Butschi

Not apparently, but he did so in a recorded interview. 
I've long been relative happy with this guy but man oh man, Disconnected Old White Man syndrome strikes down yet another victim. 

I see the rabble are getting roused.  We all appreciate the enthusiasm, we really do. As to updates, well I can echo what Steve has already said - we are aiming to have this DLC out this year.  As to progress, well data and research are largely complete (few things left but not biggies).  Maps for the major campaigns are built (I showed off a few and one was used in that CM tourney).  Campaigns are essentially designed and waiting for the kit.  Equipment lists are done, we will likely be haggling these to the finish line.
So over all scope, scale and background are all defined.  What we are waiting for now is the second longest pole in any content creation tent - artwork/modelling.  This is where stuff gets drawn and actually put into the game.  Once we get enough of that we start rolling on really putting it all together, which in the case of BAOR should be pretty quick, but we still need to do testing and polishing.  We still have a features debate - what is in or out features-wise but that will be sorted quickly.
So the short answer is “sometime this year” and we are fairly far along.  Now it is a matter of getting very few critical people’s time to deliver their end and we can then pull it al together.  No Star Citizen, conspiracy or subterfuge, only limited resources available and waiting in line.

Don't worry we will have nano Grey Goo to clean all that up...and eat humanity while they are at it.

JonS strikes me as a "retired gentleman of leisure".  Sitting on his back veranda watching "the labour" work his plantation while he ponders the modern mysteries of humanity. 

I wish it was that simple. There are those who fall into one or both of these categories. For me, the greater cause for concern are those who actually mean well and are, let's say, mainstream level informed or slightly above, i.e. they watch the news and read an article about the war here and there. But without investing as much time as we do into understanding the details.
If you only watch mainstream media - and I'm talking about the ones that are actually fairly high quality in e.g. Germany you get the impression that Ukraine fought hard and bravely but Russia is advancing.
And these people are increasingly voicing opinions like "we should encourage Ukraine to start negotiating for peace".

They can't seize and hold terrain, yet.
And how well will holding that terrain work out for the infantry in the future? Hell, how well does it work right now?

They can't seize and hold terrain, yet.
And how well will holding that terrain work out for the infantry in the future? Hell, how well does it work right now?

FFS, this is just an extension of "it is all the West's fault", a modern Ukrainian "stab in the back" myth in the making.  Could support have been better coordinated?  Could it have been better overall...definitely.  But the poor weak West managed to send in over support greater than the entire Ukrainian pre-war GDP...but that clearly was weak tea.
Now you snap your fingers because we did not send enough Abrams and Bradley's and were cowering under the glare of Putin?
The first rule of warfare is "know the war you are in."  The first rule of coalition/partnership warfare is "do not turn on each other."  But the sentiments you are pushing here are sorely testing my resolve.  

Just stop it.  This war would be over in a day if the US and West fully slammed down...and then we would be dealing with the next war right behind it.  In what universe do you imagine Russia quietly skulking back over the border, avoiding all eye contact and gracefully accepting defeat if the West rolled in all the dice?
Should we support Ukraine, absolutely.  Should we fight this war for you, no freakin way.  Don't believe me?  Ok, let's take a look at the last time two nuclear powers got involved in a conventional war...oh wait, there really have not been any.
Closest we ever came was here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_wars_and_conflicts
And this skirmish was within a year of Pakistan becoming a nuclear power (maybe).  So in human experience we have gone to incredible lengths to keep nuclear powers out of direct conventional wars...why do you suppose this is? 
Cut the "West is to cowardly" and "nukes are not a thing" BS because it clearly is an underlying calculation in this war and just because "you think so" is not going to change that.  

In reality there is a larger ISR architecture picking up targets and handing them off to FPV crews.  Drones are not sent out blindly hunting targets, the do need to fix them and engage, however you are putting too much stock in this “spotting” drone theory.  The UA is putting up hundreds of tac UAS, all with cameras and onboard ISR.  That is a LOT of SHORAD to “push back”.  Further, FPVs are “first person” they already have targeting ISR on board.  If the spotters do get pushed back do you really think they are going to call off the attack.  No, we need a C-UAS system that can push back all UAS, not just select spotters.
Really, do share.  What COIN operation were you in where tanks were of any use?  I challenge IFVs but we needed to be in some armor but they demonstrated 1) they could kill our IFVs and 2) they were not deterred by them.  Use of heavy mech in COIN has been a classic western screw up and I have Afghanistan to prove it.
You are completely missing the larger lesson here.  It is not about the tactical problem of that single attack.  Sure you have saved the Bn…right up until the next wave…and the one after it…and the one after that.  We will run out of 30 million dollar systems firing million dollar missiles well before they are going to run out of FPVs that cost 10k.  Buying “The Battalion” an extra morning of life is meaningless if we spent all our money on that system because they will still be dead by nightfall.  I think Steve put is best - spending 90% of funding on a 10% solution is a sure fire track to losing.
As to dilemma, I was being extremely generous in my example.  None of these AD systems have proven sub-munitions and I would bet beer money right now that it is single missile to single target.  An opponent flying 100 FPVs is going to target both AD and fighting vehicles.  Further they are going to do it a longer ranges, over the horizon.  
What?  So our enemies are complete idiots?  They can’t possibly come up with c-UAS systems.  Hey here is a crazy idea…how about an opponent that invests in cheap c-UAS out of other UAS?  So while we are feeling good about our multi-billion dollar SHORAD program they are killing all our FPVs and blasting our SHORADs away too?  Once the Bde reserve of our fancy SHORAD are dead we are naked while they still have a system.  Why?  Because they invested in lower cost technology they could mass produce.
You are pulling numbers out of your @ss here.  These features will drive per unit cost up but economies of scaling will drive them down.  They already have.  We won’t have economies of scale for that SHORAD system because it costed billions in development and to manufacture a limited manufacturing run and the political level is only going to give us so much money.
Physics has nothing to say that any of these ideas are impossible in this universe.  Energy density, weight and processing power are the limiting factors and they are all trending towards smaller lighter.   My ideal c-UAS weapon is another UAS - not sure how physics are denying these as we are already seeing them.  As to a small infantry point defence weapon I am pretty sure we can invest billions in that and come up with something better than what is being pitched.  Hell 40 mm airburst rounds might have a better point defence chance.
There are but bigger, heavier and more expensive is not the way to go.  That video has a single Boxer blasting away at single (white) drones.  On the battlefield in Ukraine there are hundreds.  This is a much bigger issue than a few shotguns and a multi-million dollar SHORAD system.  We are likely going to have review a lot more than “better AD”.  FFS, that War on the Rocks article is citing that 50% of T90 losses have been due to FPVs.  We had another report of an entire Russia tank company stopped cold by 5 FPV crews.
The ISR alone these things are pumping out has been noted as making it impossible to manoeuvre.  So we had better get with the program in the West.  Air spotters, shotguns and MGs are not going to do this.  Our opponents are watching this very carefully and do you not think they are going to be investing very heavily in this space?
You want The_Capt’s prescription for the unmanned problem space:
- Rethink c-unmanned.  It is not a “problem” we need to manage, it is a major shift in how wars are going to be fought.  Best way to find and kill a small unmanned vehicle will very likely be another small unmanned vehicle.  Invest heavily into UAS and UGVs suited to detecting and killing other unmanned systems on the outer envelop of controlled battle space.
- Re-think ISR.  We need to learn how to live on a completely illuminated battlefield.  This means that deception, silencing and blinding need to become major campaign themes and not sprinkled on operations.  They need to become central and drive what is possible on operations.
- Rethink conventional capability and organization.  Lose the weight, lose the heat, lose the tail.  We can bubble wrap our F echelon in multi-million dollar SHORAD but it won’t do squat for the B echelon.  We have long vulnerable logistics tails that are carrying too much weight.  We need to dump the weight and offset with precision and do it quickly.  No sacred freakin cows here either.  We need dispersion and speed.  And we will need a C2 construct that supports this.
- Re-think manoeuvre.  We are very likely facing a major doctrinal shift in western warfare.  This love affair with Manoeuvre Warfare as “the solution” is likely over.  We need to face the realities of attritional warfare and the capacity implications that will have.  This will drive us towards cheaper many because we cannot sustain attrition warfare with what we have right now.  Manoeuvre is not going away but it will need to be earned.  We will need to win attrition in order to manoeuvre.
- Re-think Denial.  This is not a transitory annoyance, it is a projected condition.  It is proving decisive in this war and very likely will in the next.
- Re-think C4.  Data is a resource more important than gas.  We need to see the modern battlefield as a competitive data, information and knowledge environment.  We need to stop going to war to validate what we already know and accept that things are evolving very quickly.  
- Re-think fundamental principles of warfare - Mass, Surprise, Manoeuvre and Offensive are all up for grabs right now.  We need to understand what these mean in a modern context and stop assuming we know what they mean.  Mass alone is changing in definition which is going to break our current doctrinal frameworks.
There that is a start.  My point being that this is an about a lot more than SHORADs and shotguns.  This is about sustaining and gaining military options in the face of a highly accelerating evolution on the battlefield.  Or, you know, we could spend a few billion on another AD system and get back to business as usual.

It appears that you have not kept up on this war.  We are not seeing a "few recon drones spotting" -  which will still be a serious problem with this sort of SHORAD system because LOS (with camera magnification) is much father than these systems can likely reach.  We are starting to see drones being employed en masse on the sorts of scales that these systems cannot deal with. They are not solely being used for recon, but now strike.  Production is reaching massive scales (e.g. reports of 100k per month).
This is not "perfect so we shouldn't bother", it is "expensive and not useful for the environment."  We have gone down this path before and wind up getting into trouble every time - let's send tanks to a COIN fight...anyone?  Massed UAS are not a SHORAD problem, or at least one it can solve.  But that wont stop big business from trying to convince us otherwise.
Here is a scenario - 100 FPVs being driven by 10 crews with repeaters.  These are not even fully autonomous, which we know is coming.  They are EW hardened but we can even accept 50% attrition, so now 50 FPVs are coming in and attacking a position.  These large SHORAD systems now need to track and engage small fast moving UAS capable of treetop and below.  Assuming you have submunitions (which there is no evidence of), and each missile can engage 5 drones effectively - hell give them 100 percent; based on the photos, 5 Coyote systems needed to counter this one attack.  Ok, doesn't sound too bad.  Except for the fact that these FPVs are not working alone.  They are linked into supporting fires.  So as soon as those Coyotes start firing they are going to get lit up and engaged by PGM indirect fires.  But these are trained crews and are scooting, so maybe you only lose half of them, lets say 2 out of 5.
So how many Coyotes do we have in a Bde?  Because the enemy has another 150 FPVs...for todays attack alone.  You basically need to stick one or two in every platoon...fantastic, exactly what Raytheon wants.  And here is the thing...it will not work.  First problem will be clutter.  The enemy will fill the sky with all sorts of junk to toss off detection.  Fire control and coordination will be a nightmare.  And now on a battlefield where everyone is whispering for fear of getting picked up by sound detection, we are going to have dozens of these missiles firing off all over the place.  So we have solved the recon UAS problem by making ourselves visible from freakin space.  And finally sustainment; the enemy is losing ammunition, we are losing platforms.  We cannot keep that up over any period of time.  Like other high end western equipment, we will run out and politicians will never sign off on massive "what if" production capacity.
But let's put this all aside or the moment, this approach will not only be challenged by current reality, it will not solve for what is coming next. UAS are going to get cheaper and more distributed.  They will combine with UGVs so you can lay them like mines and suddenly have them pop up a few meters away.  Drone swarms will be in the hundreds with EFP and launchable sub-munitions of their own.  So while we are investing billions in SHORAD as a solution, we are going to find out it was a half-measure, at best. 
We are so addicted to big, few and expensive platforms, that our solution to their possible extinction on the battlefield is, more big expensive platforms.
So what is the solution?  Cheap and many.  I want a C-UAS weapon that fits under the barrel of a rifle like a GL but has a 1-2 km range and high Pk - so better than a shotgun.  I want UAS, that hunt and kill other UAS.  I want direct fire support on lighter unmanned platforms that do not drink a swimming pools worth of gas per km, and are big and hot. I want infantry that can carry more, move faster and go for days without resupply.   What I do not want are more big, loud expensive platforms to protect my already big, loud and expensive platforms.

Oh, that's interesting, thanks for checking and filing the bug report!

How is this really a problem, though? I mean, it's not like we paid money up front or something. Sure, we don't get our curiosity satisfied but that is all the hurt that is done, right?
Some do, some don't. Communication costs money, either because the devloper can't spend the time used for communication on finishing the product or because a dedicated communications guy is hired. You invest the money if you think it pays off. You keep potential customers up to date to get the hype train started, to get feedback early on or to find investors, for instance. But this is a double-edged sword. The hype train, once going, is hard to stop or to steer in another direction and customers, especially in gaming, get hyped about what they want to hear not what was actually said. Feedback is rarely representative because it is usually a loud minority that demands X and claims to speak for the whole community. And then there is always the danger that people form a negative opinion based on a product they've never actually seen and won't buy it later when it is released.
I just develop a stupid little tool in my free time and I am very cautious about when and what to tell you guys. 😉

I just don't by that. 
Like what? Weekly statements "we have 8 scenarios started for the new module and 5 new models" and later "we still have 8 scenarios started and no no models". Or monthly the same. And again and again. I think it would start a whole new area of complaint "why aren't they working on <insert favourite project> nothing is changing what are they doing. They are just wasting time. 
LOL
LOL every damn day man. I have several photo and video editing tools I use and have zero visibility into what they are actually working on until they release something new. I hit the odd bug. Some are annoying some bloody inconvenient. I never have any clue if or when they are going to be fixed. Hell only some of the time can I tell they have been confirmed.
I follow this advice - sound familiar?
Exactly and I do and I use them to edit my photos and videos and get work done as best I can.
 
Hell yes I would rather have working product when it's ready.

100% or the endless bitch session that would result here if the decision was made to delay and issue a new date was made. 
There are really only three choices with regard to this: 
Pick a date and ship whatever you've got - obvious downside is bugs and issues with content Pick a date and delay to a new date if things are not as you want them - obvious downside here is complaints and erosion of "trust" Don't pick a date (or I should say don't say one publicly because all projects have dates) and just repeat the mantra "it will be done when it is ready" - is there a downside here - I don't know one. Marketing people will say they cannot build the sales collateral - BS just have it ready and book the interviews and reviews in the final weeks or after release but what do I know? I only have 30 years of software development experience and no marketing experience - other than watching them do it and not make sweet **** all of a difference if the campaign starts before release or after. Customers say they cannot plan or rely on you - BS: buy the products that are available that fits your needs. If non are available you have to wait. Wouldn't you rather have a working product in some future time than crap now? If you say you want working product now that's just stupid because that doesn't exist does it? Hence this question. You can end up in a combo of 1 and 2 that either turns into a death spiral: the product is not ready so we will delay it but that means you need to add feature X because the competition has changed which leads to more delays and feature Y needs to be added etc.; or you delay one or two times but piss off everyone and eventually you are forced to end up releasing early even though you tired to do the right thing and fix your problems.
I have worked in through all of these scenarios. The choices that BFC make are absolutely the best framework for managing projects I have lived with. I have worked for other places that get it right too BFC are not unique but doing this right is not the norm - sadly.

I believe you when you say you're from the UK beacuse you have no idea how the EU works

That's a ridiculously large caveat and exactly the kind of handwaving Der Kapitan is describing. 
It's completely unrealistic to describe any peace process that does try to take into account US political dynamics. 
Everything following after that caveat, and no matter how sensible in isolation, is simply wishing for unicorns. It's not analysis, it's "I think". 
 

Ok, well now we know which camp you are in, and it definitely is not the "liberal peacenik" one.  Hmm, and I wonder which presidential candidate should be best qualified to flex this immense political power and which one is "weak and indecisive"?
Regardless, we are talking about negotiating from a position of strength here, which runs directly counter to your original position of "Ukraine is out of all options, therefore should sue for peace."  In fact you have been arguing vehemently that there are no military solutions left...and now you want to make some?
But, ok, lets put that all aside.  So if the US is going to "threaten" it must be ready to follow through.  What you are proposing is on an entire different scale than the support we have seen.  First problem will be getting the US political machine to agree to these levels of spending, and very fast spending - cries of oversight and corruption will ring.  Next problem is putting the UA in a position where they can actually absorb, integrate and operationalize these levels of support; not insurmountable but no small challenge.
Next, Ukraine will need to demonstrate military victory on the battlefield.  One cannot simply "threaten" with the Russians, we tried that.  One has to demonstrate.  So we are back to creating viable military options.
And then there is this part: "In negotiations, West agrees not to take Ukraine into NATO, but accepts into EU, and makes concrete security guarantees to in any case. UN peacekeepers in along border. Russia gets symbolic non-NATO status for Ukraine. No future invasion of Ukraine for Russia."
That is weak.  EU is an economic and diplomatic union, not a military one.  UN peacekeepers is actually an idea I have floated but one would definitely need a new Russian regime to even get Russia in the room to negotiate.  Ukraine outside of NATO would need binding security bi-lats with western troops in Ukraine a la South Korea as a minimum.  I think Ukraine outside of NATO leaves too many dangerous mouseholes open - this is why Finland and Sweden jumped in.  NATO is the one thing that appears to deter Putin and Russia and I suspect it will be the only way to actually secure Ukraine in the long term.
You are also pretty weak on reparations and war crimes.  Maybe it is the medium but your position kind of feels "oh well...watcha gonna do?"  There can be no road to renormalization with Russia without these conditions being met, that much must be clear.  If we go soft on this, certain political parties will try and weasel back to "business as usual". 
The only way the US can use its power, short of an all out war, is to push support into Ukraine in order to sustain resistance until Russia falters - we can definitely agree on this.  The idea that "this is easy" and "could be done tomorrow" is dangerously amateur and short-sighted thinking, currently being expressed by some sectors of the US political landscape...and not new to this board. 
Russia must be in forced into a position of "had enough?"  and not "hey can you please?"  At least under this regime.  This cannot be done "overnight" or "easily" under the current constraints.  This is in fact threading a pretty tough needle.  Too much and one faces uncontrolled escalation, or a full on Russian collapse...both of which are worse that this current war.  Too little and things drag on too long and western resolve and attention slips again.  This is a tricky and challenging situation in that the US cannot employ its immense power to the fullest without making thing worse both internally or externally.  This is also a pretty high stakes proxy war that must; stay limited and result in the slow death of the Putin regime and doctrine, create a secure and stable Ukraine, and somehow set the conditions for future broader regional stability.  This is not a "deal" one can make in a weekend. 
 

Germany never showed "every intention". We have discussed that at length, and we are in line with most of the rest of the West, unfortunately.
The economy is declining as it sometimes does. "no end in sight" is a bit over the top IMHO.
The interest in Ukraine has declined. Of course, modern society is easily bored. The amount of newsworthy items has gone down. But look at us: downing an A-50 has even us only occupied for a few days until we derailed again.
But: the amount of support given by Germany is pretty stable, and I don't see that changing (see below).
That may not be necessary. The political constellation is currently, that the biggest supporters of Ukraine are both in the government (greens & liberals(*)) and the opposition (conservatives).
The next government will most likely include one or two of those parties. Thus, it is most unlikely that support for Ukraine will falter.
 
(*) not 'liberal' in the US sense of the word

I think the broader point is that Ukraine is not a teenager - all the tragedy but no accountability or responsibility.  There were a lot of strategic failures in the run up to this war and they do not all lay at the feet of Europe or the US.  The global arms industry is incredibly large and Ukraine could have leveraged that to be much better prepared for what was a pretty obvious threat on its eastern border. (https://www.brookings.edu/articles/its-time-to-stop-us-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia/#:~:text=A total of 73% of,averaging %2410.7 billion per year.)
Of course hindsight being 20/20 it is also fair to admit that no one really thought Russia would go this far.  We pretty much expected another nibble in the Donbas, maybe consolidate that strategic corridor.  A full on grab was not the assessed most likely COA. Further Ukraine did move mountains within its military in those 8 years, the most important of which was to set themselves up for integration into western C4ISR.
As has been noted, we are where we are, which is here.  And all that really matters is what we do now.

Also wargamers are a somewhat special faction among gamers. They often have rigs that rival the period they are interested in in age. 😉 One of the dev blog entries for Armored Brigade 2 mentioned that while they now do 3D they want low detail 3D that can run on older machines - because that is what many of their potential customers have. There are many here who still run on Windows 7 (or even older?) so sticking to legacy stuff is not necessarily a bad idea.

I'm afraid we are way past the argument stage wrt Scholz and Taurus...
There are also quite a few people in his party who still very much agree with him on that issue. Add to this that in East-Germany, the population is split on sending arms to Ukraine at all. I mentioned the three upcoming votes there? There is zero chance that anything will happen before these are through, and it won't get much better afterward. The last of these votes is September 22nd. And the next national vote is a year after that.
So nope, I ain't seeing that happening as much as I wish it.

Short Teaser: Actually, I didn't want to do this because there are good tools out there... but over the last year or so there were so many questions, calls for help and even an offer to pay me for making a map that I came to realize that maybe, just maybe not everyone out there is a map nerd or geodesy scholar. So, I have been clobbering something together that should make getting those elevation maps (and possibly OSM, too, at a later stage) into CMAutoEditor as comfortable (and fool proof!) as possible.
More info to come but I will close with asking for help myself: Are there any volunteers out there willing to beta test this tool? If so, please PM me! 🙂
 

Poverty and lack of education - they usually go hand in hand. For India add the caste system (officially dead, but actually still alive).

It is my biggest gripe in this forum. Closely followed by the idea russia is hanging on by mere threads, collapsing any day now.