FalcoGer

When moving the cursor to the edge of the screen and then moving the stick that's used for moving the cursor around to face the opposite direction, the cursor then gets stuck on the edge of the screen. Track attached. server-20221106-221652.trk

As the title says: When setting the backup altimeter, the readout jumps from 2999 to 3100 and scrolling further then goes to the correct 3001. server-20221106-220833.trk

When selecting WPN -> Boresight -> IHADS -> Boresight, you can not deselect IHADS again. As a side note: This happened after I couldn't find the cursor (it's probably got affected by the still present stuck on edge bug) and using the boresight/ihads to force the cursor onto a known position. server-20221106-220833.trk

It was the latest version of openbeta at the time of posting (yesterday). I was the only pilot flying. Chaff and flares didn't work and the count didn't decrease either in the displays, but the tail rotor kept working (despite there being neither drive shaft nor hydraulics). What was desyncronized from what? When was this fixed? I was evading the missile and I thought it was a bit strange to be hit by it at the point. I can not provide the track as it is several hundred megabytes in size.

When switching to front seat in multiplayer, target store doesn't work. You get the indication on the TEDAC but nothing gets populated on the TADS or the COORD list. Track attached. server-20221103-213231.trk It doesn't show it in the track, but the back seat also doesn't get the points either.

also forum appends random "null". I didn't write that.

I got hit by an ATGM and it destroyed my tail, but i could still fly normally. the tail rotor effects were also still visible. Also i was considered dead to AI and couldn't repair, despite me clearly being able to fly. null

Strange artifacts on FLIR

I'm aware, but thank you. Maybe I should have included that. It's still a bug.

When selecting the TADS as video underlay and then selecting No Video afterwards, the crosshair stays on the underlay. crosshair_stays_after_no_video.trk

If you want to harm proof, add an SA15 or SA10 like the russians would do, not quadruple up your radars (like nobody does). additionally you may add a script such as this one. They won't turn on their own radar until the EWR has found a target and said target is in range. They would also turn the radar off if they detect incoming missiles, unless they have an anti missile system, like the SA15 nearby to intercept. But of course adding short range defenses to a long range sam site, like anybody who is decently sane, would make using rockets against that site pretty much impractical. It also prevents you from just flying low into min range of that SA2 site and just shooting stuff up with guns (or rockets) with impunity.

I have yet to find anyone to fly with. They say 2 hours is too long. Also do you have a source that says that this is what operators do with these systems, like putting 4 search radars up instead of 1, because that sounds a bit ridiculous to me?

You don't say. Every sam site has like 5 radars, what's up with that? The maximum number of launchers for an SA-2 site is 6. I have altered the composition of the sam sites to be more in line what's actually possible. I also gave them short range defenses so you can't just rush into min range. Party in Ten.miz

It's not like only the apache rockets are broken. All rockets in DCS have had the same issue for decades now, from the very first installment of the KA50, A10, Su-25, and every other aircraft between up to now, Hornet, Viper, Jeff, every single one of them. The issue lies with core DCS. And some of those aircraft are not in early access, so that line of thinking of "It's EA, it'll be fixed" doesn't apply. It's a core game problem that requires a major rework of explosion simulation and the introduction of damage models to vehicles. That requires research into every single vehicle to know where stuff is on them and how it affects operations, what backup systems are available, how crews can field repair some damage perhaps and many other things like that. I don't expect to see any of that before 2030. It's not even on the roadmap. Before that we probably see a DM rework of ships, but at least that'll lay some foundational work. I did an experiment once, loading an Su-25T up with all rockets, S-8, every single pylon that could carry them. I placed like 20 trucks on the kobuletti airstrip cross and just salvo fired every single one of them from around 3 miles or so. The whole area was one giant explosion and there should've been nothing left but scrap metal. How many did I kill? 5. Sure, it was a quick engagement, but had I taken my time, I could probably have killed more with the gun alone. And the Gsh-23 is not exactly the best thing in the world. Could I kill more with rockets? Yes, I could by getting closer, carefully lining up my shots and shooting short bursts at every target. But rockets are area weapons, so I tried using them as such. IRL that engagement would've been complete overkill, in DCS it was very lacking. The ineffective rocket simulation is also the reason why people called for APKWS so much, because that instantly turns rockets from near useless to OP killing machines, as evidenced by their introduction to the A10-II, completely replacing mavericks against everything except the most heaviest of tank targets and buildings and replacing the need for accurate gun lineup with get a point track with the TGP and fire the rocket in the general direction of the target. I like to choose the best tool for the job, not take a knife to chop down a bush. It's possible, but dumb, even if the knife in real life is a machete, I'd rather take the chainsaw than the knife. If there is some role play reason for it or if the situation calls for it, then sure. Sure. If you know some magic that turns rockets into useful assets against soft and medium targets, I'm all too happy to learn that.

The points made were You can shoot rockets at 10km as your own personal MLRS strike You can actually hit stuff at 500m range Rockets are great between gun and missile range You can't just compare the huey with the apache. In the UH1 you get nothing but the rockets to take out anything that's more armored than a cardboard box, so you have to make due. As for the points above You won't hit anything against targets decently spread out, and if you do it's a fluke, and even if you hit you would've hit more things with hellfires. What's the point of using rockets if you're at 500m As for the mid range thing, you can just stay at long range. Or you could just close to gun range. There is no need for a mid range weapon that is ineffective. I consider gun range to be < 2500m, and around 1500m if you want to save ammo, missiles are fine at up to 1500m or so or even closer. There is plenty of overlap. There is no gap to bridge. As I said, against infantry, they work. Also I make the point that missiles are better of a choice to take rather than rockets. Not that rockets can't do anything. They DO kill things, if you hit them. If you are going to waste 8 rockets on a truck, you are wasting your potential. that's 1/3rd of the rockets in your pylon. A hellfire would've been 1/4th of that same pylon. That's exactly the point I'm making here. You get less effect for the same space. And you only get 4 spaces. On an A10 it doesn't matter, they're bomb trucks. Apaches are not. If you want to be competetive with your rockets vs hellfires, you need 8 kills, not 3 kills and 3 slowed down or any other nonsense. 8 complete kills, vehicles exploding and burning. And that's just not a thing that happens from 3000-7000m, where you claim rockets bridge the gap, unless you make a ridiculous scenario where there is a perking lot filled with technicals, bumper to bumper and mirrors touching. Rockets are just inferior in every way. They are less lethal, less accurate, shorter range and as a result, even if you have 19 instead of 4, less effective overall. And even the fact that you have a bigger number doesn't mean you can get more kills, even if you hit every single one of them, because you have the gun as well. In aircraft where the guns don't exist or don't do anything like the uh1 or the mi8 and where rockets are literally your only option, then of course you take the rockets. I'm done.

And how often do you find yourself a bunker with literally nothing around it that can be blown up to make a nice pillar of smoke? And at the same time have people on the other end with ground attack aircraft that can blow up the bunker but don't have the means to find a bunker with coordinates and/or laser and absolutely must rely on smoke because apparently there are also no landmarks and you also ran out of flares because you had to dodge all those missiles from the non existing air defenses? You're grasping and make up ridiculous scenarios to justify how great DCS rockets are. Also I have made my arguments. Guns can do what rockets can do, except you get it for free and it can swivel and be more accurate. And 4 missiles on a pylon are on average and in an average scenario way more useful than 19 rockets on a pylon, be it explosive, smoke, illumination or otherwise. The reason is how DCS doesn't model neither vehicle damage nor frag damage from rockets and instead relies on direct hits to get a kill. Because rockets are area weapons, direct hits from realistic ranges are rare and as such they are ineffective. And while you can get very good accuracy at 500m, there is no point using rockets at those ranges. The gun doesn't just work just as well, it's straight up better because it's more accurate, more responsive, has more ammo and doesn't use up a pylon space. And when they finally implement the removal of the aux tank and you can carry 1200 rounds, that will just get exacerbated. IRL rockets are great because frag can damage equipment and you can actually wipe a whole area clean of infantry and soft skin vehicles and maybe blow up an apc or two. They are also cheap, at least compared to missiles. But that's not what we're talking about here. If you want to compare DCS rockets to IRL, it'd be more like shooting training rockets with a real motor but just a metal slug for a warhead. A direct hit would still penetrate an APC, but anything else just makes a puff of dust and dirt. No army would take a training rocket into the field unless it had literally nothing else to throw in the general direction of the enemy. Infantry is special, at least in DCS, because it can't do much without scripting, is slow, uses computing resources and is mainly just there to look pretty and be killed. As such infantry is either the focus of the mission, sprinkled in for flavor or just omitted completely to make room for more capable units that actually matter in the scale of things. If by chance your mission involves killing infantry but is otherwise sparsely populated with vehicles, or perhaps has only very few armored vehicles, then rockets are a great choice. Even when there is the occasional group of infantry you can still wipe out a whole group with one missile if you have to, but you might as well just use the gun. Any special rocket types, such as smoke or illumination flare, are a special scenario that isn't the aforementioned average scenario and thus shouldn't be your "go-to" rocket type. I stand by my point: Rockets are circumstantial, if you want to have a default loadout that you just take most of the time for almost any scenario, then it should be all missiles unless the situation dictates otherwise. Whatever scenario you come up with, it can be done with 16 hellfires and guns. Rockets may help, but generally they do not. And because they are generally not doing much, I say missiles are better to pick as a default. I don't know what your obsession is trying to prove that something that clearly doesn't work as intended is the greatest thing since perforated toilet paper, but I won't argue any more. Do what you think is fun. That's half true. They get slowed down at some % of HP left. There isn't actually any damage to wheels or tracks or the engine or fuel tanks or anything. It's just a number that determines how "healthy" a vehicle is. If you land a real rocket next to a real ural truck, say 15m away, I expect the driver to be perforated as well as the fuel tanks and the tyres. In DCS it takes like 5% "damage". Since 5% or even 30% damage doesn't do anything, it might as well be nothing. What's more, you can kill infantry from what feels like 50m away with a rocket hit, but a guy sitting at a ZU-23 emplacement magically survives hits 5m away. The gun may get scratched up a little by flying sharpnel and a few ammo boxes might be knocked over. But a guy now having suddenly consisting of 10% metal shouldn't be able to operate anything anymore.

I never said I shoot them at the launchers and utility vehicles. you get more munitions to play it safe from long range. 3 30mm bullets take out a BTR, one is enough for a launcher. Why would I run out of hellfires earlier when I take more of them? That makes no sense. Say there are 6 short range air defenses guarding that SA2 site, one SR, one TR, 6 launchers and 2 trucks. I take 16 hellfires, because no infantry. I shoot at 6 short range AA, 1 TR and have 9 missiles left, then clean up with the gun, say 100 rounds. Now I have 9 missiles, 200 gun. Alternatively you would take 8 hellfires, 38 missiles. You shoot the same 7 targets because anything else is insane, then go in with rockets. Now you have 1 missile and 20 rockets left and 300 gun. Now we both come across your target of opportunity defended by 2x AAA. I have 9 missiles left to play with, you have 1. You shoot your one missile and you run in with your 20 rockets and because they do no damage unless you get a direct hit you either have to get well within the danger area or shoot from long range and hope for good luck. I'm comfy, you are left without options other than to be risky or to disengage. Alternatively you shoot your 38 rockets into the SA2 site and get 0 to 3 kills random kills maybe, if you're really lucky. say 2 launchers and a shilka. you shoot your hellfires, have 2 hellfires left and no rockets, clean up with guns. At the end of that engagement you have 2 missiles, 200 guns, no rockets, where I would sit at 9 missiles, 200 guns. Maybe you do something else. But I can't come up with anything else that would make sense. Sure, a rocket salvo from 10km away would damage the missiles and the radar dishes to the point of being dangerous to use or being INOP IRL, but not here. Tell me how your version is better again? When it comes to effectiveness per pylon, yes you can get 38 kills with 38 rockets at point blank if you're perfect and you're in the perfect conditions. In those very same perfect conditions you can kill almost anything with guns anyway. Yes you can kill 50 infantry with a single rocket. Yes if you have a parking lot full of APCs packed so tight that there is no space between them, then rockets would be amazing. But the norm is something else. And in that normal situation with no infantry, because DCS infantry is basically just for flavor or for being a manpad, vehicles spread out and there being mostly armor, IFVs, APCs and ADUs, rockets don't do much for you. Granted wild weaseling and buddy lasing are effective and baiting SAMs in a helicopter is fun, but that has nothing to do with taking rockets or hellfires, which is the point of all of this. If you are close enough to guarantee a rocket hit, you are well close enough to guarantee a gun hit. Again, I don't see the point. I have shot an SA8 down with rockets before, yes. I just launched 38 of them in one go from a very low pass and popping up about 2km away. It works, yes. But why would you put yourself at such risks? Again, that's way too close, well within machine gun range. Use the gun or use standoff. Yes. Rockets are great for anti infantry. I said as much. If you expect that you will be fighting mostly infantry, then take rockets. Even I take rockets if I know that there will be multiple groups of infantry that I go up against. Another fun one is convoys, but only if there isn't all too much shooting back at me. Come in from behind and blast them all to pieces in one run. Again, mostly leaves 70% of them still alive if I want to stay > 2km, but it's fun to do. That said, if you can not kill 8 things with your 38 rockets and if you could kill the things that you would use rockets for with the gun instead, then you would've been better of with missiles. If you take smoke rockets, and your smoke can't make something go boom that couldn't be taken out by a missile, again you would've been better off with missiles. If you can get away with extra firepower and make your mate's bombs land on some target using some other method, then you're better off with that firepower. At least that's my opinion. I talked plenty people on target before using coordinates and laser codes and it was just fine without any smoke. That may be so IRL. But try coordinating anything in any of the public servers. I tried. It's a mess. The best I ever got was 4 guys shooting harpoons at a ship together. Didn't work out and then they all just kinda gave up and went back to doing their own thing again. If you're lucky you can get to buddy lase or talk someone onto a target and blow up a building. We could go back and forth all day long. How about you come up with a scenario and send a track on how you do. And I'll fly it my way and we can compare? Caucasus or Marianas for convenience.

In DCS if you don't get a kill, you are ineffective. It's not about your personal kills, it's about how effective you use your ammo. And if you pick rockets, you choose to pick ammo that is ineffective. As I said, mark with laser or give coordinates. That is just as, or more effective than having people to look for a large structure with their eyes that doesn't require marking anyway. Who does that? That's just silly. If you are attacking ground targets with bombs, you should have a TGP to aim those bombs at things. Also you can still drop on coordinates even without a TGP. Via radio, I guess. No idea about that aircraft. You could pop flares in a pinch if you had to mark it somehow. Or you could give them coordinates again. Alternatively you could tell them that the warehouse is some offset from a landmark, say a bridge, airport, road junction, river, or whatever else. I don't get what you mean by that. What specifics? "Blow up the warehouse at DDMMSSss from the east" vs "Blow up the warehouse at the smoke from the east", provided they already know the general area where to look for the smoke anyway? How about your C101 is 20 miles away and they can't see the smoke? You gotta use coordinates anyway. Is it? How complicated is your talk onto the smoke vs your talk onto a building without your smoke? I don't see much of a difference. If you use a 5 or 9 line you gotta say the exact same things, except for "Marked by smoke" instead of "No mark" or "Marked by laser, 1688". Is it not easier to enter some coordinates, fly there and blow it up than to look for smoke god knows where that dissipates in 15 seconds and then needs to be placed again? Is it not easier to mark a target from 8km away from behind the safety of a hill, then duck and take all the time in the world that you might need instead of risking flying into manpads to place your silly smoke marker? If you must blow up a building, you can usually wait 5 minutes more, not that placing smoke would save you those 5 minutes usually. Yes. 16 hellfires is way more than you need to take out a few AAA and SR sams. You get 16 guaranteed kills after all. The launchers you can take out with guns once the tracking radar is destroyed. In fact you can just kill the tracking radar and then move on with your life, since the short range defenses failed in their mission and provide minimal area denial on their own. What would rockets change in your scenario? It would be detrimental, you will have less hellfires to play with, allowing you to take out only 8 targets. Say you have a single shilka left, then you are down to rockets. Rockets don't do crap against a shilka unless you get a direct hit. And to get that direct hit you need to close within the shilka's range, putting you at risk. Taking rockets on that mission would be ridiculous, I'd never take rockets against short range air defenses, even manpads. And even if you kill all the actual threats with your hellfires and then you get all those juicy rockets left over, what are you going to do with them? Kill the launchers and utility vehicles and "Mop up"? Of course you can do that, but again you need direct hits to be effective, then you will expend 4-8 rockets per vehicle/launcher, effectively giving you 4 kills per pylon at best, which you could've just put on a hellfire for and called it a day. No, mopping up is what the gun is for. If I put on less hellfires, will I have enough hellfires? No, and that's exactly the point. You can. Or you could shoot a hellfire at the radar. I've taken out SA15 and SA8 from behind cover with LOAL shots and it works out just fine. Rockets on the other hand would require marking the target, setting up the acquisition source and then perfectly lining up from a hover. Rockets are rather inaccurate from hover fire I found out. Then waste your entire rocket load and hope one of them scores a direct hit on something useful. And all that needs to be done in cover and within 3km of the target. If the situation permits such tactics, then you can do it of course. But personally, I think that's just suicidal and impractical in most cases. I prefer to keep out of sight and out of range. You can just about outrange most IR missiles and skirt on the edge of SA19. SA15 and SA8 can be beat with LOAL. You make excellent points of not using rockets here. What would you do if you came across such a target? Well you would use hellfires of course to kill the air defense and then close for a gun kill. Another question, what happens if you came across targets of opportunity that are not easily served with guns or rockets, such as, for example a column of tanks? Or anything else that actually shoots back, such as a BTR82. You don't want to go to rocket range, miss your shots and then get a 30mm to the face. What you want to do is stay well away and shoot them from range. How do you know where to deploy your illumination flares? Also even cold vehicles can be seen reasonably well if you know where to look. I don't know, do I have to? I mean if they absolutely depend on it and can't bring their own flares, sure. But that's a situation that I never found myself in. I have never been asked to provide illumination for anyone, nor have I ever witnessed such a thing. What's the CEP in that case? 500m? Rockets are area suppression systems. In DCS they fly like area suppression systems, but they behave like bullets. They either hit or they don't. And if they don't they don't do jack all. You can shoot your 38 rockets in one giant salvo at 10km and you might actually hit something. Or your can shoot 8 hellfires at 10km and be sure to hit 8 things. It's just not an effective weapon to use against anything other than infantry. You can shoot your rockets at that SA2 site and you might hit the radar dish (with a probability of 0.5% or somesuch). Or you might hit one utility truck and a whole lot of bushes all around the radar. Or you might whiff it entirely and it lands in the kindergarten the next city over.

If the fix is to change one number, why is this still a thing?

This is wrong. The acquisition source only determines on where the sight should be aiming and has no effect on what weapons are doing at all (even LOAL just goes straight ahead, ACQ just helps lining up and tells the computer to let you know when you can shoot). What determines where the gun is pointing is your selected sight, in this case TADS as indicated in the bottom left. What determines the gun elevation is the selected range source, in this case laser, indicated with the asterisks next to the range. Possible range sources are: Manual (via man range in WPN page) - Fixed range, indicated with M Laser (automatic when firing the laser) - Laser range, 1m accurate, indicated with * Radar (when selecting target as next to shoot on the FCR page) - Radar range, 10m accurate, indicated with R Auto (when selecting "A" as range in WPN page) - Range determined by calculating the slant range using the camera angle intersecting a level plane beneath the aircraft indicated by radar altimeter, indicated with A Nav (when slaving to a point and not doing anything else) - unsure if slant or 2d range to 3d point or 2d point on ground, but basically useless for targeting dumb munitions either way. Indicated with N There are a few caveats here though. With TADS as sight, the gun (and rockets) will always try to lead the target, depending on how the range changes and the rotation speed of the camera, even with LMC off. For best gunnery results, keep firing the laser and enable LMC and get it as stable as you can on target, whether it is moving or not. This has the benefit of also keeping you stable if your pilot maneuvers. Best accuracies are achieved < 2000m Also the gun needs to be in normal mode. Fixed has the gun pointed forward at a fixed angle.

If you can mark a target with a rocket, you might as well kill it. The issue with the rockets is that you need a direct hit, meaning square on, while in real life rockets are area weapons, meant to be fired in a general direction and wiping out everything in a general area, while in DCS rockets do near 0 damage if they land even just ever so slightly next to a target that has the slightest bit of paper armor. What good is your "personal MLRS battery" when you get no kills. All it does is produce a fancy firework show. The way I see it is, I can either have 38 rockets or 8 hellfires. Or in other words, I could have 2, maybe 3 kills on vehicles or 8 guaranteed kills from a way greater standoff range (provided that you have a human CPG). Marking targets is great and all, but if you can mark it, you might as well kill it. And even without smoke rockets you could mark with your laser. Nearly all modern, western aircraft have a laser spot tracker. And even without that, you can feed them the coordinates. I never found a use for smoke rockets, vehicles smoke on their own when you hit them with a hellfire, no need to waste your pylons for something that has no effect. As for night illumination, that is great for the Ka50 which has very limited nighttime capability, but the Apache has FLIR. Maybe it would be useful in real life to support troops on the ground or something, but not in DCS when you can put something on that actually has an effect. Given the limitations of the vehicle damage models, the lack of frag simulation, the borked up ballistics calculations > 3km (they always land short it seems), the fact that you have a gun that can kill an APC in 3 direct hits but has 10 times the ammo that you get with your rockets (and soon 40 times the ammo with the removal of the aux tank) and also can swivel around and that you can have missiles instead of rockets means that rockets in DCS are only ever useful if you fight a lot of large groups of infantry without AA capability. If you actually want a decent chance to kill something with rockets, you need a decent salvo size if you want a certain certainty of killing it. And when you have to fire 8-12 rockets to get a kill from 3km away, you might as well just shoot a hellfire from 8 and then you're still more efficient with what you can actually carry in terms of kills per trigger pull. Sure, rockets are cool, they look great, and they do actually work against squishy humans, but for anything else it's just a waste of payload and space right now until frag and vehicle systems are simulated. The utility rockets are even more situational. So I disagree, they are meant to be inaccurate, they are inaccurate, but in DCS they must get a direct hit to do anything. In short, it just doesn't work out. Between the gun and the hellfire you get something that can kill from 0 to around 2.5km and something that can kill from around 3km to 10km. Rockets are sort of landing in the right area around 500m to 2.5km without blowing yourself up. They're great fun to use, but again, only effective against infantry. Of course you can kill a truck or APC with it, but at that point why not just use the gun? It's way more accurate, you get way more ammo and you get more standoff capability if you take missiles instead.

It'd be nice if you could put the numbers into the mode 3/S transponder at least, right now it's stuck on 1200 with no way to change it. SRS/LotATC doesn't recognize it either. Same with IDENT. As a side note, is 1200 even used by military aircraft for VRF in north america? I know 1200 isn't the standard VFR code for most of the world anyway. I think that one goes to 7000, with specific ones in different countries.

I don't get this post at all. What are you saying? "I did a cool thing in my life, here is how my experience compares to DCS, but it's not hard data: [insert cricket noises], I hope I could help with my insights" What is it now? Is DCS accurate? If not how should it change? Sadly I am not privileged to play with a real Apache or a simulator, so I wouldn't know the first thing about it first hand. But this just seems like: "I know, but not gonna tell you. By the way I'm cool." It would be nice if there was any feedback to be thankful for? I know English isn't my first language but can someone enlighten me what I'm missing here? Maybe there really is some great, actual information that is relevant for the flight model in DCS in that post and I can't see it? I watched the promo video and that didn't help either.

I always take the 229s. You run out of ammo way more often than you do run out of fuel and 5 minutes of extra flight time isn't going to matter a whole lot either way. Since rockets are essentially useless even against soft skin vehicles where shrapnel would kill tires, crew, fuel tanks, etc unless you land a direct hit, the only use for them is groups of infantry. And the larger warhead seems to be more effective. If you know that you won't be going up against a lot of infantry or if your main target is mostly vehicles, then I just take hellfires. Because rockets are so limited in their use in DCS, and because hellfires are the same price as rockets (one time fee of $60/$80 for a lifetime supply) even if you have to shoot at 2 or 3 groups of infantry, a hellfire will do the job just as nicely and you still get plenty left to kill tanks with. Besides, the gun is extremely good against infantry and vehicles as well. Just gotta watch out for manpads and ATGMs.

When I visit digitalcombatsimulator.com it seems to set the language according to my ip address, which is german. I don't want the german version, but the english version for a variety of reasons (the changelog doesn't get updated for instance, the translated text feels translated and weird). I can change the language in the top of course, but when I visit the site later, even after I log in, or even if I still have a valid cookie, the language gets reset to german. It would be nice if the language setting is saved with the user in the database so the language gets set automatically when they log in as well as using a cookie to keep track of which language the user has set when not logged in. It should be a fairly straight forward improvement to implement. Because this is harmless, a language cookie can be set to expire in a year or two, just make sure the login cookie expires relatively soon, as it does now.