Leaderboard

(not negative but rather constructive post) I have in mind the SuperCarrier in perspective. This module is not changed since release (may 2020). (Adding light sticks to deck crew and more lights levels is just a cosmetics) Saying "we are waiting for the core game to change". It's been 4 years without any progress. "We are working in the background". It's been 4 years without any progress. "EA is not for everybody". It's been 4 years where I paid whole price. I think there should be some time frames. I do like what ED has done with Afgan preorder - "we're not releasing whole map, next parts are planned in 3 months interval". This is something that shows how long a promise is. Fat cow, water landing, CSAR, internal transport - all cool. But I would like to see some dates. I think ED is rushing this module and I remember what happened to F-16 and the apologies from ED side after that. Two months before the release and "we still don't know what we're going to add". ED, please, be honest with people that loves your product and want to see a clear and transparent seller-costumer policy.

I think it's pointless to talk about the same thing all over again but I just want to point out 3 things 1 - for me not giving the list of features but selling a product is wrong (I understand that for some people just flyable module is enough, they don't need more) From a customer point of view, we can (not forced of course) buy an unknown product. I understand that you are not sure what you can finish for the release, hence no list of the features. From company point of view, I think ED is testing (?) the good will of the people or how "blind" are the customers. In other words - let's see how far we can go with empty promises. 2 - I constantly hear "EA is not for everybody but thank you for the support for those who did because we got money to develop the game". I'm totally sure Ch-47 won't be next SuperCarrier which is a peak of "sell, and put it on the shelf" attitude - 4 years after we paid for it, and no changes. So what is the limit of "EA is not for everyone"? We trusted you, helped you financially, in return we got no progress. I'm not saying SC is not playable, but it has long lasting problems and it's missing the parts we paid and has been promised. Saying "this is not an easy task, EA is a long process". I think 4 years is a long time to bring something to the product. Meanwhile.. how many modules where released since may 2020, also in EA and still not finished? Doesn't it look like the company is focused on making half baked product, without any need to finished it? Convince me I'm wrong. 3 - I've created a logistic and csar scripts for my missions and the community. Because of that it's hard to find a person who flies in a plane because they enjoy the logistic part of the missions so much! I know that Ch-47 will probably (probably, because there is no feature list) bring some new logistic stuff. This heli is all about it. But saying "oh, the community will take care of logistic" is bad from 2 sides: - we are not responsible to create tools for the missions (we should use them), - and if we should/could, please gives us the tools and possibility to do so. API is missing functions (adjusting the weight of internal cargo for example). here are not civilian models we can use for SAR/CSAR. Embarking/disembarking troops is meh. We don't know which unit use F10 menu (API returns only group id). Cargoes that heli can transport do not affect missions - we cannot transport vehicles or even artillery pieces; I know we can trigger other units, but we did not brought those units. This is just from the top of my head. I know people who read the forums have nothing to do with the marketing or how the bussines is run. I would like to just leave a statement for those who have authority, that what is happening (since many many years) is wrong, and it shows that the company is taking but not giving. I think we would like to see a steady pace of finishing the products before adding new one. The whole situation in DCS is looking like (just a small joke to vent out my frustration): - Let's build the City of Rome! After building the Coliseum: - Oh, we underestimate the task, the City of Rome is big and it will take more time. LET'S MAKE NEW YORK INSTEAD, preorder with 30% off.

Cargo to the Chinook is like weapons on a fighter plane. It's not just a nice to have, it's the entire point. I hope ED in general can take a good hard look at their customers general sentiment shown here and ensure that their development focus targets what is being asked of them.

This module feels very rushed to me.First the start of pre-sales without a feature list despite a planned release in 2 month. Now it turns out that the logistics & support aspect that is the whole main purpose of this helicopter will not be available during EA but only at some undetermined future date. If it wasn’t for user-made script solutions there would be close to zero to do with it transport-wise, except sling loading. Really don’t like the direction ED is taking with this one.

I'm afraid I'm definitely with a few commentators here, gashpl pretty much nails it. This new cargo system was first hinted at in this video on the Hind. This video is nearly 3 years old and as far as I can remember there has been no update on it. Now we have a helicopter where this functionality is downright essential and it's still "later on" and we still don't have a list of features we can expect from such a system, other than that it'll be a "novel logistics system" for a select few aircraft and that somewhere along line we might be able to resupply from the CH-47F. I'm sorry but at this stage this really isn't inspiring me with confidence about this module. As I've said before, surely this should've been done before offering up the CH-47F for pre-order, not after? I'm really sorry but speaking completely frankly it's somewhat baffling and worrying that ED found that they were ready to open up the pre-order for this module and start taking money for it, while not being ready to tell us the list of features, even just EA features. Surely internal discussions would've come up with a plan for the module, before offering it for purchase? How can we be in this state at this stage? It is bad enough having EA modules (which I have purchased in the past) with planned features that don't materialise for several years down the line (indeed, there are still some outlying features planned, some we've not had an update on in nearly half a decade) and when features that despite being perfectly accurate for a module and well within ED's capability to implement are omitted. Now we're slipping even further backwards by offering up a module for pre-order, with the list of things we can expect still undecided (or if decided, unwilling to be shared). As it stands I have no idea what I should expect by preordering the CH-47F, aside from a 3D artwork, a flight model and an interactive cockpit, which really should be the bare minimum for a full-fidelity module in DCS World (though saying that, even a damage model isn't mentioned so far) and as it stands I'm completely turned off from pre-ordering this module.

Military Asset Pack USA 1.1.0 released! Changelog Version 1.1.0 Added AARGM-ER to B-21 Added AN/MPQ-65 STR desert livery Added AN/MPQ-65A STR desert livery Added Arleigh Burke Flight IIA Destroyer Added Arleigh Burke Flight III Destroyer Added Centurion C-RAM desert livery Added Centurion C-RAM projectory forecast Added Constellation Frigate Added FMTV M1083 Truck Added HEMTT M977 Truck Added HEMTT M983 Tractor Added LAV-AD desert livery Added LTAMDS STR desert livery Added M142 HIMARS desert livery Added M2A3 IFV Added M777 unguided and guided reloads Added MIM-104 AN/MPQ-65 STR with HEMTT carrier Added MIM-104 AN/MPQ-65A STR with HEMTT carrier Added MIM-104 ECS desert livery Added MIM-104 EPP desert livery Added MIM-104 LTAMDS STR with HEMTT carrier Added MIM-104 M903 PAC-2 LN desert livery Added MIM-104 M903 PAC-2 LN with HEMTT carrier Added MIM-104 M903 PAC-3 LN desert livery Added MIM-104 M903 PAC-3 LN with HEMTT carrier Added THAAD AN/TPY-2 STR Added THAAD M1120 LN Added THAAD TPCC ECS Added Ticonderoga CMP Cruiser Added Ticonderoga Cruiser Changed AN/MPQ-65 STR textures and collision model Changed AN/MPQ-65A STR textures and collision model Changed Centurion C-RAM collision model Changed Centurion C-RAM textures Changed L-ATV textures Changed LAV-AD textures Changed LTAMDS STR textures and collision model Changed M-ATV textures Changed M10 textures Changed M142 HIMARS collision model Changed M142 HIMARS textures Changed M1A2 SEPv3 textures Changed M777 collision model Changed M777 stationary to default ready state Changed M777/MTVR collision model Changed MIM-104 ECS with HEMTT carrier Changed MIM-104 EPP with HEMTT carrier Changed MIM-104 M903 PAC-2 LN textures and collision model Changed MIM-104 M903 PAC-3 LN textures and collision model Changed MIM-104 PAC-2 missile textures Changed MIM-104 PAC-3 missile textures Changed MTVR collsion model Changed MTVR engine sound Changed NASAMS 3 LN textures Changed SM-2 model and textures Changed SM-3 model and textures Changed SM-6 model and textures Fixed BGM-71 missing collision model Fixed BGM-71 to reduce poly count Fixed Centurion C-RAM training angles Fixed ESSM missing collision model Fixed FIM-92 missing collision model Fixed M10 conflicting model issue Fixed M136 missing collision model Fixed M777 stationary not firing Fixed M933 missing collision model Fixed ship sensor issue Removed Arleigh Burke Flight III Destroyer (AShM) Removed Arleigh Burke Flight III Destroyer (LACM) Removed Arleigh Burke Flight III Destroyer (SAM) Removed Centurion C-RAM burst mode Removed Ticonderoga CMP Cruiser (AShM) Removed Ticonderoga CMP Cruiser (LACM) Removed Ticonderoga CMP Cruiser (SAM)

Will we see updated infantry animations when they are entering and exiting the aircraft? Will we have physical models of infantry/vehicles/cargo in the rear, as currently with CTLD we cannot see infantry in the back of the Huey as an example. Will we have some sort of crew chief/flight engineer (not sure on correct term) giving us call outs and such for landings? Will this be a Multi Crew slot eventually?

Just a few thoughts: First, I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding between what the community is saying, and what ED is hearing. Nobody is questioning the quality of DCS flight models, or the implementation of (most) systems, or what have you. I'm sure all those things will be amazing in the Chinhook. What many in the community are trying to say is that our enjoyment of those systems is inextricably tied to the quality of the environment they are put in. You can imagine a sim with even more numerous and realistic modules than DCS, amazing weather and ATC, but no combat - that environment would immediately not be of interest to many of us, despite the presence of better modules. You can not give feedback on a module without talking about the environment it's flown in. Second, I think the reasoning of "if EA is not for you then don't buy the module" is very flawed. The entirety of DCS is in EA in some way or form, to the point where we have given up the pretense of having a Stable and Beta branch, it's just Beta now. What you are essentially telling many of us when you say "EA may not be for you and that's fine" is really "our product is not for you", which I think is very silly given ED has a near monopoly on the high fidelity combat sim market. Finally, and this is the most frustrating thing to say, I feel like the misunderstanding or breakdown between the community and ED is so deep that I no longer believe giving feedback will actually improve the product. I'm writing this post because I need to get some frustration off my chest, not because I think it will in any way help DCS achieve some of its potential. edit: I also want to add, I realize the points I made are not something Nineline or Bignewey are expected to address. I wish I felt like they were being relayed to whoever makes decisions at ED though.

So... The logistics, the entire theme behind this module, almost the entire reason to buy it... won't be available on release? I'll sit this one out, thanks.

The Supercarrier was an important module for DCS and yet we are here 4 years in with no deliverables at all except night wands and spooky crew at Halloween, and plenty of empty promise's that are now being put back even more as its said at needs Vulcan. As much as I want to fly the Hook after reading the FAQ, I feel this will be another SC with a long wait for the items in that FAQ, so far ED seems to have a lot on its plate with promises made in this years news letters, Air ground munitions, Dynamic campaign weather system updates, ECM, ATC, in game radio, ground AI updates, and much more, plus we have older modules still in EA with no updates. (not in the news letters) If the logistics is high priority is it higher than adding the missing promised features to the SC, where does it sit in the que ??

This post couldn't have been worded more perfectly. Let me start by saying that I'm very grateful for DCS, I love what ED and its 3rd party partners have produced. I own a great number of modules and maps and regularly struggle to choose to fly the F16, the F18 or the F15E because I love them all. But, I'm also not someone who enjoys being taken advantage of. I'm a 'proud' owner of the SuperCarrier module and I'm disappointed that the features that were road mapped for this module haven't eventuated. Also pretty miffed about the F15E saga but that's not a story for here. I like what is proposed above and I think it would alleviate some of the annoyance I (and I'm sure others) feel about features that are promised or road mapped, and then either never eventuate or take years upon years. Especially when they're core features like what is being proposed for the Chinook.

Relying on CTLD features to flesh it out while we await the arrival of logi features is not ideal, given that we've seen DCS modders get fatigued/burnt out and drop support for their projects in the past. Modders have been a lifesaver for DCS, but they should always be additive not core/necessary to the experience.

Dear all, thank you for your interest and questions on the DCS: CH-47. To address all those questions and concerns we have created this FAQ. We hope it will help give you some ideas of what to expect from this exciting new module. What Variant is the DCS: CH-47F? Currently, we are doing the CH-47F Block 1. How much is the DCS: CH-47F? During Pre-purchase you can save 30% on this module. Once it moves to Early Access it will move to an Early Access DIscount and on final release will be 69.99 USD. When will the module be released? (UPDATED) We are currently fixing some stopper issues and testing, we will share news soon. Will there be a pre-order on Steam? Currently no, we will continue to try working with Steam to make something happen, but right now this product doesn't meet Steam's pre-order requirements. Why is the feature list so light? (UPDATED) We wanted to be sure we correctly listed features and when they will come out, either at EA release or during EA. We will continue to update the list here and on the store page as we have more info. This is an important module to DCS and needs to bring all the things you might expect from such a famous helicopter. Current features expected for Early Access Release: Highly detailed external and internal modelling, including cockpit and cargo hold. Ability to load and unload cargo from the internal bay based on weight and volume. Single-point sling loading. Unmatched helicopter flight dynamics that only DCS can provide. Basic trim system and AI helper. Fully interactive, VR-ready cockpit. Highly detailed pilots and animations. Two 6DOF highly detailed cockpits and external model. Fully clickable cockpits with mouse interactive control. AI-side gunners equipped with M60D machine guns. High-level Multi-Function Displays (MFD) and sub-pages with the ability to build flight plans in flight. Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) and pilot-controlled Countermeasures Dispenser System with chaff and flares. Integrated ARC-186 radio with Voice Chat. U.S. Army Paint Schemes. Early Access Manual. Features to come during Early Access: DAFCS trim system and force trim. Multi-crew. A second crew member can be another player or the AI. Flight engineer functionality on different stations. Gunner on the ramp. Different machine gun models for side and ramp gunners. Night Vision Goggles. Heads Up Display System. Missile Warning System (MWS). Completed MFD pages. Multi-point sling loading. Engine fire extinguishers and EAPS system. Extended range fuel system (ERFS II). Autopilot Hold Modes. More Paint Schemes. Training Missions. Additional Missions. Full manual. Will ED support and update Logisics for this module? (UPDATED) We can say that we are developing a novel logistics system for the CH-47F that dynamically allows the player to determine what is loaded and unloaded from the aircraft based on weight and area. Whilst this will not be available at early access release, it is a high priority for the CH-47F and other cargo/transport aircraft. At Early Access Release you will have: Highly detailed external and internal modelling, including cockpit and cargo hold. Ability to load and unload cargo from the internal bay based on weight and volume. Single-point sling loading. What about Multicrew? Pilot multicrew is certainly planned for the early access release, but door or rear-gunner multicrew support is planned for after the early access release. Why is only an M-60 gun shown in the video? We will have options for this where you can choose either the M-60 or the M-240H. What about water landings? We most certainly want to do this as an iconic aspect of this helicopter. Water landing physics needs to be added to DCS to support this and other aircraft in the future. As such this will come later on in EA development. Will 'Fat Cow' (FARP) missions be possible? Yes, this is planned for the DCS: CH-47F. How will transporting work on the DCS: CH-47F? Can we pick up downed pilots, player-controlled vehicles, cows? We stated above we will be developing a novel logistics system for the CH-47 and other cargo/transport aircraft, when we have more details to share on what this will entail we will be sure to share. Will our CH-47F have CMWS (Common Missile Warning System)? This is currently planned, but as with any defensive system for any aircraft, we need to carefully consider this system and implement it in a way that will not dip too close to a controlled and classified system. As such this will come later on in development. You may ask questions you would like to see added to the CH-47 and added to the FAQ here We thank you for all the support you have shown us and the passion that drives you all to keep pushing us to do our best and release the very best products we can. The ED Team

Here's some constructive feedback: I will not be putting money into this or any other ED module with an "Early Access" model until ED commits to providing a publicly available, frequently updated development roadmap that at least some chunk of the engaged community deems credible with respect to what it says and when it says it vs. observed reality. A development "roadmap" is a "map" because it contains detailed information about 1. Where the project is now, 2. Where the project's ultimate end state is, and 3. An estimation of expected time of arrival at 2 given the distance between 1 and 2 and the terrain in between. So let's look at this "FAQ" you have provided, instead of what I've just described. Q: Why is the feature list so light? 9L A: "We wanted to be sure we correctly listed features and when they will come out, either at EA release or during EA. We will continue to update the list here and on the store page as we have more info." 9L then goes on to "answer" "frequently asked" questions about planned work on future features that can only be assessed as falling within the "Full set of features will be announced prior to early access release" on the store listing. And so this proceeds as basically a series of questions/requests about features that a CH-47 module would be considered a FAILURE if it reached a development-ended state without: logistics, multicrew, gunner station, water landing, etc. but will not be available at launch and ED will not give a detailed answer for expected time of arrival. So like, yes, great, you are working on/planning on working on all these- I should hope so, they're what would make the module worth working on/not a giant waste! If these were not on the way, the only conclusion to draw would be that ED is frittering away resources extending an early access cash sale confidence game instead of strategically improving your existing products! But this is not our first module, we know ED dreams big, so let's interrogate the dream vs. the strategy to instantiate it, not the dream in a vacuum.null So to your Frequently Requested Dreams I have included the following questions I ask myself frequently about ED products, maybe you could include your answers to them as well, 9L, please and thank-you: Q: Is this the module when ED commits to professionalizing its approach to customer/community relations by providing a credible, frequently updated development roadmap for the duration of its lifecycle, in Early Access and Beyond? Q: What is the size of the team who will be working on this module full time until it exits Early Access? Q: How many developers can we expect to be flexed onto this module for sprints to major milestones/an internal definition of stable and will be moved to other modules after that? Q: If ED experiences internal turnover in the devs working the module, or decide to not pay a contractor who's working on the module (for very good or at least legally defensible in certain jurisdictions reasons I'm sure), when can we expect communication from ED about the impact on the module's development? Q: When a planned feature like water landings is described as waiting on updates to the DCS core before development can begin, can we expect additional information on what exactly is being done and with what level of prioritization in regards to that DCS core work? Supercarrier communication has consistently lacked clarity in terms of what features are simply "in progress" vs delayed pending DCS core updates. Software development being what it is, this can be a porous boundary, but an explanation to the effect of, e.g., "we thought we had an implementation that worked in the current DCS core but it failed such-and-such testing and so $feature now has to wait for $Core_Update" would be appreciated.

> We can say that we are developing a novel logistics system for the CH-47F that dynamically allows the player to determine what is loaded and unloaded from the aircraft based on weight and area. Will this be accessible via the scripting system (e.g. setting load & unload zones to integrate with this system, limiting what can / cannot be loaded) ? Will there be events emitted to the MSE to allow for scripts to react to loading and unloading events? Will scripts be able to load / unload the aircraft themselves without UI. (e.g. Deploy troops immediately on landing without needing pilot interaction) Alternatively. Will ED actually actively collaborate with server owners, mission makers and scripters so that a system that meets their needs, as well as any of ED's needs, is delivered?

If ED staff is relying so heavily on the community to support this airframe during EA through mods and scripting, why are they not involved very closely with these communities? I do not see a single staff member actively engaging with members in the Moose discord, one of the most popular and versatile script libraries. Providing more API access to in-game elements such as sling load events and having a more reliable multiplayer aircraft crash event are a few of the most critical features that are holding the scripting community back. We want to fill in these gaps while we wait for an official logistics system to be produced. I'm also wondering where community feedback and direction for a logistics comes from as I have not seen ED ask about it in the Moose discord or any of the rotary wing communities.

Apologies if this comes across as rude, but are we going to get any real answers in this thread? Nineline said to post questions, I was the first to reply and was totally ignored?

I just want to fly it. Can I, please? You don't like it, you don't buy it. Don't make a fuzz about it. This is what is going to happen: I will pre-order it (together with the full afghanistan map). I will be excited like a kid on christmas eve. I will download it, the day it arrives. I will fire it up and fly around for a couple of hours and check out the new map. I will be having a blast and enjoying myself. Eventually I will fly it less, because it has to share time with my other modules. I will be happy, when new features arrive and when it has problems, I will fly other modules and missions until it is fixed. Edit: Took some of the edges away from my post. I was (am) a bit triggered by the sentiment of topics like this, but that is a personal problem.

I respectfully disagree. It seems ED has somewhat lost its course regarding customer relations. While it is true that EA never had any definite deadline, your business model seems to steer towards pumping out new modules/terrains to attract money on at the expense of finishing development of existing modules. Hence years of EA status. I doubt every single module has its own exclusive team or you would be one of the biggest game developers in the world. That then means you are prioritizing workload. We, as customers, feel you are doing it wrong. If anything, I would be thankful that we are voicing our grievances before we start voting with our wallets. I have a feeling this was done to take the aim away from some other things that have happened recently. EDIT: I do agree that what I wrote above is not strictly on topic of this thread, but with the answers you have provided us so far, what else is there to talk about?

Own pretty much all the modules and know how to use them. Have been flying flight sim's when able for 30+ years. I also always pre-order content, that stops with recent events and this is final nail if it needed any reinforcement not to do so. To bring out a LOGISTICS chopper, and such an iconic one at that, and not have the mechanics inplace for this is pretty insulting and a bit of a disgrace it has to be said. Once again relying on very talented community coders to part solve your problems is not a solution re moose/mist. Someone once said DCS stands for Digital Cockpit Simulator and well event's like these are not exactly inspiring to change that gowing perception. The promise of later in Early Access i think for many now, when it relates to such a core function of a module has worn thin. For context to this you only have to mention mission planning and ready room for the Suppercarrier, what 4 years on now. Or Combined Arm's and the state that is in still years on with multiple units in one group, or single threaded servers still, or weapons splash damage and not just on the graphics and trees swaying for content creator video's! Sadly "high priority" means nothing these days when ED say's it, what about Mi24 cargo, that's been out a few years now and already teased years ago regarding its ability for troop carrier, surely this is the same mechanic? You only have to read this thread, or one's over on reddit to see that this concept of release has been poorly thought through. Quite simply bringing out logistics choppers without putting the core engine in, would be the same as Heatblur releasing the F4 without any missiles or bombs, it really is that simple and comparable. There is no other term for it but an absolute shambles. You may reply with EA is not for everyone, but when someone that has been buying your products for along time, only about the CEagle and mig 19 i dont own, and would generally pre-order, and i'm one of many that now won't pre-order, you know something somewhere you messed up.

And in those 3 years, the only progress on this front is this: So we've gone from "we're planning a cargo system update" (paraphrased, but this is what this quote, even if brief, implies) to "we're planning a novel logistics system". This has supposedly been in the plans for at least 3 years and we still know very little about it, other than that it'll apply to cargo/logistics aircraft and we might be able to use the CH-47F as a sort-of mobile FARP. We haven't even had progress on the details and features about the system, let alone progress on its actual implementation. I'd hazard a guess that it's this fact that people are concerned about. That in 3 years we still don't even have a list of what this system is supposed to do, especially so when we're now getting modules where transportation and logistics have greater focus, where this functionality is arguably essential for them to have a practical role.

Steam gives you the option to refund a purchase within a set amount of playing time if you were to say, hypothetically, purchase it and quickly realize it did not have the features you thought it would. That is another advantage. (DISCLOSURE: Standalone customer)

No offense mate, but the first paragraph contradicts the second. If you do feel you're being taken advantage of then you could refrain from preordering. The transparency of this FAQ is great, albeit worrying that we're this far down the road and there's no real understanding on what features are expected to ship in due time. The benefits and requirements are usually something that'll be assessed, by a product team, as part of the inception work and that step either hasn't happened or hasn't yet been communicated to the CMs and the rest of us.

I have brought the Chinook, as I have brought pretty much every module and terrain as well as numerous campaigns, as I feel it is important to support ED in this niche and difficult market sector......However, that said, I do feel somewhat that people like me are getting a little taken advantage of with the EA thing and sheer amount of time it takes for a module release to move from EA to feature complete........some, this never happens. I think a maximum of 2 years would be reasonable, but when we are in the situation of 4 years and counting for the SC and the Harrier is not even finished 6 years later, to name just two, these timescales are really too long. That said, the Apache & Viper have had regular and substantial updates along the way which is great, no complaints there ( Well, maybe one biggy regarding the flight model for the Apache, which badly needs improving....) so credit where its due. I used to run my own construction business for many years and I always found that clients respected and accepted the (almost inevitable) delays & issues if you were honest and open with them and gave them RELIABLE dates and information. The same should apply here, to avoid ED pissing off the loyal and supportive customers. So I hope the essential logistics features follow shortly along.

Well, thank you for this, cause this is exactly what me and others are saying. Even now, while we are literally in the CH47 topic and I bring up subjects directly related to the CH47, you tell me to take these subjects somewhere else. This is the CH47 FAQ, the most asked questions are about those things.. and you say 'hey, this is about Ch47 only, don't talk about that other stuff' I'm not here to start a discussion and will leave it at this.

This is the key thing. I'm sure the Chinook will be great because DCS is, hands down, the best helicopter experience of any consumer simulator on the market. What shouldn't happen however is that we get to 1-2 years down the road, or further, and no progress has been made due to improper prioritisation of work. Please don't make the same mistakes as the supercarrier.

Very much so, but at this point, It's almost 'par' for ED at the moment. We have DTC, bomb physics, SDBs,dynamic campaign among other things holding back the developement of various different parts of the game and modules which have been an ongoing issue since forever. Whatever though, best I'll do is vote with my wallet..

For one, ability to refund when something happends, like launch of F16 for example. Just yeet it back at them for unfinished abomination. Other one is, better customer protection and possibility of 3rd party being actually paid considering they are named under the product. Considering they even DARE to take money from preorders while stating this (most likely breaches some sort of EU consumer laws considering they are NOT telling you what you are buying, its in fact gambling). Thanks god there are no preorders. null

Russian Forum: Refuel Basket phishics on the wishlist Expand altitude about 100 km to simulate balistic missiles and TBM interceptors on the Wishlist Waypoints on cruise missiles on the wishlist.

Finished.

Im really looking forward to this And I have no problems with "not feature complete" I still can practice my flying skills even when not everything is fully fleshed out. But it shows again that early access is not for everyone

that is fine, only purchase when you are happy to, we will be grateful for the support when you do decide. As mentioned in the first post we are working on logistics for DCS and it is a high priority task. With it being a new feature it may not be ready for early access release, but it is actively being worked on and is an important role for the DCS:CH-47F and other modules. thank you

Ok guys, I guess maybe we are not ready for a thread like this, I was hoping to see what you guys were looking for in the CH-47F, get some good questions and generate some more content for the FAQ but now we are just discussing way off topic things. I cleaned the thread a little but feel like I will just lock it for now until we have some more info. Sorry for all of you that were playing nice, I will try and get some of those questions answered and added to the FAQ. Thanks.

Agree. I did a lot of testing in regards to this a while ago. But unfortunately I couldn't find a way to make a helicopter with AWACS attributes in DCS.

I mostly make one version of my assets, but in the rare cases I make exceptions. For example when an asset have very different weapons, like the HIMARS, and there is no way of controlling it efficiently without having multiple different assets. Or in the case of the Arleigh Burke, where the ship in itself is such a centerpiece of the US Navy, and has been for such a long time (unlike other ships like the Chinese Type 055 which is very new). In this case I wanted to make both an older and a newer versions for users to be able to play out different era scenarios. Only having the Flight III with every new and shiny weapon would easily become very anachronistic in scenarios taking place before yesterday. Continuing with the Arleigh Burke example, there is something in there for everyone. If you just want to play with the new toys, use the Flight III with the radar seeker missiles and new TLAM with antiship capability. But if your scenario takes place 5-10 years ago (or earlier), use the IIA with the semi-active missiles guided by the fire control radars and its limitations with the number of simultaneous targets etc.

Question: Aside from certain features, I think many of us assume that the following will be part of the EA. Can you confirm that these are 'finalized' (of course with tweaks possible in the future): - Flight Model (VRS, Ground effect, general flight model etc etc) - Damage Model (How does it compare to the invincible Apache DM?) - All cockpit switches - Pilot/crew models? - AI gunners ROA/Burst options as with Huey/HIP/Hind - Flight envelope limitations (speed, G, blade stall etc) - System limitations (engines mostly) Are any of those not included in the EA? And/or are any of those in a early access state?

Bumping these important questions. Don't know it got lost. It's the first post. Can someone from ED provide info?

No, there are around 60 assets in total in the US pack. With every update I have to go through and test all the assets to make sure they work as intended. Also, more or less every asset get some sort of change with every update. No matter how small the change is, I have to perform the tests. Because in DCS, a single comma at the wrong place will ruin your day.

You should see the money you spend on DCS as expenses, not as investment. Because it isn't. It's a hobby, a free time activity and as such it is not supposed to generate interest or earnings, but costs money. Make a mature decision on what you get now for your money and if you are willing to part ways with your cash in this state. If not, don't do it. I like taking advantage of EA and pre-order discounts, because it keeps the (not insignificant) costs for DCS at bay (relatively). And I know, that I would end up buying it anyway. For the simple reason that it is the only way for me to experience those magnificant machines. Also, compared to other hobbies/activities, DCS isn't even remotely the most expensive. I know, there is a sentiment of "pre-ordering and EA gives the wrong incentives to ED, encouraging them to spill out new unfinished modules instead of polishing the core game". But I think this is completely backwards. Every business needs cashflow, first and foremost to keep paying there employees (the people that are supposed to work on the core game e.g.). The cashflow that is generated by selling new modules comes to benefit all projects that ED is working on, including the core game. I really can't understand, why people think it isn't in their best interest to improve the core game. I can only imagine that those people never had real insight in business operations. Let's play this through - If ED would stop developing new modules and solely focus on core functionalities and bugfixes, what would happen? The cashflow (at least from the consumer side of things - I don't know about any other business activities of ED), would mostly dry out. (I assume that the lion's share of revenue is not generated by the portfolio of older modules, but by the initial sales of new modules). How would that help the developement of anything. People still want to be paid. The only alternative to that would probably a subcription based model - but ED has stated multiple times that they don't want to go this way (Thankfully! As far as I'm concerned). So, long story short. I will keep buying EA and pre-order modules. First and foremost for the selfish reason to take advantage of the discount. Second, because I can thoroughly enjoy what is included in the initial release and find it worth the money. The perspective of getting more down the road is a neat bonus. If by doing so, I show support for ED - I'm fine with that. I like their product and I like ED as a company. Especially for the way, they engage with their customers. So - is everything golden? No, of course not. There are issues and things, that I miss. If it is important enough, I make a thread or a post about it and try to stay constructive. But I'm aware, that my priorities may differ from anybody elses. Is this the only way to see things? NO, of course not. But it is at least as valid as any other. And that is the reason, that I'm kind of triggered by topics lihe this one. Sorry, long post /rant

Alright, I hope this list will grow at least a bit. Don't get me wrong, in case of something like the Chinook, I am all for releasing it with just a full flight and damage model with other stuff coming later. But in that case there needs to be a roadmap so we can manage expectations. I understand you will add to the list of things we can expect in EA, but I think most of us are looking for the things that will come AFTER early access, and when we can expect them with a semi reliable time line. When you buy a Huey or Gazelle, you kind of know what it is and what features/weapons it will have in the end. But in the case of the Chinook 50% of the needed features for this thing to be complete, are outside the module itself. Infantry updates, combined arms update, FARP updates, logistics etc etc.

This feels like a rushed release. Core features are missing from EA, that should be part of the release just as much as it having a flight model and damage model (wondering if it even has those at this point). You say 'EA is not for everyone', but the missing features make it well below what can be considered any type of 'release'. As others have said, there needs to be some kind or reliable timeline/roadmap that we can see. Listed in the order how ED prioritizes them. Only then do we actually know what we are even buying with EA. The way this release is being handled feels weird, worrisome and feels like a kickstarter 'give us your money and you may or may not get a finished product in 1-500 years'.

I am sorry you feel that way and you are welcome to your opinion, but please don't tell other people what to do, it is a choice everyone can make if they wish to. Pre-order and early access is optional and we understand not everyone likes it. Pre-orders are going well and we are humbled by the support the community have given us for the CH-47F, we know it is a popular helicopter and will bring new gameplay to DCS. Regarding your other comments, our projects do take a lot of time, they are complex and with modules like the Supercarrier are introducing new features to DCS never seen before, we have had to wait for multithreading for some of those features to work correctly which has taken time. But the supercarrier is enjoyed by thousands of users already and we have plane directors, airboss and all the remaining features to look forward to, work is in progress and I hope we can share news soon. Again, without long early access periods these projects would not be possible, so we do require patience, and are grateful for the support given to us by many. We continue to work on our products and our changelogs show the work we have done. Best regards bignewy

Everybody taken their meds this morning? I’d hope for a lot of things mentioned already for the Chinook, besides being able to fly it. I don’t feel that inclined to shell out £70 on a promise though then be posting in a bug thread pleading for promises to be fulfilled. I own the super carrier too as well as owning a fleet of rapidly deteriorating props. There’s a lot of ifs and buts at the minute. I’d buy the Chinook, even though I have the AH-64 with all it’s foibles and I never fly it. I’d want to try it out first though and to do that I’d have to bend over to the new two-step trial system too. It’s probably a long way off to give it too much thought yet anyhow. Couple of weeks at least .

folks please keep the discussion on the thread title. DCS: CH-47F We know what is important to you all, and have had many messages with feedback that we have already shared with the team. The team are working very hard to bring the best version of the CH-47F for early access release, and development will continue as we bring new features to DCS regarding logistics and helo gameplay. thank you

Thanks, Beldin for your great photos. I was looking at the USS Bowen the other day. She needs to be reworked. Yep, older ships are coming. I didn't know much about texturing when I released the older vessels like the Bowen and Bainbridge. I will add Bowen to my Shipyard list to be worked on. I improve the textures. Every day I practice texturing ships in Substance Painter to stay busy. I've found that texturing ships in SP reduces the time it takes to create ship mods. However, I need to work on reducing the number of objects that need texturing because the more objects the more textures. At least 6 textures per object. It adds up after a while. Last night I worked on the USS Farragut. Just practice. With that said. I need to fix the amount of objects being textured before releasing the Italian ships. *** On another note I will be away from PC from now until Apr 29th. So I will not be responding to any comments for a few days. Thank you all for your continued interest in the AI Ship mods.***

Information on EA features will be available soon? Why the rush to open up pre-orders then? ED should only open up pre-orders when they are ready to provide information on what the product will entail.

Uhm,no. Problem not gone. Cause offer something without saying what you offer ist just a bad behavior.

Won't comply! You didn't say "pretty" and what's an F16? [emoji6] I don't appreciate when people tell me what to do when I'm having too much fun and a blast. Been waiting close to 30 years for a better Afghan map, and can't wait to hop into the Chinook. How many times do you expect ED to acknowledge that the F-16 release was a little premature? You sound like my mother, still complaining about something that l broke 40+ years ago. Still love her though! For the time being I'm gonna purchase everything in support, like Viking says. Hell, I have almost every campaign and only finished about five or so. My girlfriend wanted the T-shirt too. Didn't think twice about it. Heatblur deserves it! It's an expensive hobby, but nothing compared to drinking beer! So cheers to all! [emoji482] Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

Hi all, I imagine this post will be deleted as it is obviously me saying negative things, but I am going to post it anyway.# I, like many others have been a dedicated player in DCS World for many years now, I have probably spent over 6000 hours playing the game in total. I have always bought modules and terrains that I've wanted, but I won't be doing this with the Chinook. After reading the FAQ that it won't even release with any of the features it needs to function as it is supposed to it is absolutely unacceptable, even more so that ED hasn't put a release date for the logistics system. If they had put a release date for the features we are all expecting the Chinook to have then I would be a bit more understanding and think "Fair enough, they have given us a release schedule". But I can see this module becoming another F16 or Supercarrier module, a complete mess that is left for years to come with missing features and bugs, granted that ED have done well with the F16 but that wasn't always the case. The Supercarrier Module hasn't been touched for years now apart from adding glow sticks, it is still missing its lower deck and briefing room and is still plagued with bugs that have been there for as long as I can remember, such as the ground crew not recognising you trying to line up on the cat, resulting in you having to reslot. So, please do not preorder or buy the Chinook until it has the features it needs to function properly, the Chinook NEEDS the new logistics system, without it we are all just going have to rely on community scripters as we pretyt much always have too. If we all just throw our money at these very half baked systems then all ED is going to do is just move on to the next module and put the Chinook on the back burner.

Darn cheater!