanword from english), but in military and technical circles the word "robot" remains the most common. Generally speaking, if it has an engine of some sort, and can navigate/home in on targets with onboard equipment, it's a "robot". As an aside, the word "missile" in english originally indicates any projectile. Bow and Arrow, even slings, are "missile" weapons.

The problem with "closing" threads in some sections, rather than deleting them, is that some sections has a lower thread turnover than others. The rule-breaking threads sitting there locked would crowd the display. (Trust me; I still see all the deleted threads. ;) ) If you disagree with a moderator action, feel free to contact any moderator. All of us can see what the others did and handle your appeal. If a deletion is found to be in error, the delete can be repealed. (They're still there, just not visible to anyone but moderators and administrators.) If you wish to discuss this further, please feel free to contact me with a PM. I'll bring it up for discussion as well within the team.

Both versions use the same protection system, so yes. Note however that there might be a delay until Steam recognizes a serial number purchased through our site (since updates to the Steam database are performed roughly once per month).

Considered the fact that fighters on the Falklands AT ALL is, itself, a message saying "yes, we'll fight for these here islands"? And seriously, the risk of Argentina invading again... nonexistant. In case you haven't noticed, the political situation is a teeny weeny bit different now. :P

Meh, using OpenGL is cheating. You've got a huge library backing you up. (Best ever demos are the boot-sector demos - 512 bytes floppy boot sector, that's all you've got, no drivers, no OS, no nothing. It's all YOU.)

Come on now, you should have said "who knows?" and thus gotten people all berzerk about possible F-4's. :D

Steam does not forget to register that you own them. It registers that you own FC3. Everything those aircraft contain, in their updates state, are things you have been given for free as part of FC3. If you have FC3, you have everything. Do not worry.

Have you tried selecting the F-15C module as "wallpaper" in DCS, and ensure that your music volume is not zeroed?

Technically, they already "can't", unless they have obtained permission. TB talks about that in the piece I linked. The difference, really, is that no-one really bothered going after the streams. Youtube is different.

Father In-Law. ;)

Didn't "read" StarForce, but guilty of assuming that that was a mispelling. :P

Aviodev subject moved to a separate thread.

Yeah, of all the things to be annoyed by, the account merger is one I really do not get. It's a convenience I like, just like I like how all Blizzard games are accessible through one account. Youtube copyright policies are what they are because they pretty much don't have a choice, though. They must handle it the way they do to keep themselves out of liability for your videos. Anyone annoyed at that should keep that in mind come election day. :)

TB made a very good piece on this. I would advice you to listen to him before you judge this - he's got his livelihood on both sides of this equation, and overall he is positive about it.

If he actually did make this game himselft, he's anything but new to development - with not less than 14 published games on Google Play. One of them being "Air Strike 3D" ( https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ScnStudios.AirStrike3D ) which is this specific game.

I knew I had seen that picture someplace else.

Yeah. The one time I did see badgers at home was actually when they were in a fight with each other. Two fearless murdermachines going at each other... That is one long, noisy fight to the death... Though I think the Ratel is specifically the Honey Badger, we have a different species/subspecies/etc up here - they don't get quite the same coolness rating as the Honey Badger since they don't eat poisonous snakes. Though then again, that's because we have no really poisonous snakes up here. Would not surprise me if that fact is solely down to badgers having already eaten all of them. :P

One of the perks of living in the sticks. See foxes regularly (and my cat chased one away once, was hilarious to see a pissed off 3kg cat send the fox running. :D ). Wolves are a rare sight, but they do happen, then there's lynx, moose, deer. The badgers I've only seen once, but oh man do you HEAR them when they get into fights with each other. Scared the crap out of me first time. :D

I'm fairly sure embargoing would fall under a force majeure clause. It would be suicidal to not have one of those in there. You also forget the Brazilians. It wouldn't have been just the swiss and swedes. The brazilians will be the largest operator of the type, if I recall correctly, with their own R/D and manufacturing capabilities. But the bigger issue anyway is: are you really concerned enough with the risk of an american embargo against sweden that you feel it's enough to block a purchase? And considering that the Gripen was in competition with the Eurofighter and Rafale - how is any of it different for those?

The issue that's relevant here though is the customer perspective: would such a possible embargo cause them to no longer be able to get spare parts etcetera. In the case of an embargo against sweden, the interesting aspect is whether they'd still be able to get their components from places like the UK (since UK companies are heavily involved), Brazil, etcetera etcetera. Basically, would a theoretical swiss Gripen fleet be seriously hampered by an embargo against sweden? I'm not sure - had it been the older gripens then definitely, but with the E/F being a lot more international I'm less convinced.

Ooop, yeah, you're right, I misread a document.

Well, that's not what I'm talking about though. I'm talking about this situation: 1) The Swiss voted yes instead of no 2) The plane gets developed (including their specifications), and delivered 3) A decade in the future, sweden comes under a US embargo What is the problem for the swiss then? The key american component is the engine (in the E/F, that is), but that can be purchased from the british company that made them anyhow - or, indeed, from the americans themselves. Weapons can be purchased from the brits, euros, americans and brazilians still, etcetera etcetera. (If I recall correctly, the brazilians will include the capability to use some of their current and upcoming domestic A2A weapons. The Swiss might not have opted to have that installed in their planes, ofc, but given the commonality they could in future do that; especially considering that the Brazilians are expecting to have a fully capable Gripen production line of their own!) Not strictly relevant - they would already have purchased it since, as you know, Sweden is not under embargo at this point, nor are there any indications that it would be in the future. (I would, indeed, rate swedish accession to NATO as more likely than that. The yankees have great use of the swedes as well, for example through renting that sat relay for their UCAV's and UAV's up at Esrange.) But yeah, not applicable since the swiss would already have it, and the price decrease would affect Sweden (and the UK), not Switzerland. Still not what I asked though. I asked what would be the effect on Switzerland if they had purchased Gripens today, and in future Sweden comes under embargo? Remember, you are the one that said that the risk of a future embargo on Sweden is one of the reasons it's a good idea for Switzerland to not purchase Gripen. THAT is what I am asking about. And, btw, they wouldn't need Americans anyway, they probably could use the brits that already control large parts of the Gripen manufacturing chain. Couple issues there though: such a limited embargo could easily lead to the americans seeing themselves, in turn, blocked from continuing a lot of license production and other purchases that they already are making from swedish industry. (Though, obviously, swedish law already technically prohibits those sales and always did since the US in engaged in wars, but you know how it goes. :P ) More relevantly though: the swiss doesn't really need the swedes if push really comes to shove, excepting possibly the radar and some other things. As mentioned: compatible weapons come from three continents, engine already is american/british. I don't know whether the radar would even fall under such an embargo anyhow, if I remember right the one slated for the E/F is "all Ericsson", so to speak. The one in the older ones is Swedish/British. (A collab between Ericsson and BAE, based on a previous british design - a cousing to the Eurofighter radar.)