Koriel

Txs!

Price?

Just the fact alone that quite few people thought they were buying the whole module for everything means that the initial communication from ED was flawed. If it was just one or two PAYING customers who had the "wrong" impression.. you could as a company talk to them and make it right. With so many people having the "wrong" impression it means that the sender of the message ie. ED wasn't clear enough. This is basic flaw in communication. So when dealing with licenses and such it just means that ED has to be more careful in the future so everyone is on the same page. That being said, it's in the past. And now ED can show what kind of customer oriented company it is. Does ED value it's customers? Will it generate/maintain goodwill and try to resolve this? Even a public mea culpa can do wonders. We are after all a very forgiving lot. We accept delays of years after all ;-) On the other hand ED brace itself and go against a lot of customers. Stating their position as it being the absolute truth, not even acknowledging that perhaps their initial communication was perhaps not as clear as it should have been. By going against such a large group of paying customers, will not generate a lot of goodwill. And like I have said before.. It's not about a few lousy dollars, it's about trust. The people ED is going after now are also part of their future clientele. So I would welcome a statement from ED regarding this. And might I suggest having a real PR guy/gal looking over such a statement first?

There are Modules.. a single entity that can be used everywhere. Like planes that can be flown on any map. WW2 asset pack that can be used on any map. And there are aircraft modifications. Like installing a GPS in a specific plane. When ED called the GPS a module, and never specifically specified that the purchase was only for the Mi-8. Yes at that time it only worked on the Mi-8, but it was already known that it would work on the L-39 in the future as well. So, yes ED dropped the ball when they initially released the NS 430. They should have sold it as an improvement on a specific module, and not as a module in itself. That initial oversight can be corrected of course. And now they have done so. Except that leaves me as a legacy owner of nearly all modules feeling like I've been cheated by ED. And ED can argue all they want, just the fact that there is so much uproar about this issue means that even though ED thinks it's in the right, their customers don't think so. The message was not received in the way it was apparently intended. I have followed the forum, Facebook and Reddit over the last 20+ hours. And what I have seen is very disturbing and worrying. DCS as a franchise is dealing with a limited number of customers. People who are passionate about flightsims, vocal, and some of whom have spend well over $1200 to 1400 on ED products. Those are the people who pay your salaries! This is exactly NOT the way you treat your customers. Since there is so much uproar, The messenger (ED) must have miscommunicated in the past, otherwise this issue wouldn't have been raised. No big deal. As long as you deal with it as a company who values it's customers. You address the issue, you apologize, and you try to make it right. ED really needs to take a look at how it wants to treat it's customers.

Yup that's what I remember as well. It was certainly implied and never contradicted. On that promise I bought the module. In anticipation of it's use in the L-39. I have never used it yet since purchase, and that was over a year ago. I'm on mobile, and strapped for time. Unable to dig into past comments. And knowing a certain community manager those(or these) post will most likely be removed. Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

+1

I really appreciate this series of video's. It also highlights one of my pet peeves with the editor. There are hardly any already configured templates. For the beginning mission builder having a complete SAM site available to drop in would be extremely handy. It saves you from having to figure out what needs to be put in place for a specific SAM site. Having a collection of already prepared templates would greatly speed up building and getting to know unit configurations. Once again thanks for the video's! /edit: Was going over your "New Unit Placement Method - DCS Mission Editor" video. Under USA/Ground Vehicles/ you have a lot more objects that aren't in my list. All preceded by an *. How would I be able to use these?

Sooo true.. ;-) Guess I'll be googling and choppering all over the Gulf.. ;-)

coordinates?

Love the map! It gives me the right feel when flying over it. At altitude the visibility fade out looks like it should. There are some nice little details, like a rusted car wreck in a corner. I am however wondering if there are any nice easter eggs.. Anyone?

In full daylight having to use a flashlight to find a handle is plain ridiculous. I have to hover the mouse and wait for the symbology to appear before I can set or release the parking brake. The textures are way too similar for any practical use.

I hope you're enjoying the early access.. ;-) So while you're probably grinning from ear to ear, mind if I buy you a beer?

Belately, but deserved. I am happy for all of us. I do hope a personal copy for you is part of the deal.

I completely support suggestion 2, I was thinking the same when reading the thread title. Su-34 and an Intruder! A tad more functionality would be appreciated like terrain following for the -34... :-)

I'm laughing.. this is just one of those things that have been going on for years!.. Devs can announce something "with great certainty", "I promise".. "guaranteed".. And time and time again they (usually) fail to deliver. And time and time again some people in the community get riled up about it. It took me years to become fatalistic about it. And the very old saying of "It's ready when it's ready.." is slowly becoming ingrained into my psyche.. ;-) Nevertheless it's funny to see this situation being repeated over and over again. Even when Dev's get burned, they try again and again.. It's just one of these things I guess..

Relax!!! He said with great certainty.. ;-) Mind you... a year was not mentioned.. lol

You can define new (snap) views and bind them to a key. So use the available options to shift your view so you can see one MFD properly with the appropiate zoom level. Then save that view to a key. Same for the other MFD. This way you can change your view instantly. I use Track-ir, but use these instant views quite a bit as well.

S!

You won't have a problem anymore in another 2 weeks i guess.. ;-)

Will there be an FAQ part in the video as well?

+!

I thought for a while that Heatblur had their own solution, just like their groundradar. I could be completely mistaken ofcourse. (It's happened before.. ;-) ) I guess it's time to fly the -39 again and figure things out myself.

I must say I haven't flown the L-39 in ages.. The whole process of entering a plane, making sure everything is synchronized was very frustrating. And once everything was set up correctly, during a flight some de-synchronization problems would pop up again and again. Whenever an update comes out I keep an eye out for any mention of network/ multi crew code updates mentioned in the update log. And I can't recall seeing anything for a very long time now. Nor has ED mentioned any progress/ planes for stable multicrew network code. However seeing that Belsimtek is now actively building 2 multicrew addons and there is still the promise/expectation of multicrew in the Huey. I expect some improvements have been made. I would just like some more detail.

FPS went in same mission without fix 90-100 fps, with fix around 37/38. So deleted fix

Poor judgement in building hype for a non standard DCS Module. If it was just an announcement with the reason for it's development explained the community wouldn't have judged this imminent (?) release so hard. But who can blame everyone? From the devs of the MiG-21 everyone had expected something extraordinary, not euhm.. this... We expected a BANG and got a fizzle.