antagonist

Dayum. Very nice, can't wait to get my hands on it in less than two weeks. :3

While I agree in general, the encryption used would be the most sensitive part of the whole thing...and it is utterly irrelevant for modeling its capabilities in DCS. Since Gripen uses an evolved version of it, odds are they've become so distinct from one another you cannot reliably take the Viggen's and extrapolate from it the limitations and capabilities the Gripen's has.

Botch my takeoff and fireball horribly.

Awesome/10!

I can confirm this issue is present in VR and depends on the distance of the camera to the gunsight.

To be honest, I'd rather have the option for an MG151/20 engine cannon instead of two of them (or two more 30mm MK108 grenade launchers) in underslung pods.

Strictly from a gameplay point of view, there will be a disproportionally large number of 4th gen and Fox-3 capable aircraft introduced in the near future: The upcoming F/A-18, F-14A/B and AV-8B. ED might want to look into giving the REDFOR some more options for carrying active radar homing missiles besides the MiG-29S.

Mirage intensifies ALL of my yes.

I haven't been posting for too long, but even to me this thread seems like it's the millionth on that issue. Forum search is haaaard.

I had some trouble taking off and landing in the Dora until I set elevator trim to nose heavy. Nowadays I barely notice any difference between either plane, except for the 109's tendency to drop a wingtip to the pavement during too enthusiastic differential braking just after touchdown.

Yeah, that was what I was trying to express. Of course, if you stomp on the rudder really hard near stall speed the wing you're yawing towards should drop, but not if you keep the plane flying in a straight line.

Shouldn't marked dropping of a wing only occur during power on stalls or turns? Seems legit in accordance with what Yo-Yo said.

Just a word of warning, if you're using VR, you may want to skip this update. For some reason it tanks performance down into single digits with VR while running fine on a normal screen.

The D-9's sight isn't fixed.

I do wonder why a dedicated subforum for this plane has not been created yet.

It's probably been mentioned already, but I would love to have a late war P-38.

I believe the 109 used an actual airfoil as the vertical stabilizer. Below a certain speed, the engine should pull your plane left, above it, the tail should start overcompensating in neutral rudder position and actually push your nose right. IIRC the sweet-spot where both forces canceled each other out was around 500 kph indicated, but I'd have to test fly the plane to make sure.

My point exactly.

As a German native speaker, it is my understanding the pilot lacked the strength to keep the nose pushed into the dive without using +1.5 nose heavy trim. At no point does the document you're citing imply the stick had been left in or near the neutral position after the dive had been initiated. <snip>...da sonst die Handkraft am Knüppel nicht ausreicht, obige Fahrt zu halten. <snip>...as the pilot's arm strength was insufficient to hold the above speed. (<= really rough partial translation) In short, the pilot was incapable of pushing the stick away from himself far enough to hold 730 kph indicated airspeed in a dive without trimming the plane more nose heavy.

The thing is, it's illegal for such a product to be sold inside Germany, and ED is doing just that with DCS. That's the problem. It doesn't matter where the product was made or what country the company's in, inside German sovereign territory, German law applies and if you want to sell your product, it had better not break any part of it. I did use Germany as an example because I am the most familiar with its laws as I live in there (and somehow I never learned Russian, so go figure). Even one country could land ED in trouble with Steam, for instance. I just ended up in a discussion about whether German law stated the things I said it did. In fact, that was my second post in this thread.

Au contraire. 13 Das Urteil des Landgerichts ist nach allem insoweit rechtsfehlerhaft, als es in dem angegebenen Umfang die Anwendbarkeit des § 86 a StGB verneint hat. Das führt zur Aufhebung des Schuldspruchs, da er zusammen mit dem Gegenstand des nach dem Vorstehenden noch nicht erledigten Teils der Anklage eine einheitliche Tat betrifft. Rough translation as follows: "The verdict made by the district court is legally erroneous insofar as it denied the applicabilityof §86 a StGB in the extent outlined above. This leads to the annulment of the verdict of guilt because it comprises one action together with not yet arbitrated parts of the indictment." In short, the defendant got prosecuted and was found guilty of parts of the indictment. Both he and the prosecution were unsatisfied with the verdict and the case ended up with the Bundesgerightshof for appeal on points of laws. The Bundesgerichtshof found the provincial court had denied application of §86 a StGB when it should have applied it instead, threw out the defendant's revision and admitted the prosecusion's, thereby revoking the verdict the previous court had made. The case was then retrialed and the defendant found guilty of violating §86 a StGB. This can be found at the very top of the document: 1. Die Revision des Angeklagten gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts Kleve vom 13. September 1978 wird verworfen. Der Angeklagte hat die Kosten seines Rechtsmittels zu tragen. The defendant's appeal fails and he has to pay the process costs. 2. Auf die Revision der Staatsanwaltschaft wird das genannte Urteil mit den Feststellungen aufgehoben. The prosecusion's does not and the whole thing goes on retrial. The previous verdict is thrown out because you cannot legally be found guilty of one and the same crime twice. EDIT: Here, §86 a: https://www.jurion.de/Gesetze/StGB-1/86a?from=0:431139

Yeah, the link didn't add up for some reason. I had to google "BGHSt 28" to find the case the page is referring to.

That's the Nix-Gut case, I wasn't referring to it. But this one is the one I was talking about: https://www.jurion.de/Urteile/BGH/1979-04-25/3-StR-89_79

Not going to argue against that. I honestly wouldn't mind 100% historically accurate aircaft skins, not because I especially like the swastika or what it was made to stand for back then (the symbol is much, much older than 70 years, after all), but because I woud like my 109 to look as authentic as possible. I just don't believe it's safe for ED to have players download texture files that include swastikas.

I am German. To be allowed to use the swastika you must meet very strict regulations, and DCS does not. It may be used in works of art, in auction catalogues, by members of the Falun Gong religion and as anti nazi symbols by anti-fascist groups. The case I linked earlier was about a company that was manufacturing aircraft models and painting swastikas on them. Turns out they weren't allowed to do that. Here, I'll link you to a website where they actually compare cut games to their uncut original versions: http://www.schnittberichte.com/schnittbericht.php?ID=363269#agu Windmill warning applies, obviously. They also mention how Wolfenstein (2009) had to be removed from sale because they had overlooked one swastika. Whoops.