Leaderboard

Orbx Kola Map Pics from Discord

Update about Heatblur F-4E from Discord

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.

Airplane Simulation Company Questions (From Discord). C-130J will be Logistics and airdrop at Lauch. Moab will be on launch or slighty later, launched from a MC-130. C version first, MC/KC after. AC/HH version, If they do one, is a different thing/product.

Militech 5 Discord

Ask and you shall recieve

(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.

So without starting a discussion I would like to file a request because i respect the time, research, energy, effort and love you guys put into your products. Could you please consider doing a proper MiG-23MLD in the longrun. I know after F-4 comes Typhoon and A-6 but I’m willing to wait 15 years. As long as it’s being done by the blur! Thanks for your hard work and true craftsmanship. note in 15 years I’ll hit 60

Liebe Community, am 27. April um 20 Uhr findet auf dem MILTECH-5 Discord-Server ein deutschsprachiges Q&A statt. Die gesamte DCS-Community ist herzlich eingeladen, uns alle gewünschten Fragen zu stellen. Auch wenn dieses Gespräch hauptsächlich auf Deutsch stattfinden wird, werden wir uns bemühen, auch Fragen der englischsprachigen Community zu beantworten. Mit freundlichen Grüßen MILTECH-5 https://discord.com/invite/jq4WV42d99

I've added a weapon ranges table for each of the new/changed ships.

Ответ философский. В мире нет ничего вечного. Меньше думайте про неприятности, будет легче жить. PS Мы пытаемся выжить в современных условиях и оказываем посильную поддержку всем внешним разработчикам.

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.

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?

https://discord.com/channels/1071433028045377637/1108849721566576671/1232836757905735701

RWR and HARM ID 1.4.0 released! Changelog Version 1.4.0 Added Arleigh Burke Flight III Destroyer Added Arleigh Burke Flight IIA Destroyer Added Ticonderoga Cruiser Added Ticonderoga CMP Cruiser Added Constellation Frigate Added MIM-140 AN/MPQ-65 HEMTT Added MIM-140 AN/MPQ-65A HEMTT Added MIM-140 LTAMDS HEMTT Added THAAD AN/TPY-2 Removed Arleigh Burke Flight III Destroyer AShM Removed Arleigh Burke Flight III Destroyer LACM Removed Arleigh Burke Flight III Destroyer SAM Removed Ticonderoga CMP Cruiser AShM Removed Ticonderoga CMP Cruiser LACM Removed Ticonderoga CMP Cruiser SAM

Dear Community, There will be a German-speaking Q&A on the MILTECH-5 Discord server on April 27th at 8 p.m. The entire DCS community is welcome to ask us any questions you want. Even though this conversation will be mainly in German, we will endeavor to answer questions from the English-speaking community as well. Sincerely, MILTECH-5 https://discord.com/invite/jq4WV42d99

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 ??

In progress!

I have mentioned this a good couple of years ago, albeit not sure if it got picked up. With pilot body visible, even in VR with full range of motion, there are many panels (switches, buttons, etc...) that are neither visible, nor accessible. In essence, that means that one has to keep turning the body "on"/"off" all the time, to reach everything in the cockpit (some functions are more used than others). Would it be possible to create an option in the "game settings" or so, to have the mouse cursor have a circle around (15-20cm diameter) which, when hovering over any panels masked by pilot body, would simply make the pilot "see through"? I would really appreciate a function like this, or similar, especially for VR. Thanks!

Майкрософт однажды уже сделала подобное - когда-то давно перекупила программистов. Результат отрицательный. Клона Фланкера не появилось. Большинство почему-то забывает одну простую вещь - модули летают не в вакууме, им нужен подходящий мир. И когда нас критикуют за мало наших модулей, это потому что все силы уходят на развитие DCS World.

I have pre-ordered as soon as I got a notification. After diving into details and seeing ED's attitude, I requested a refund and will wait until more is known.

Folks a reminder. The topic here is for the CH-47F pre-purchase. If you want to talk about drama please do it somewhere else, off topic post will be removed. thank you

Ну чего вы. Каждый получает свою долю удовольствия от игры, как ему нравится. Кто мы такие, чтобы осуждать других за это?

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.

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.

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)

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.

Hello aviators, Here is some bugs to fix and missing features that would be really appreciated by the community The firsts points might be fairly easy to patch/add since it is mostly related to HOTAS commands and bindings. The last one might be more of a change in the navigation system (HSD missing feature). AGM-88 WPN page overall behavior (BUG) : The page should be framed/highlighted when selected as SOI with the DMS (in all modes/submodes)(bug) WPN page should save modes and handoff on each station independently (bug) e.g. Station A is set in POS mode with a submode selected and station B is set in HAS mode Then cycling stations with MSL STEP should keep configurations instead of applying the same mode/submode to all weapons The only thing the WPN page is slaved is the active selected steerpoint on DED and it is applied on both stations When selected as SOI we should be able to cycle modes POS/HAS/DL with CURSOR ENABLE (maybe not DL because not implemented)(missing) AGM-88 WPN page in POS mode (MISSING) : When WPN page in POS mode is selected as SOI we should be able to cycle between submodes EOM/PB/RUK with PINKY SWITCH or TMS UP LONG (missing) TMS RIGHT cycles between threat tables (implemented), TMS LEFT cycles threat selected in the current table (missing) HAD page (MISSING) : We should be able to cycle manually POS sub modes EOM/PB/RUK with TMS UP LONG with OR without a handoff (partially implemented only with a handoff) The HAD should select automatically the submode used depending on PGM quality, unless you decide to cycle manually to change it (missing) HSD (MISSING) : Theat circles should be stored as steerpoints TMS up on a SAM threat on the HSD should select it as a steerpoint This one is related to this post from last year : It would be amazing to see it in next hotfixes ! I cross checked with the aircraft manual, correct me if I wrote something wrong. Thank you for your hard work. Kind regards

It depends on expectations maybe. I started VR with a GTX 1070 and a Rift CV1, and that was already "enough" for me; now with a 3080ti and a quest 3 I'm flying in full-hd compared to Rift CV1, and the wow-effect never went away. When we'll have true full-hd clarity on VR headsets we'll also have 8k monitors as standard and VR will still be "low resolution" compared. But if I compare what I have now to Chuck Yeager's Air Combat I had when I was 14, I'm already in the future.

Cuban MIG-29 armed 4 x R-73, 2 x R-60MK Cuban MIG-29UB

Yep, I said also time ago when Hellcat was just a faint pic and ED's WWII carrier a wet dream, it might all happen at once or maybe in a quick succession, but since ED is also making their own PTO it only and absolutely makes sense they try to make them all happen about the same time so people can't complain the usual, "I got a Corsair/Hellcat and I have no map to fly in and no foes to combat against". Don't know about their internal policy about that (I believe they usually try not to release many things at once so people can afford/don't lose interest on some module) but it only makes sense to get it all about together, a whole pretty much fleshed out theatre at once, map, two carriers (maybe ED's one in Supercarrier's fashion?), two modules and assets for the theatre. They'd absolutely crush it that way, if you ask me.

Added Block version and CMWS info to the FAQ: What Variant is the DCS: CH-47F? Currently, we are doing the CH-47F Block 1. 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.

As I understand it we are doing a Block 1 (need to add that to the FAQ) and that refueling is a Block 2 thing (someone can correct me if I am wrong) BUT the team would like to look at this down the road as they agree it would be a very cool feature to have.

I still think (as I did a year or so ago…) that the PTO stuff will all drop together Map Ships Player and AI aircraft Ground and other assets

In my opinion the zoom function should be replaced by simulated binoculars (correct model for the aircraft timeline) that a real pilot would take onboard. Historically, many aircraft/pilots did carry them for search and ID purposes.

I know the feeling. 50+ it all went a bit blurry.

Yep, it is, but no, it was never used in Spain so I guess no info available for that. That airframe is a German F-104G due to the Spanish ones being handed back after their use (they ended up in Turkey and Greece), so there's no real Spanish flown example left in Spain. The German one was lent for the air museum in which that picture is taken. The aircraft wasn't "allowed" for many years to be repainted or modified into Spanish version, so it was painted in half Spanish (the side you see in the pic) and half German. Only in recent years it was allowed to be repainted in whole, and the recce pod not present in Spanish ones was removed. The current repaint is awful, by the way , there are too many pictures of those aircraft in Spanish service for the sloppy and clumsy paint job they did, wrong colours (very well known ones), and wrong typography in the bort numbers .

И ED может перестать существовать, и ядерная война начаться. Зачем жить.

Значит, любой модуль в любой момент времени могут забросить? Зачем тогда что либо покупать в DCS?

Снобизм.

You are an absolute legend. Thank you very much for everything you do for the community. This is epic.

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.

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.

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.

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 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'.

Whilst I completely agree with the sentiment, I can't agree with the conclusion. MOOSE is a bloated, overly complicated and poorly architectured piece of script (IMHO) and whilst MIST is better and smaller, like MOOSE, it's not beginner friendly and forces users to learn it's unique ins-and-outs and vagaries and learn lua scripting on top of that just to be able to use it. I'd much rather the entire DCS Scripting Engine was replaced (and with a replaced and modern Mission Editor Standalone application) and that the team doing this inside ED consulted with ALL mission creators and scripters - not just MIST and MOOSE teams - to ensure that anything and everything we could ever want to do had proper public API commands AND there was documentation for it. Ideally, we should get to a point there there is nothing you can do in script that you couldn't do just from the Mission Editor alone. There shouldn't be a need for anyone to learn lua. Look at the blueprints in Unity. Visual connection of lego bricks to form complex AI decisions or events. I feel a lot of people who create for DCS, like ED are stuck in the 90's way of doing things; things have progressed significantly - it's time we all caught up and thought about the MISSION EDITOR USERS more than the technical challenge of scripting.

Awesome News they were able to get through the"Show Stopper" Bugs and Glitches...Thanks for Sharing This.

Any Harrier pilots out there interested in a sea Harrier? Would you throw cash at another variant for DCS?