Leaderboard

Please ED, make adjustable detents for cutoff/idle and afterburner in axis controls like in BMS Falcon for example. Thank you!

Aviastorm Tornado https://discord.com/channels/1020277498363269120/1020303137145368627/1069301035472003092

Why, because you were caught on facebook making up things I never said and got called out for it? Or because you try to practically dissuade any of our potential customers, who inquires about our modules, which you have done now repeatedly? Or because you keep making up accusations and false claims, because our work and/ or schedule does not fit your own wishes? We're all for criticism, open dialogue and meeting on eye-level. But repeatedly claiming falsehoods about us, bringing an almost exclusively negative attitude, not taking any constructive input by us or members of the community, refuting any disagreement by providing you facts and blowing up normal processes into exaggerated claims and accusations based on fantasies, and then playing the victim role, despite not only never having been attacked by any of us (merely disagreed with), but simply because you do not get the attention you seek with this kind of behavior and attitude, I am sorry, but we do not have to stand for. I strongly suggest that you cool off and come back with a more courteous and mature attitude, please. Thank you.

Some examples: 1. No Very pistol in spite of it appearing in the ground menu. 2. No in cockpit pilot models - we are flying empty seats. 3. No navigator AI at all. The current mosquito is a novel concept of a twin-seat single-crewman plane, where you skip you @$$ between the chairs in order to be able to reach all the switches - binds don’t work from the other seat, so they don’t even represent “requesting” your invisible navigator to flip a switch for you. 4. There have been issues with feathering the props - I don’t know if those got fixed already. Pretty darn critical since I hardly ever return home on two engines (or at all) after contact with the enemy. 5. Performance wise, our mosquito has the performance of a configuration with saxophone exhausts plus flame shrouds, which is 15 mph slower than the configuration with the stub exhausts that we are supposed to have. 6. The magnetic compass next to your left knee disagrees with the magnetic remote indicator compass. 7. The cannons don’t start firing all together (neither do the MGs) - they fire in a sequence starting from the starboard side (iirc). OK most of this stuff is not critical, but any kind of advancement on any of these issues would have been nice.

Please show me that proof. Please show me where a member of the Heatblur Team called someone an idiot. I can assure you that this never happened and that if it did that person would not be a member of our team for long. Everything has been said regarding the phoenix, specifically in the thread you were linking. We have zero intentions to change its performance anymore as it is as accurate as can be, which has been demonstrated and backed up several times. We have no influence on the issues with the AI and terminal guidance or any other limitation within DCS. We have to wait just as patiently to see missiles for 3rd parties progress in this regard. We are continuing to work on it with ED. I am not sure where these exaggerations stem from by some lately, but we neither stopped work on any outstanding remaining issues, nor on regular maintenance, nor on further evolving our products. Stating the obvious =/ calling you names or branding you in an unfavorable light, but what you are trying to do, like some others, is to force us to change the narrative and admit things, which are a) not proven or lose claims or b) impressions/ feelings (aka "I feel the phoenix should be stronger") to satisfy subjective expectations that are not in line with how the phoenix should be. How it should be? As it is, simply put. Why? Because it is more realistic. Saying that does not mean neglecting or denying the oustanding issues (like with the AI, terminal guidance, etc), which have nothing to do with its FM, performance and general behavior. If you cannot accept that it is more realistic now and as close to reality as it could possibly get, but hinges on DCS limitations, then you need to either provide proof that says otherwise or deal with it in some other form or way, sorry to put it so bluntly. The phoenix will continue to evolve, but we won't change it unless we see data even more accurate than the one we have.

The standby compass is missing its lubber line.

Thanks! Yes, russian & european police cars are on the to-do list. I also have an european firetruck and a couple of more modern ambulances for the US and EU. Aswell as a few more surprises

200 bomber raid without LODs or mission optimisation = need for multithreading and a NASA PC but still creates a spectacle

I might be working on the Project 1144M - modernized Kirov Class Battlecruiser. But don't tell anyone.

Download the dll from here https://znix.xyz/OpenComposite/download.php?arch=x64&branch=openxr Backup your openvr_api.dll in your DCS World installation folder\bin folder Copy the downloaded dll into the bin folder That should be all you need assuming you had OpenXR running previously. When it gets fixed just let DCS update and it will overwrite the DLL.

Modules like the M-2000C and Mirage F1 offer such options via the special option tabs and it's absolutely awesome. Sure the detent not being in the "real" position like "in the real jet" makes it "less realistic", but most hardware don't have customizable detents, and this, imo, is a case where compromising "realism" for user friendliness is a no-brainer. Currently the only way to adapt the in-game detent to your hardware's detent is to tweak curves, but this also changes the throttle's behavior along it's axis and makes it non linear and annoying

They shouldnt get instant launch warning even in STT

Please don't. That some people insist, loudly, that there is nothing to discuss, doesn't mean there's nothing to discuss. I would, however, be in favor of purging certain off-topic spam. Good luck with your FOIA request, even with the recent debate about the US overclassification problem, you're not going to get your hands on 2022-era training programs, because that's one thing that probably should be classified. We have confirmed observations of planes going out to training in loadouts that were previously not used. Not much to go on, but we see the aircraft going to and from ranges. And no, those are not "tests", those are operational aircraft. If they were tests, they'd be doing them in NTTR, not in Poland. Even if it's just four aircraft, it's very much an operational base near a potential flashpoint. RAZBAM themselves stated it's a possibility. They have an actual Eaglejet driver on staff, whose words you seem disregard every time they don't confirm your biases. You have a very interesting definition of "never". Tests, studies, isolated cases, maybe also training doesn't count if the whole USAF doesn't do it? The F-15C dropped bombs for quite some time, in squadrons that had CFTs, and which were to be sent to Middle East had things blown up over there in the 80s in a manner that would have required sending jets. For that, there were F-15C squadrons flying with CFTs and, yes, bombs. Reality is not black and white and "isolated cases" are usually the most interesting ones.

This update is focused on the RWR page to bring it up to speed with the 2.8.2.35759 Open Beta. > Download < P.S. If you ever wondered why the "F-14A old" and MiG-31 are marked as "buggy": both aircraft refuse to launch their missiles at maximum designed range.

We don't develop models from "popular belief/knowledge about the mirage and delta wings in general", but trustable sources. And I know, there is a "self sustained DCS community myth about delta wings" that comes from nowhere but is highly persistent. What you report about your personal MP experience is likely very biased by the respective player skills. It does not reflect the statistics of top level dogfight tournament rankings, where the 2000 is present and competitive, but not at all ruling them all. I invite you to check what these top tournaments are, and their best players, and results. Besides this, we don't model anything with competitive and balancing ideas in mind. Only sources about the aircraft.

In the F-16, when using RWS dual target track (DTT) mode, which is acquiring a soft lock (to be able to lock up to 2 targets simultaneously), targets are getting instant RWR launch warnings, even for 32nm shots. The missile should not be going pitbull at such long range, correct? In previous versions, targets would only get instant RWR missile warnings if you had them in an STT lock. In I don't know if a track file would be very useful for this, it's a pretty easy thing to reproduce, but I can upload a track file if it would be useful

Whilst I have been vocal about the implementation and lack of prior communication, I do believe we need to be careful not to stifle innovation, it is what many of us strive for in a continual development environment. I tend to take the opposite view, if users are expected to handle incredibly complicated aircraft systems that top pilots take years to learn, then a bit of IT learning shouldn’t be too much to ask in the field of VR which is still something of a niche (and a bit nerdy!) tech. if we want it super polished then expect to wait a bit more than two weeks…

It's a bug in the open beta version, fixed internally. Wait for next update.

2 things; first the bug is about launch warnings in DTT (in some manuals referred as TTS (two-target-SAM, a submode of the SAM - Situational awareness mode)), which is the initial bug report as that should not be a thing. Then llOPPOTATOll said it shouldnt even trigger a launch warning in STT. newys answer regarding the need of public evidence does not clarify to which part (the DTT behaviour being wrong or the STT post from llOPPOTATOll) he needs the evidence, thats why i referred back to the original bug report, the way it is since the last patch is wrong and should not need any evidence. neither was that change listed anywhere in the changelog about the STT i understand his request. sadly his answer is not specific enough, neither is his second response

The fact we don't have a Jester AI type for the Mossie is such a shame, I would love for a guy named Hugh sitting next to me, calling out enemy bandits, and grund targets,(and very importanly in the mosse elevation) that you could also give orders to set radio, becons, arm bombs and open bomb bay, probably deal with flaps and gears to.

1 picture says more than a 1000 words

What you're asking for is not really possible unless you move the whole hud physically. As the symbols correspond to real world objects outside of the aircraft it would mean that this would no longer be the case anymore. As mentioned above this was an issue in real-life as well with the pilots sometimes having to move their heads down to see everything.

Modern Russian Naval Assets by Currenthill Project 22800 - Karakurt Class Corvette Version 1.3.0 released - see first post Version 1.3.0 Changed 3M54T to more correct 3D model Changed 3M54T to more realistic range and top speed Changed to shorter ship name on F10 map Changed to shorter weapon names on F10 map Fixed antiship missiles launch trajectory ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Project 22350 - Admiral Gorshkov Class Frigate Version 1.3.0 released - see first post Version 1.3.0 Changed name to Frigate 22350 Admiral Gorshkov Changed 3M54T to more realistic range and top speed Changed 3M54T to more correct 3D model Changed P-800 to 3M55M with more realistic top speed Changed to shorter weapon names on F10 map Changed 3M14T range to 1500 km / 800 nm Added new liveries Changed damage model by adding more damage zones Changed 3D model to reduce polys Fixed antiship missiles launch trajectory

I realised quickly that I needed more practice before even attempting the Fam. Flight. I used Paco's Whiteboards from the Mission Brief doc. to practice the manoeuvres on my own at Nellis. Much to my delight I have been making my way through the missions without disgracing myself. I think I have an average score so far. Obviously in the future I'll play through this incredible campaign again and again, to hone my skills. Thanks for all your hard work Greg. There's so much wonderful detail. You, Meagan and Paco etc have really help make DCS come alive. It has made me respect and admire what people like Meagan went through in the real world. What a wonderful companion this campaign is to the amazing Speed & Angels documentary. P.S. As you suggest, increasing gamma on the night missions is a necessity. It makes night time look far more realistic. DCS needs to make the gamma range more dynamic. Two separate settings for day and night perhaps. I would set mine to 2.2 for day and 2.9 for night.

You will like it once we get the PRF tones.

This will be a first pre-order-hour buy!

I don't want to compare anything. I want a capability that is there, and is being used right now. You don't know for how long it will be, and you don't know what are their plans for it, and you don't know if there's a training program, because it's classified. Yes, they might be roleplaying F-15Cs for the heck of it, or because they miss the thrill of doing air to air since the C is gone. I find it that if it was just that, they wouldn't have been allocated any jets or even kerosene for them. By your logic, we shouldn't have Walleye on our Hornet because it was only used on F-18As, and then only in ODS, for a small fraction of Hornet's service life (and yes, I'm aware you would rather see the Walleye gone. It's just as silly). Your peddling humbug is not an "explanation", also on the F-15C. People actually in the know, such as Notso or Carlo Kopp, said it happened. Your counterargument is... a bunch of random, unnamed F-15C drivers you met in Poland. Fighter pilots like to act like they know everything about their aircraft, but trust me, unless they're SMEs, they don't. When two independent, named experts say one thing (even giving dates and units in one case), and you say another, how likely do you think it is that they're the ones who are wrong? Also, just to remind you, RAZBAM are the ones who had recently put a few loadouts on the AV-8B that are very much incorrect for USMC use of that particular version, but are there so it can stand in for UK Harriers. I'm afraid you're going to see a lot of modules "ruined" by things like Walleye, Sidearm or other rare configurations.

Seems it's totally broken. Tested with current Open Beta 2.8.2.35759, MSL OVRD RWS, TWS, STT. I have attached two tracks from Caucasus (yours was in Nevada which I don't have). In another one the intercept cue is missing completely. In another it's fixed in place, like I suppose @AlexCaboose had. CATA missing.trk CATA in place.trk

Honestly can't wait for this. I wouldn't mind if this project eventually went professional too, I'd pay some bucks for it at that point!

Thank you. In light of this, I'll hide this entire discussion, as it indeed highly destracts from the topic at hand. I appreciate your input and hope you'll continue to engage with us, we're more than happy to engage with you. Have a great day! EDIT: if you would like to continue discussing this topic, feel free to PM me anytime.

Until now. It never did so before, but now it does, and they appear to be doing just fine without CFTs. RAZBAM themselves stated it's not ruled out any more. Not planned for EA, but a distinct possibility at some point down the road. Stop trying to will unorthodox configurations out of existence. There are edge cases, like 4xHARM loadout on the Viper, bombs on the F-15C, or the CFT-less F-15E where they are uncommon, but still part of how the jet can and has been flown in training for real combat employment.

Issue fixed.

Issue fixed.

I am well aware of this however frankly I am fed up of this excuse, at one point I was quite happy to accept it however now we have moved way beyond the KS (which I was a supporter of). This is a good thing. Anyway back on topic. I would rather have the F6F-3 as it was more than a match for the vast majority of IJN and IJA aircraft… the N1K and Ki-84 being the exception to the rule. In regards to the -5 additional ground pounding ability it seems that the Corsair was used to a greater extent in this role. of course the best we could hope for is that ED give us both the -3 and -5 making this discussion irrelevant.

ED add new Caucasus map screenshots: On develop

The free mini campaign has now had a major update which is now fully voiced by actors. There are two versions, a 6 mission version which is in Nevada and the Black Sea and a reduced 5 mission version which is in the Black Sea only. This campaign introduces 'Ford' and is a prelude to his further exploits in the Serpent's Head 2, Rise of the Persian Lion, and Rise of the Persian Lion 2 Campaigns. There is a continuous plot line throughout all the Campaigns. Their difficulty increases gradually through the campaigns and so the free 'Serpents Head Campaign' is ideal as a starting point. By the end pilots will have had to be familiar with and use all the systems and weapons of the F/A-18C Hornet. Later Campaigns have easy air to air refuel options for those who have yet to master the black art of catching the basket. The 6 mission Nevada and Black sea version is available from here : The Serpent's Head F/A-18C Campaign. (Nevada & Caucasus) now including optional SUPERCARRIER version. Updated Sept 22. Badger633. (digitalcombatsimulator.com) The 5 mission Black sea only version is available from here : The Serpent's Head F/A-18C Campaign ( Reduced version for Caucasus Map Only) now including optional SUPERCARRIER version. Updated Sept 22. Badger633. (digitalcombatsimulator.com)

It would be nice to have something come from bug reports. I don't mind bugs and problems in early access, that's to be expected. What I do mind is being treated that way when I take the time out of my day, and the days of other people who help me make those multiplayer related bug reports, reproducing them and posting them here with detailed steps on how to reproduce them and uploading tracks. And after all that, nothing is done, no acknowledgement is given, no communication, no updates, just nothing at all. Those people I do those bug reports with feel increasingly frustrated and more unwilling to do it, because they get the feeling that nothing comes of it. And if they get that feeling then something is wrong because either a) Really nothing comes of it, or b) That something comes of it, but it isn't communicated properly and both of those things are issues that should be fixed. I don't know which it is, so I will assume the latter to give the benefit of the doubt. I have posted well over at least 50 bug reports, some recent, some a long time ago, and recently just a single reply from the forum- or DCS staff. I have paid a lot of money, I am taking my time to report bugs, because I want the module to be as good as it can be, and I get ignored. I feel like I'm wasting my time, working for you, for free. I admit that a good portion of those are minor details, not important or often used, but as a big fan I want every detail to be accurate and working. Other bugs are indeed more concerning and relevant to major elements of the aircraft. Some are duplicates, but that can't be helped if a forum is used to keep track of bugs and people using different words to describe things so it can't always be found via search. Furthermore, once a thread had been looked over and marked as "Needs track replay", "needs more information", or "Investigating", it seems like no one every checks on it after a track or more information has been provided ever again. No updates are being made from "reported", if it ever gets to that, to "fixed", except for a select few, very major bugs. On one occasion I was reporting a bug, with video evidence of it, showing it and giving detailed steps on how to reproduce that bug. I have since talked to at least 5 other people who experience that very same bug while no one I asked claim that they did not have that same bug. For me and every one of them the bug comes about by literally pressing 2 buttons in the cockpit and nothing else. Yet claims are made that this can't be reproduced. I did not have a track file at the time but it was requested. The thread was marked as "Investigating". 3 days later the track was provided, showing the bug. In 6 months since then, not a single download of those track files has been made, nor was there any further comment, and nor was the bug actually fixed since then. I don't know if I'm crazy or something, but to me it seems that asking for something, then being given the thing and then ignoring it for half a year seems just a little absolutely rude to me. Since this had been "investigated", this bug is still present half a year later. Granted it's a small inconvenience, and nothing game breaking, but all the same it's disappointing and most of all I feel like I'm being treated like a moron, and as a result, of course I get a little grumpy and frustrated at times and less faithful that my bug reports actually are taken seriously at all. I don't think that's how you should treat your customers who, mind you, are paying for your product. The least you could do is show some appreciation. I feel this should be addressed and improved. To improve the situation I would like bug reports to be updated once their status changes, not just on the initial reading of the report more efforts be made to merge the reports of the same bugs A notification be given if a report has been read and/or confirmed/reproduced A list of known bugs be published and kept up to date, such that the list be easily checked before posting a report, possibly with status updates such as "fixed for next release", until a proper bug tracker is implemented Be revisited once more information/tracks are provided Be acknowledged again once said information/track was provided Be appreciated more I understand that DCS is a large project and that the forums are big and several bug reports for all different modules come in and that not everything can be taken care of right away, that certain things need to take priority over others. But on the other hand, asking for a track and then no downloads or replies in 6 months, or no comments after several weeks is just not explainable by that. There are several people that are paid to manage the forum. And If i can take my evening to look through the bug report sections of a few aircraft and check for new posts, then so can they. Keeping track of bugs with a forum is generally just horrendously inefficient. Personally, I think a new, streamlined bug tracker system should be put in place to link bug reports and software development closer together, such that when the team finishes working on a bug, the bug tracker is updated for everyone to see, including your customers, allowing the simple merging of reports. There are plenty of good, open source bug trackers out there that will do the job just fine. Integrating them of course would take a week or two, but version control and a good bug tracker will make development a lot easier and more streamlined. Taking issues seriously and being appreciative of the community creates a better environment for everybody involved. People feeling like "Writing bug reports is pointless because they're ignored anyway", and that is a quote from some people I asked before to help me report bugs, must be a red flag. The very fact that they think this way lies in how they perceive the efforts being made here. This must be addressed if you want your community to stay engaged with the product you are trying to sell. We're all enthusiasts in a niece hobby, we're passionate about military aircraft and we're passionate about details. Neglecting those that raise issues with either the product itself or with how things are handled generally will create a toxic environment where everybody is frustrated. I don't want that. What I want is an open discourse with an open company that can be both proud of it's achievements while also admitting to it's faults and failures and that is open to suggestions to improve and criticism. Sorry for the rant.

The free mini campaign has now had a major update which is now fully voiced by actors. There are two versions, a 6 mission version which is in Nevada and the Black Sea and a reduced 5 mission version which is in the Black Sea only. This campaign introduces 'Ford' and is a prelude to his further exploits in the Serpent's Head 2, Rise of the Persian Lion, and Rise of the Persian Lion 2 Campaigns. There is a continuous plot line throughout all the Campaigns. Their difficulty increases gradually through the campaigns and so the free 'Serpents Head Campaign' is ideal as a starting point. By the end pilots will have had to be familiar with and use all the systems and weapons of the F/A-18C Hornet. Later Campaigns have easy air to air refuel options for those who have yet to master the black art of catching the basket. The 6 mission Nevada and Black sea version is available from here : The Serpent's Head F/A-18C Campaign. (Nevada & Caucasus) now including optional SUPERCARRIER version. Updated Sept 22. Badger633. (digitalcombatsimulator.com) The 5 mission Black sea only version is available from here : The Serpent's Head F/A-18C Campaign ( Reduced version for Caucasus Map Only) now including optional SUPERCARRIER version. Updated Sept 22. Badger633. (digitalcombatsimulator.com) The campaign is complete with mission briefs and kneeboards.

Thank you for your compliments! We keep working to improve and complete the module.

It is needed if you want to run motion reprojection (with WMR at least).

Its the naval aviator Moustache, bullets just bounce right off.

though dev is taking long, dont matter, as long as it is done right. i am grateful to know that multicrew is a big possibilty for this module. keep doing what your doing

The longer the better, really, because it gives you more travel, but I would not concern myself with the length of it in the Tomcat, as the seating position will vastly differ from yours (most likely). I use the tabletop version, simply because I need to move it in and out of the way constantly, and I can just slide it aside, pull in the keyboard and vice versa, and I can assure you that it is precise enough. But it makes you fly more out of your wrist. While a desk mounted stick with extension, makes you fly more out of your shoulder, which is generally considered to be better. On my virpil stick I use the maximum possible extension, which is quite nice. But in the end, consider your seating (a deskmount will have you likely move a tad further away from the table than a tabletop, so what about throttle? do you need to reach further for it? or likewise pedals? how often do you need to get it out of the way? and lastly what do you believe will be most comfortable to you, etc.)

I don’t know if you’re aware about that but, A/A TACAN works in M-2000C with other modules. Each should be 63 channels apart (for instance 12X and 75X) and you will only get range information. This is how A/A is supposed to work. In DCS World, tanker’s TACAN works like ground or aircraft carrier TACAN. This kind of small TACAN for air tankers do exist, but this is a late modern feature.

This thread is Oh wait...

Yes and ED chose not to make an appropriate map. For the planes that we have. Only the Sptifire, Mossie and Fw190A8 flew on the maps we have. The P51D, P47, 109k4, Fw190D9 are are all from a time when combat had moved away from Northern France and southern England.

The Good After a few mission cycles I beiieve this issue has been fixed. Ballistics are not accumulating, server FPS is not degrading and CPU usage is not climbing. It is possible that this was the sole root cause of the ballistics leak and there are no others. If I come across any then I will create a new thread. So congrats to @Flappie@abelian@Moezilla, the others who helped, and the ED staffers who fixed and tested. The Bad While I am happy the issue has been resolved I still believe that ED's handling of this issue has overall fallen short of acceptable standards and I want to go into detail here so that, maybe, things can improve. Server Owner <-> ED Relationship I posted this issue on 2022/09/01 however the general issue of a ballistics object leak was known about by the Hoggit admins for a long time before that with posts in the Discord describing the general issue from 2022/06/01. Now I don't know if anything was reported or not but, having spoken to many different server admins, the general concensus I hear is "It is a waste of time to report server issues to ED" along with a general lack of support, debug tooling etc. This is an awful situation. If a server is having an issue that usually means all the clients on that server are having a suboptimal experience. In the case of this issue it meant players suffering lag, warping and otherwise unfavourable conditions. How many ED customers on the various multiplayer severs have left with a sour experience due to this bug in the course of the 6 months or so it took to resolve it? I am willing to bet that it is thousands of customers and thousands of hours of flying time where customers have been left with a bad taste in their mouth at the end of a session . My suggestion to ED to improve this situation is: 1. Provide a formal way for mutliplayer server admins of servers with large player bases to contact you to report issues. Either a forum or a discord channel explicitly for communicating issues to ED and collaborating on fixing them. You have stats on which servers are heavily populated I am sure so invite their admons. Admins having to rely on "Try pinging @NineLineor @BIGNEWYand hope for the best" doesn't cut it. 2. Having created this formal communication method. Listen to them and accept that things like "please provide trackfile" is not always feasible on servers with scripts that run for hours with 10s of players on them where an issue may be inconsistent. Work with them collaboratively to try and find the issues which leads me to the last point: 3. Provide them with the tools they need to be able to perform this kind of investigation. I know this has been requested because multiple people have complained to me about these requests being ignored. The handling of this issue by ED, aka "Cannot Reproduce" & Radio Silence I am going to go out on a limb here and say that this bug report was about as good as ED can expect without deep-diving and finding the root cause itself. It contained lots of information, it pointed to exact syptoms. It included 4 different trackfiles from two completely different setups. Including an AI only tiny trackfile. Despite this the response was "Cannot reproduce". But when @Flappiestarted looking into it he appears to have been able to reproduce it from the small AI trackfile I provided in short order. So the questions that ED needs to answer, at least to itself is "Why couldn't ED staff reproduce something that was reproduced by a volunteer in short order using submitted data.". If ED cannot reproduce things via trackfiles then why should the community spend time and effort to provide them? My next issue is that, once the "cannot reproduce" status was entered that was basically it. The issue languished for months and there were no updates; I had to literally contact ED staff on discord to try and get an update on what what was going on. Had @Flappienot taken the effort to root cause this I have no doubt that this would still be unresolved and ED customers would still be suffering. This ties into the linked post which I think ED needs to consider a lot more carefully.