CHEqTRO

I am sorry, but I fail to see why that there was not an invasion in september, or now: its of any relevance to this discussion. The initial assestment of "Russia will invade in September" came from an article, and then the discussion moved as to why that invasion was a possibility, as Haiduk explained. The fact that it hasnt come to pass yet doesnt change that possibility.
The fact that Russia has geopolitical interest in Ukraine its easy to all to see, and the possibility that the Russians might try another military adventure into their territory its something that the Ukranians would be wise to prepare for.

NO, it does not !
If you are into CMBS you are longing for a module or two for that game...
If you prefer Normandy i'm pretty sure that quite a few guys would like to see some new content (battlepacks) for that game that take advantage of the latest game engine.
Etc...
And its not just playable content that has been lagging behind lately.
Further gameengine updates would be highely approsiated by many i'm sure...
Currently BFC is not even close to live up to the goals they themself set for themself a few years back...that involved far more then a new module ever other year...
 
 

I keep seeing people mentioning this and understand its correct.  But BFC knows that when they lay out their plans.  After 20 years, you would think that someone at BFC would know the company's capabilities.   Its not like people complain about just the pace of releases, granted it is agonizingly slow.  The main complaint is that BFC seems unable to predict anything even close to what they can do.  Every year we get a list of what's going to be released and less and less of that list gets realized. 
And maybe even worse is the communications on where things stand.  We don't need to know every intricate detail of BFC's plans, but please be more realistic in forecasting what BFC capabilities are.  And this isn't some anomaly of missing almost everything on a list because its been going on for years.  In 2020, it was partnering with Slitherine, in 2019, it was something else, etc.  I have slowly realized that missing almost everything on a list is not some random event every year, its the inability of someone at BFC not learning from past experience.
Instead of a little self reflection, I know the reaction will be to throw hands up in the air and declare no more plans.  Then we go back to 2018 or so and no one from BFC posts anything for over a year, to the point of beta testers openly complaining.  The solution, to me, is a simple list every month or quarter with updates on a few of the developments.  This removes the main issue of everyone running around trying to glean info from minor comments from BFC and jumping to conclusions or developing bad expectations.

Yeah,I will have to jump to defend Aragon in this one. It is not like this module has been anounced to be released like, maybe 5 times now?. Hell, if my memory is working properly this module should have been released back in 2018, and that is if I am not forgetting any earlier release date!
I am not gonna debate if those delays are justifible or not, as I am not a programmer neither I have any real knowledge of the inner works of Battlefront. Nevertheless, that doesnt change the fact that any release date given by battlefront has zero credibility at this point.
Hopefully this time will be the good one

It could be that those are all old bugs that havent been corrected for the demo for as far as I am aware Battlefront doesnt update them.
Infact, just before I bought Battle for Normandy i also downloaded the demo, and it was still using the v1 (or v2, dont really remember) version of the game engine ( When i bought it, v3 had just been released).
There is an easy way to see if this is still the case. Do the sound contact icons have an interrogation sign or do they show an infantryman or tank silhouette?? If the former, the demo is still running an ancient version of the game engine

Brother Ed is happily making craters on a 3-D printer, and I unearthed this to help him. Turns out this is a blast from my past, in the form of a runway cratering study I used when doing a report on US rapid runway repair capability in my early days at Hughes. This is, in part, quite the tutorial on crater configuration from aerial bombs and addresses dimensions  for a range of bomb sizes against both a range of runway types and against bare soil. It's called BOMB CRATER DAMAGE TO RUNWAYS and was authored by Peter Westine of the Southwest Research Institute. 
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/907456.pdf

P.S.

I give up! This post won't delete. Tried doing that after realizing I put it in the wrong place. Should be in CM GDF, not CMFB. Mods, please move it. Thanks! 
Regards,
John Kettler