Leaderboard

Polychop-Simulations:

Hello all, So, it appears a lot of us missed the initial call to submit. Not sure what the distribution for that message was initially. I never saw it until after the decision was made (I don't spend a lot of time in the forums). I did note Wags' apology for not checking the user files before the decision. The clarity of the initial message read fairly vague. I would suggest a path forward for such endeavors should include expectation management and left/right limits. Something like: Default Template Usage Required: Yes / No Default Textures Required. (Not creating new engines, pylons, fuel tanks or anything not included in the default template) F-16C Block 50 c. 2007 (or listed timeframe) only: Yes / No Dynamic bort number requirement. Maximum zipped file size allowed. (If different from the 300mb UF restriction) Allowed compression type. (BC7 etc) File type required: (Zip / rar etc) I am also of the opinion that the default liveries should be held to a higher standard. I'm sure there is more stringent stuff there, but that would be a recommended baseline. Something I learned in the military is that instructions must be written for the absolute lowest level. Meaning, the people that need the most direction and step-by-step instructions. Just a suggestion. ***Soap Box time*** I want to address a few things starting with the attitude of "it's just gotta be good enough because details don't matter". If I may add my 2 cents here, I think that is a dangerous attitude to have as a livery creator. If I were going to combat in these jets, I wouldn't care, because I cannot look outside of my cockpit other than stepping to the jet. In DCS however, things like screenshots, external cameras, video creation, and other things exist. In that case, details do matter. Not to make this a "yay me" post, but I have spent over 20 years in the military with the majority of those working in/around/and with all of these aircraft, with the last 7 in the fighter community, I may have a somewhat informed baseline of how things look, feel, smell, etc. I think it's awesome the level of detail some creators put into it. When I show fighter pilots DCS the ones who are into it will immediately start saying things like "Oh, they got that right/that's missing" or "They always had dirt here", "that color isn't quite right", "they were never that dirty/that's a clean jet" or other small details like that. Their external camera was walking on the flightline every day and stepping to their respective aircraft. I would also like to address download count. Download count does not mean quality. I just looked at my own user files list and my worst-quality skins have the most downloads (Including the most downloads of a certain airframe). This was due to either it being some of the first liveries available for a module, a fortunate position on the UF page, being released for a long time, or updates pushing them to the top of the list under the old UF structure. My best, highest-quality, liveries are at the bottom of my download counts for the same reasons. We all know now that great liveries can get buried under 30 spammed "shake n' baked" out liveries in the UF pages, which is fine. There is a large element of "right place, right time". Lastly, I'd like to remind us livery creators why we are here. It shouldn't be for personal glory or ego. We are here to let people live out their dreams of being a fighter/attack/cargo/rotary/warbird etc. pilot/aviator which they may have not been able in real life. We owe it to them to do our best job possible, fully knowing that we will not get compensated with anything more than some recognition or admiration and also fully knowing that the rivet counters of the world will call out our shortcomings. Lest we forget that many of these aircraft are gone forever, or in the case of Marine Hornets and Harriers, soon to be gone forever. Maybe I am a little sentimental, but it's nice to see some of these aircraft preserved if only digitally. They can't all go to museums. We should have the same dedication to the jets that defended and served our respective nations. (Yes, I understand this is a video game). Paint your best jet. I hope this is viewed as an azimuth check for all of us in this thread/community and not as slinging mud or personal insults. This was intended as suggestions and some constructive criticism. Thank you for your time.

Hi all, we have requested CSAR tasks to be added to DCS, and more helicopter related tasks, we can only wait now, hopefully we will see this in a future DCS version. thank you

I'm working on new, fully automated and interactive checklists for MIG Killers, my upcoming F-4 campaign as well as my 3 F-14 Tomcat campaigns. It's a lot of work to convert those 3, but I hope you'll like the update.

I don't believe this is a very true statement, when was the last time a ED module team worked on the Yak52 or the Mossie, the Yak52 has languished unfinished for quite a few years. I know this will go unanswered as every time I have mentioned the Yak52 and why its not had bug fixes to get it out of EA its been ignored.

It sounds bad, because it wasn't sold as "special". When i bought it, i assumed it would be developed at a similar pace to other modules. It wasn't and currently aspects of its simulation are definitely not on par with other ED modules.

I believe that the issue aren't the particulars of some bugs by themselves, but the perception that bugs, after being reported, aren't responded to adequately. As a fellow Yak-52 owner (I own all modules, and am a strong supporter of ED and all things DCS) I'm sure I'm not the only one who read your January 26, 2020 statement that said Now, we may differ on the definition of "feature complete" but I think we can agree that the '52 still has some way to go. But again, the specifics aren't as important as the perception that too many things in DCS are moving slow, and ED's focus seemingly is on creating new modules rather than finishing existing. Since DCS's income stream is based on one-off sales of modules, that makes complete business sense: money spent on an obscure, released module like the '52 can generate only a tiny fraction of the expected return if it was invested in a new module with much greater mass appeal; 99% of all Yak-52 sales have likely already been made. That's heartbreaking to me, but understood. "Caveat Emptor" applies to anyone who enters the "Early Access Lottery" and I knew what I was getting into. What I do find a bit irritating is what appears to be some attempts at gaslighting: claiming that everything is fine, and all that needs to be done is to report bugs in the proper forums and things will be perfect. I own, fly and love all DCS modules. Many of them have issues, and the time it takes to fix them does seem to greatly correlate with their module's popularity, meaning that known issues can linger for years in modules that aren't top sellers. I now see that ED have changed from a 4-week to a 6-week (currently it looks more like a 7 week) cycle. That's fine with me. I'm sure that ED understand that with longer cycles their customer's expectation rise as well. And people do get frustrated when, after eagerly browsing the change log, their pet peeve wasn't addressed again, and the next fix is at least 6 weeks away. That's bad. But it's worse when we hear from the perspective of ED that everything is actually fine, and all we need to do is merely report bugs in the forum and they will be addressed. Many aren't and unfortunately, too few are commented on by someone in authority at ED (and by "commented" I mean "acknowledged, reproduced, scheduled for fix"). That is what I feel chafes at people's minds (I'm speaking for myself, and reading the comments I think I am not alone). Mind you, I'm not accusing ED of being lazy (far from it), it's that many of us feel too little of the effort that ED pours into the modules that we bought. We'd love to hear more, and more frank, updates. Tell us if fixing a bug has low priority for ED. I would understand and manage my expectation accordingly. I think we can handle the truth (admittedly, also browsing the comments, that's not a universal trait exhibited here).

I've been following this since the issue began, mostly because it affects my squad mates / friends who use the Quest (one had just purchased his first VR, a Quest 3 and within a week or so was grounded by the Meta fiasco). Thankfully, it doesn't affect me and my new Pimax Crystal. It does give me pause and concern though. In the future there are bound to be issues and some may break the game for some. With DCS no longer split between Beta and Stable it seems that there will no longer be Hotfixes. At least that's the way I read @BIGNEWY's posts regarding a fix. ALL fixes will have to wait until the next scheduled update (and as we have just seen, that schedule might be postponed when issues arise). I hope that I'm wrong in my interpretation of the events in this thread. I'm hoping that there will still be possibilities for hotfixes. After all, as we know "Stercus accidit" (I know, not a great Latin translation) and waiting possibly more than a month for a resolution to a problem is a bitter pill. If it's true that consolidating DCS to just one entity eliminates quick hotfixes, I would much prefer to be in "Beta" for perpetuity.

That is not true, the reason we went to a single version of DCS was because of customer feedback, yes this will push the time between patches longer but we liked having the buffer release of Open Beta before. I will disagree with you here just looking at the last couple of changelogs, but then even the smallest updates can be important to line up for bigger ones. And while not ever update is gonna be an epic release they are all a means to the end of Early Access. Just looking at the last changelog: DCS: AH-64D by Eagle Dynamics Adding the FCR Mast-Mounted Assembly as a loadout option in the Rearm/Refuel menu. Fixed: Dedicated server doesn't start mission with AH-64D. Fixed: Crash on PLT when CPG activates AutoTrack in multicrew. Fixed: Setting the NVS to FIXED and pressing SLAVE crashes the game. Fixed: Crash while using FCR and alternate cursor trigger on FCR page. George AI tuning. Fixed: Gun - bullets go missing 3000m. Fixed: FCR will not operate after repair. Fixed: AI AH-64D gun position. Fixed: Missile RATE LIMIT and ROLL LIMIT are only occurring when rolling right. Fixed: ECS temperature errors. Fixed: RLWR and ADF audio channels are not synced in multicrew. Fixed: Inner cockpit element intersects with pilot wiper blade. Fixed: Renamed the rocker label on the EUFD to "DL". Fixed: IHADSS symbology text size is too small. Fixed: CPG range source is not repeated in Pilot symbology when in COOP rocket mode. Fixed: Switching distance from KM to NM will freeze TSD scale. Fixed: FCR symbology elements are not affected by the Symbology (SYM) brightness setting. Fixed: Command Heading chevron is not referenced to aircraft heading when Bob-Up mode is entered. Fixed: AGM-114L will not launch below 38 feet on Sinai map. Fixed: HSI Ownship reference errors. Fixed: AGM-114L is tracking a target but ACQ is displayed as "?SKR" in white. Fixed: HDG> on PAN page should be referenced to Magnetic North. Fixed: Leading zeros in Lat/Long Minutes are not displayed in Point Review status windows. Fixed: ENDR status window on TSD should be hidden when fuel flow is 0 LB/HR. Fixed: AUTOPAGE - OFF cannot be chosen on ASE page. Fixed: Activation/deactivation logic for C AUX, L AUX, and R AUX on FUEL pages. Fixed: Power interruption is triggering ENTR INU 1 BRST and ENTR INU 2 BRST advisories. Fixed: POINT ADD/EDIT is using MPD cursor position on TSD instead of coordinates on KU. Fixed: Nav range is not being entered when the SLAVE button is pressed if Laser range is present. Fixed: RFHO message should not have a LOCATION option on COM>MSG-REC page. Fixed: IAT messages are appearing in Pilot symbology. Fixed: CPG's Target STORE message not displayed on VID page in Pilot crewstation. Fixed: Target data from FCR TGT Report is used by FCR aircraft as its own if a scan was already performed. Fixed: AZ LIMIT is appearing in place of EL LIMIT when the gun turret is near the aircraft centerline. Fixed: AZ LIMIT, EL LIMIT, and COINCIDENCE are not interrupting the gun from firing. Fixed: AZ LIMIT from an inboard missile launch is being removed before the missile actually launches. Fixed: TEDAC "CAGE" and "LMC" lettering switched. Fixed: Hold mode indicator behavior when enabled/disabled. DCS: F/A-18C by Eagle Dynamics Fixed: Cold Start Datalink not working. Fixed: Crash when launching HARM. Updated flight model and FLCS (details in newsletter) Added new pilot helmets HGU-68/P and HGU-68/P with NWG. Fixed: MFD image in some sun light exposure positions is corrupted. Fixed: Incorrect Bingo Caution. Fixed: On the ground with both engines running only FUEL tank 2 depletes. Fixed: Fuel temperature 1000°C on the ENG page causing the FUEL HOT caution after repair. Fixed: Brake check holding at Mil power. Fixed: RADAR ALT does not always give a warning when set on the UFC. Fixed: Some knobs glow when turned off. Fixed: Check TK PRES LO Warning with center fuel tank when climbing above 20k. Fixed: Harpoons sometimes self-destruct too early when using HTP. Fixed: Radar target heading oscillating in both STT and TWS (and LTWS) for closely spaced targets. Fixed: Some knobs are lit in a cold and dark cockpit. Fixed: ATT Switch to STBY doesn't trigger "X" on FCS. Fixed: Keybind for Bleed Air not working. Fixed: Selecting TWS from a RWS STT will recenter scan line. Fixed: AACQ and Bullseye information overlapping. Fixed: 1 Look RAID adds a "0" next to the targets. Fixed: TDC on the RDR ATTK and AZ/EL pages does not show info for targets other than the L&S, when in STT. Fixed: STT could lock the wrong target. Fixed: JDAM indication is crossed out on the HUD when the JDAM is not aligned. Fixed: SHOOT and IN LAR cues not showing on the Left DDI. Fixed: Jamming targets are locked in ACM regardless of distance. Fixed: INS alignment on CV starts as RF but then switches to CBL. Fixed: PPLI doesn't work on Marianas terrain. Fixed: WARN ALT values do not fit on the A/C page. Fixed: SLAM indication is crossed out on the HUD and MFD when the SLAM is not aligned. Fixed: Light bleeds into the cockpit around the brake pressure gauge. Fixed: Cannot move scan center in VS. Fixed: AI nozzle and nozzle covers after shutdown are incorrect. DCS: F-16C Viper by Eagle Dynamics Fixed: Datalink doesn't work after cold start. When starting or restarting the aircraft, the MIDS switch must first be set to OFF. Only set to ON after the GPS switch has been set to ON for 60 seconds and the DED TIME page displays GPS SYSTEM. Fixed: Elevators remain in the position when control is released. Fixed: Crash may occur when exiting FCR OVRD. Fixed: Possible DCS crash upon release of GBU-24. Fixed: Possible crash when launching an IAM. Fixed: Markpoint created after VIP designation is offset. Fixed: Dogfight mode lock freezes mid-air. Fixed: Incorrect heading and distance to steerpoint with GBU-24. Fixed: Cursor Zero/SPI system not working in A-G. Fixed: Datalink doesn't work for maps in the Western hemisphere. Fixed: Holding MPO switch in OVRD commands a nose down pitch rate. Fixed: Training. JDAM mission wrong coords given to verify. Fixed: Differential stabilizer and rudder behavior in a Deep Stall with MPO engaged. Fixed: FLCS oscillations. Fixed: Maverick VIZ and TGP SPI not Working. Fixed: RWR BIT logic improvements. Fixed: AGM-65 EO sub-modes corrections. Fixed: Offset Aimpoint positioned incorrectly on HUD depending on previous steerpoint. Fixed: AGM-154A ETA and TTI incorrect. Fixed: DTOS/VIS/EO-VIS should not incur a slew to the Navigation cursor. Fixed: Cat 1 pitch oscillations at AOA limit. Fixed: A-G FCR mode invalid state. Fixed: AGR OVRD flashes GM radar return when pressed. Fixed: TGP mask cue erroneously flashes if TGP is placed into standby while TGP is masked. Fixed: 3-way switch for ANTI-SKID/PB doesn't engage Parking Brake. Fixed: HAD HARM target handover blanks out A-G radar. Fixed: Moving TDC with TGP in STBY moves SPI to present position. Fixed: Adverse small oscillations in TO\landing gains when banked. Fixed: AIM-120 SLAVE/BORE option not available. Fixed: Defog Lever movement. Fixed: HSD "FR/FL" filter function issues. Fixed: Changing Master Mode while TGP OVRD is enabled is causing erroneous TGP mode entry. Fixed: AGM-65 VIS can get locked onto steerpoint. Fixed: AGM-88 POS launch zone overlaps. Fixed: WCMD Impact timer inaccurate. Fixed: AGM-65 MLE scale only appearing in EO-VIS when WPN is SOI. Fixed: HSD FZ can cause some symbology to disappear. Fixed: HARM WPN TMS logic is incorrect. Fixed: Idle nozzle position too wide. Fixed: ARM L remains in HUD after R hard point disabled, and Laser arm is disabled. Fixed: AGM-65 VIS TMS forward on post designate can flash DLZ on HUD when no Mavericks remain. Fixed: Designating HAD symbol while in CCIP/STRF sub-modes causes TGP to slew away from CCIP pepper. No matter what you might think, all of these bug fixes are important. You do not know our resources or how the team works internally, we do not stop working on unfinished products to make new ones. We take on what we can handle. As well. We could stop working on maps all together and it would not speed up modules as they are separate teams all together. And while we have some cross-over specialists for aircraft, they are prioritized as needed to keep new things coming and current things improving. Pre-orders and Early Access are all optional. We appreciate those that take part, but appreciate those that want to wait just as much.

Regardless of who is in the right or wrong here, this is clearly going to put a severe dent in the confidence of anyone contemplating making further purchases.

Whatever, the important part was - it is more than one. People are jumping to conclusions and in reality they don‘t know anything. It‘s a dispute between contract parties and they should solve it behind closed doors. The court of public opinion isn’t well suited for those matters. Razbams vague statement was semi-professional in my opinion, and forced ED into a reply (that I found equally „semi“ tbh). But from here on it should stay between them until solved. Even if that hurts our (mine for sure) curiosity.

That's unfounded - they never announced every feature coming for the next update. This sounds bad - do we have other "special" modules that can use such excuses for neglecting?

Yak-52 has a few fixes in this upcoming patch, and the Mossie just got the new landing gear system the team designed. I do not think the Yak-52 is even in Early Access anymore. Yes it still needs some love but I am not sure there is anything game breaking at this point, and the Yak was always a special module as originally it was done as a private contract and added later when an agreement was made to allow it in DCS. If there is ever an important question that I miss I would be happy to be reminded or have it pointed out to me, the forums are quite busy, but in all fairness we are very available and open to talk just about 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, just ask my wife who asks why I am always working.

Yes, we will launch this version as soon as the helicopter systems are ready. While you're having fun, we'll be working on an external model.)

This sounds like personality and ego driving this fight in my personal opinion. ED most certainly has contracts with these TPDs that also most certainly contain payment provisions and dispute resolution provisions. I bet they even contain non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions. Thus, the whole public airing of this grievance is just rubbing me the wrong way, and to then state you're simply "done" developing for DCS in response to Nick's initial public response...Pretty unprofessional I think.

Man the excuses that are being posted about the lack of available manpower for the small Yak issues that need fixing are very telling. I purchased it using the same decision as I purchased the F18, F16, SC, and many more ED module, that I would get a complete and working module at some point, at this point its still EA and the F16 isn't, which is more complex. I don't care if it was a private product released to us, I don't care if you don't have enough manpower to fix it, that's not my issue that's your issue as a company, you took on the project, you sold it with features and into the DCS eco system, your still selling it, you should complete it or at least fix bugs that have been listed and not fixed for years. Stop working on the F6F/E for 3 months and fix the Yak, we don't have that plane yet so its made you no money, wont harm anyone to wait another 3 months for a plane not released. At this stage I,m regretting my pre purchase of the Afghan map and really will consider all my purchases of ED modules in the future seeing how the community mangers engage with long term customers when asked about certain products.

Maybe you are not concerned but I gave $$$ to ED with an assumption that they will pay what is owned to 3rd parties. If ED is not paying Razbam then ED should be responsible for fixes and support, right?

Maybe this has something to do with it all.

Yep, there are several new country packs I look forward to start working on.

New vid! Came on Polychop! My hangar still needs this obligatory!

WHAT?! Say again....?

Thanks for replying NL, but the the Yak is still early access according to your web site There are still very active bug reports on items broken on the Yak52 with no attention too them at all, I'm sure you have logs with reports about bugs and broken stuff, well at least ED should if they are actively tracking bugs. null

This is just your opinion and doesn't reflect that of the community for sure. I'm actually a very patient person and haven't complained about delays so far. Since we're waiting for an update since nearly six weeks and the patch announced for today has been pushed back by a week (at least), I would like to give my opinion: The last noteworthy feature updates for the F/A-18C, F-16C, AH-64D or the SC have been released more than three months ago. Instead bringing the already released modules out of early access status, ED seems to focusing it's resources to the release of more and more new, unfinished content (CH-47F, MiG-29A, Afghanistan, Iraq). The next feature update for the AH-64D was announced by Wags in an interview with Casmo as "very soon" for May or June 2024. The last AH-64D feature update has been delivered in December 2023. I hope you don't expect that the community really believes, that ED does not move many resources from developing existing early access modules to announced and/or pre-purchaseable modules like Afghanistan, when you let us wait more than five months for LINK, C-SCOPE and ZOOM for the AH-64D. Unfortunately, I have lost my trust and will no longer support ED by (pre-)purchasing early access modules, as long as ED doesn't change the current strategy. This is my opinion.

Hello Everyone! Inspired by Redkite’s and adalla’s Dynamic Deck Templates for the Supercarrier I decided to make one for the Tarawa as well! I'm new to scripting and this is my first endeavour at this so please be sure to let me know how I can fix/improve this. The Templates are loaded in via the F10 menu by default but can be configured using triggers any way you like Included: Tarawa menu script Recovery deck script Launch ops deck script LINK: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3336674/ Get it on Github!: https://github.com/LtDogPoop/DCS-Tarawa-Dynamic-Carrier-Deck-Templates/releases/tag/Latest How to install: Screenshots: If there's anything I missed please let me know! Regards LTDOGOOP Tarawa Menu by LTDOGOOP V1.1 AIO.rar

if people who are doing the development isnt paid you cant expect them to work for free.

love how all the disgruntled yak52 owners come crawling out of the woodwork its pretty much the least complex module produced by ED, watch itll take longer than the hornet to complete

Will there ever be? It went into EA in 2018 ..

+1 ... I have to agree. For example I've returned to the Viggen after a 6 years hiatus (I flew it a lot on its first year, 2017) ... and the new maps, lighting and weather effects make it feel almost like a brand-new module and thus I'm having a blast re-learning it, in anticipation to flying it on the Kola map (fingers crossed on having it arrive soon)

Ja, das geht. Da musst du vorher nicht mal DCS installieren. Einfach alte Platte raus, neue Platte rein (mit selbem Laufwerksbuchstaben!) und Daten unter Beibehaltung des selben Pfades rüberkopieren. Solange Laufwerksbuchstabe und Orderpfad gleich bleiben, stimmen auch noch alle Verweise (Desktopsymbole, Registryeinträge, etc).

The lack of even a rudimentary damage model arguably is . At minimum, it's a serious omission

Yak-52 is a lot of fun, I usually enjoy it for a Sunday VR relaxing flight

Spent thousands to play on VR solely for this game alone and its the only game I play. Id never go back to 2D. 7 weeks to fix a issue is extremely poor

You’re a happy chap. How about you don’t buy the module.

It's a crying shame they are unable or worse unwilling to do a hot fix. I have spent too many hours getting DCS to run how I want it to run on my two PC's (one Q3 and one Q2) to risk hosing it by trying the various workarounds. Having disappointed customers is never good for any business, even if we are ignorable due low numbers (which I suspect is not correct as we're probably only the tip of the iceberg)

Is this a joke!? Told to wait for fix… Waited to be told when that would be. Waited until then Then told to wait some more. Not a happy customer. workarounds do not work for me. I didn’t pay to play in 2d.

Interesting how sure you are "the community" wont agree,and you are the one who can tell.

https://discord.com/channels/542985647502393346/543014378643914752/1225540525029851146 Just a reminder that there are two sides to a story.

Don't forget about Magnesium: it's vital and often overlooked

You're literally using technology browsers use every time you play a game on the internet, every time you need to authenticate etc. You've probably booted up games and platforms to launch games with browsers embedded in them for years. This is such a non issue. HB make simulated aircraft, not PDF readers yo embed into them. The use of a browser in the way they've described is both absolutely fine and a cheap way of delivering information to the player without the need to alt tab or have a second monitor. I would take this for every DCS module if I had the chance.

wait a few years more of DCS and we speak gain

Ya gotta love that with all the talk of Strike Eagles and Phantoms, the Yak-52 still has such a fan base.

This is my 4th year of DCS, so in many ways I am late to the party! I was recently reviewing a couple of cinematic videos that I made back in 2020/21 and I was astounded how poor they looked compared to my more recent 'productions'. It is easy to lose sight of how much has changed and how much has been improved upon in recent years. There are thousands of DCS acolytes with an equal number of opinions, agendas and personal desires as to what should take precedence. Ultimately DCS is a hobby, a pastime, a diversion, sometimes an obsession but not actually essential to life! So, without being too sycophantic, for my part, thank you ED, looking forward to exciting times.

Man….sometimes people want to vent. Let them do it. It’s frustrating. Yeah, you CAN play in 2d…but for people like me who don’t have a track IR anymore, it blows. Yeah, there are work arounds but they don’t work for everyone. It doesn’t matter whose fault it is, it frustrating that there has been a fix for over a week but we can’t get it. Maybe there’s a good reason but that doesn’t make it any less annoying. if I’ve been looking forward to my 3-day weekend on a Florida beach for a year and when I get there, it rains all three days, I’m entitled to be frustrated and grumble. Doesn’t matter that it’s no one’s fault.

I can be as critical as the next guy, but the bottom line is that DCS is one of a kind and the best of all flightsims. There is nothing else giving us this level of tech and fidelity. So best to chew - grudgingly - on the delays and imperfections and count ourselves fortunate that we have access to Strike Eagles and Hornets in all their guided weapons and funky MFD glory. Not to mention the upcoming Phantom which may well be the most sophisticated flightsim plane ever. And I want the best of the best in flightsim goodness. And I very much want my CH-47 and am happy to pre-order ASAP. So I'll bitch and whine a bit, but I absolutely will not stop supporting the sim. Just my opinion.

I have asked the team to give us an update on progress. Please keep the feedback constructive here in the mean time. thank you