Dangerzone

This is an interesting idea. I'm not sure if there is an event that tags if a runway has been damaged, or a way to determine that. If so, a bit of LUA code could spawn in a few trucks, have them drive up and down the runways and nearby areas I would imagine without too much difficulty. The one thing I'm unsure of is if there is an easy way to detect whether a runway has been damaged, or whether it would be a matter of defining zones / manual areas and monitoring each single ground impact.

it's not for the server admins to do - it's ED. Their website is down. Try visiting https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/ This has happened numerous times before, whether planned maintenance, (or unplanned authentication server goes down). I can understand it affecting players trying to join servers when their account can't connect at login, but I really wish ED would make some changes to their authentication so that it doesn't affect servers and players who were already authenticated and are already online and playing. If the temporary offline authentication can go for 3 days, couldn't the online authentication be altered so that the timeout for reauthentication to at least 12 hrs from last authentication for cases where players are already joined to a server and half way through playing, or something so this sort of unexpected crash/kick doesn't occur?

It's only "easy" when you assume a lot... When you assume that Razbam's developers are still on the payroll and available to continue work on the module, and fix the current bugs. When you assume that ED are in a position where there would be no legal implications for paying Razbam with any legal proceedings that could possibly be taking place. When you assume that Razbam would honor the payment and continue work, and not take the money and then not maintain their modules (which could be either in, or out of their control, such as dev's moving on to other employment) or demand/request even more money for damages, and then hold up work while other legal proceedings take place. When you assume that the reason for all this is solely payment, and there aren't deeper legal issues at play that none of us are aware of ... and who knows what else. It's "easy" to claim "easy fix"es when you make a lot of assumptions and don't have to take responsibility for those assumptions. The mess that's created is anything but easy to fix. Hopefully there will be a fix, but if time-bomb code has been included and is causing some of these issues, I suspect that it would mean this mess just got a lot deeper and messier than it was a week ago, and it will take longer to resolve with even more legal implications - thus even more complicated and less easy than it was a week ago. Let's really hope that's not the case because for now, it's already anything but easy.

Each persons situation will be unique to them. From their financial situation, to their concern/anxiety/anger/or levels of contentment. There's a lot of passion from all sides on this. Some upset customers can be helped by giving them a refund. (That's not saying all refund requests are from upset players - just that it gives those who are upset options instead of being told they must wait during uncertain times. A lot of it comes down to assurance or having confidence). You make an interesting point about possibly not being able to get the plane back, but I'm not sure how much of a risk that really is. At present, it's still available for sale. If it's available for sale now, then when/if things improve - I'd be fairly confident it's definitely going to be available for sale then. I only suspect it would be removed if things get worse. Yes, people who re-purchase may have lost the difference in early access vs full price, but that's the insurance I guess many are willing to pay to have access to their funds now to be able to spend on another module. (2 in the hand vs one in the bush?) If anything, the disincentive for getting a refund now would be losing the time between now and when it's no longer flyable. It is a great aircraft, and it's flight time that people may not get back if things do get worse, so keeping it while it's flyable and still enjoyable for those who are getting enjoyment out of it now would make more sense (to me), waiting to see what's going to happen. But again, I can see that YMMV is very relevant in this situation. IMO, ED are showing great reassurance by giving their customers options. People can still buy it if they want. People can wait to see if it's going to be resolved or not. Or People can get a refund. What I have found interesting through this though, is the incorrect perception when it comes to risk. I've heard many people mention they buy through steam because they trust the steam system more than ED when it comes to giving refunds. While I grant that getting a refund within 2hrs gameplay through steam may be far easier and more reliable, it seems that's where it ends. After that, going by this situation, it seems that buying through ED is the far less riskier option. It will be interesting to see if this changes people's perception of Steam vs DCS Direct or not, but in either situation, it's sure to be used as an example in future discussions that steam isn't necessarily the best option if you're looking for security with your purchase. For me, while this situation is very unfortunate - it does seem to show that ED will try and make as many options available to their customers as they possibly can if unforeseen situations occur and that builds confidence, even in an ugly situation where many people aren't confident.

Indeed. The announcement of Dynamic spawns is very exiting. I'm on the edge of my seat though waiting to find out if it means that new spawn slots can be dynamically added at FARPS that are created by script during gameplay, and not just those that are created via the Mission Editor. Is anyone at ED able to comment what Dynamic Spawning will include please?

Can a player use the MC-1 as well?

As hard as it is, the best method I believe is to "under promise and over deliver". I practice this with my own business. While it has some minor disappointments when people realise they have to wait a little longer - it creates great appreciation when I actually beat the deadlines, and come in under budget. If they're expected to be released in 3 weeks, say 2 months. Then 'surprise' everyone when it's 3 weeks, (or more likely pushed back and it's 6 weeks). People still get a pleasant surprise of it being 2 weeks earlier than they thought - even though it's late from what was internally anticipated. It ruins the credibility of companies who do the opposite and over promise and under deliver - when really there's zero difference in the quality of the product, the actual time customers receive it, etc between both actions - but a huge difference in perception by the customers. The Kiowa's release really stood out to me compared to almost all others. Silence. And then a "2 week" announcement - and they delivered. That's not to take anything away from other modules and dev's - I understand that last minute issues pop up. But the 'eagerness' to make announcements and have hype over the product creates unnecessary disappointment when the (more often than not) delays occur. I haven't had any experience with Pimax before. This release was my first. While I'll still keep my order in (at least for now) - it has given me a first impression that they can't be trusted when it comes to announcements. This doesn't speak to their quality, etc. But it does speak to their promises. They've lost "advertising" cred- and this will be hard for them to win back. But it can be won back - they have to get the next lot of announcements right, or if anything, beat what they claim with their next announcements. I really hope they take this sort of consideration on board and learn from what's happened. They seem like a great newer company that is really passionate about the PCVR space, and it will be a real shame if they continued having delays after announcement if their marketing side continues to overpromise and under-deliver. I feel they have an opportunity to be far more connected with, and have a far better relationship with their customers than the faceless HP, Meta, etc brands and I really want to see Pimax succeed in leaps and bounds.

Didn’t know ED was on X. I might have to start using X then. Thanks for letting me know.

Thanks for the update. This actually sounds promising if you’ve found the issue in code that’s available.

Tactically (game play) - there's not much for it. The Apache can carry 16 hellfires, plus 1200 rounds of 30mm, so for points, k/d ratio's, etc - the Apache makes far more sense. But - if you fly for enjoyment, like working with others as a team in a tactical manner, have dedicated missions for this, etc - that's where this bird shines. I suppose for me it's a bit like the F15/16 vs FA18. The F15 and 16 is faster, and can probably BFR better than the hornet. But I don't care. Hornet is a beauty to fly. I love the naval ops, love that it can do a variety of different tasks, and use it for it's advantage. To me, the OH-58 is the same. I play it for the delight of the airframe and FM, not for how many kills I can get in an evening. This being said, I think there is room for us server makers to give the OH-58 a little more room for use. At the far end, would be to allow it to do some CTLD work as well. Whether that's rescue a downed pilot, or carry cargo, etc. That's not realistic - but it would help to give this bird a place on servers such as you've mentioned. Or, there could be other less 'out there' scripting ideas that could be implemented with this bird. One thought I have is the ability for this to rearm from road-side rearming points a little closer to the front line than helicopters like Apache's can to balance it out a bit. There are ways to do this now, but for me I'm holding off because I'm really hoping that with the CH-47 - there will be some additional scripting/farp/warehousing options that we may be able to utilise saving us having to find a hack way to script this in. The problem we face is that DCS is a simulator, and as such there is no automatic balance between the modules. It's up to the server hosters/ multiplayer mission designers to make provision for levelling the field on how they choose (or if they choose). For me, for now - I just love flying with Apache's and being the scout. It gives me variety. I still fly the Apache too for that more tactical advantage when I do want to clear up a lot of units - but there's those nights where I want to do something different, and this is perfect for it.

Is it the Cinderella "feature"?

I think what the video is basically saying is don't trust Pimax until the product is actually available. Don't buy in advance (or buy another headset) expecting that advertised dates, prices, discounts, etc. will be honored until the product is actually available for shipping. So, if you were holding out for the Pimax Super - after viewing this video, I'd probably be thinking again with the attitude "the super isn't coming... until it's released" and ignoring all marketing, expected shipping dates, etc until it's actually truly available. Maybe the same thing if you were considering buying the Pimax Crystal Light without local dimming. But, if you were planning on getting a Pimax Crystal Light with local dimming - I don't think there's anything in this video for you to be concerned about. They're shipping, some people have them already - you can get reviews and first hand experience/recommendations/reviews. Re the non-local dimming one - it does appear it's still on their website at https://pimax.com/products/pimax-crystal-light-no-local-dimming-version, so not sure what the video is referring to there, unless there was a temporary glitch? Even so - I wouldn't be counting on this to be shipped until it actually started shipping as the website says "Coming Soon", and "out of stock".

I'm not sure. The fact that it's only been released on facebook - I would have thought if it was close to release, we'd either see it released on more official channels (aka, this forum, or a youtube video from Wags). But, I've already been surprised in the last month by a 2 weeks announcement, and then a module that was dropped in 2 weeks, so never say never. I just love Navy ops. There's something about returning back from a mission or flight, and it's not over. There's still the challenge of landing it on a carrier, getting a grading. Same with taking off. It's not just taxiing - but there's a lot more aversiveness on an aircraft carrier. Maybe, just maybe if ATC was upgraded with AI or similar land bases might become more immersive too, but I still doubt they'll ever give me the thrill of Navy ops. Fly navy!

I dunno. After seeing what some people have been getting awards for on more recent years - I think this would qualify above some of em in my eyes. Anyway - weekend coming up soon. Hopefully a lot of fun for us all is to be had.

I initially opted to wait. WMR isn't going anywhere too soon, and there's a few VR headsets in dev / about to be released / have just been released to look at. The Pimax Crystal Super would be my choice at the moment, but it's not released yet. Then, my HP started having the infamous death throws, and I could see that it's on it's way out, so I was forced to make a decision. I've gone with the Pimax Crystal Light. I ummed and ahh'd over the Pimax Crystal, but there were too many things that turned me off the headset, and if I'm going to be spending that sort of premium $'s on a headset, I don't expect to have to compromise with it. The CL hasn't arrived yet. I'm a lucky Australian that gets the "extended excitement anticipation duration" (as a politician would probably spin it ) before I get to see what it's like. I really saw I had no other choice. But if my Reverb was still operational, I would have held out another 6-12 months and gauged from others experiences, and future announcements what is the best choice.

A friend send me through a little while ago. (I'm guessing it's on facebook, which I don't use). Is this legit? Can we get some screenshots and info here on the forum too please. I'm excited about it all, but TBH -the plane directors are probably the most exciting announcement of the lot. I am hoping though for the larger missions where we have ATC, etc - that the Airboss can be completely taken over by human players. This is exciting news!

My wife has worked retail. Things don't always go to plan. There are some customers who understand this and are pleasant as everyone tries to do the best with what they have to work with. Then there are the self-entitled rude loud customers who thinks "the customer is always right" and that the staff are there to serve them in anyway they see fit, and they can be rude, obnoxious, etc and expect to still get served and only will accept answers that suit them regardless of what the staff can or can't do, so I can empathize with BN and 9L. Bignewy and Nineline have shown incredible patience as people keep making accusations, asking questions that they asked previously that have already been answered numerous times over and over because they want a different answer, and now - even told what their job entails by some random customer on a forum, while remaining patient. This does deserve recognition and thanks. And even if you can't be thankful or grateful for the work they're putting in, there's no need to jump on someone else post who's giving thanks because they're grateful and can see the patience that BN and 9L have been showing.

Sweet. Thank you. I'll give this a try.

Sorry - I must have missed where you do this? Is this within the settings somewhere, or are you changing something in the cockpit?

FWIW, my personal decision for a while now has been not to buy any more modules unless they can take off and land on an aircraft carrier, so no F4 for me. Thankfully all helo's fall into that category, and so can the C130. I don't know. There's something about carrier ops that have me hooked. Even though I have other non-carrier aircraft, I just tend not to fly them. What can I say? I guess I've fallen for the motto... Fly Navy

Accusing PC of deception is a serious accusation. A company not meeting your expectations is not deception. The irony is - out of all this - it's content in your posts that come across as being deceptive. Accusing PC of deception when they haven't been. Or acting surprised and victimised after buying, when you posted and knew these issues existed prior to sale - those would be far closer to meeting the definition of deception, than someone not releasing a product that doesn't live up to your standards. This whole drama reminds me of a soccer player way over reacting from a small brush that they knew was coming - falling down hugging his arm or leg on the ground as if they're in so much pain crying out foul and violence when there was none. It really is overly dramatic. All that has occurred here is that your expectations and standards are far higher than ED's. And that's fine. You have a right to be disappointed. That's truly unfortunate. Everyone has different expectations and reviews can show that. But - ED gave their stamp of approval for the current model being full price, and for it being released in it's current state. There's been tones of video's prior. You were aware of these issues prior. There is no deception by PC, no coverup. There is just your expectations, and that polychop and ED failed to meet your expectations. So, you disagree with the price vs the quality you view. You have a different view on what EA vs non-EA means compared to ED. (Although I find it strange that your focus - which borders on obsession is at PC, and not ED really - given ED are the gatekeepers in all this). That's OK - that doesn't mean they're being deceptive. Do you go down to the local furniture shop, see a TV that's priced too much and yell "This business is being deceptive?" because the price is too high for the quality? At that price it should be 4K, not HD? No - that'd be silly. But that's what it appears you're doing here with the accusations made about polychop's character. There was no pre-order on this product where they didn't deliver what they originally announced and you paid for it before release. You could see what you were getting from the video's. You could have waited 24hrs to see what was released. No one is trying to hide the truth here, as you falsely accuse us of. The accusations about this being a toxic thread is sadly accurate. It's got nothing to do with the quality of the module, nor even the differences between your expectations and others, but the content of posts that respond or attack people that disagree as 'hiding the truth'. That's your opinion - which you're entitled to. But that doesn't make them deceptive. The atmosphere of this thread really needs to change directions. At present, it just seems a small group of people are rushing to a housefire to throw gasoline on it instead of water, while others are trying to bring reason to the table. Maybe some people are just getting kicks out of drama? I don't know. With DCS going through so much at the moment in other areas, it'd be really nice to see cooler heads prevail and the community head towards unity instead of division and us to be able to discuss things, and even disagree amicably and get back to constructive criticism instead of false accusations.

Would it be worth creating a dedicated thread of it's own to discuss this? I'm on a 4090/13900K/64GB RAM and I can't say I've noticed any performance differences between it and other aircraft. I'm maintaining 90fps with the lot with a similar overhead reported. As such, I'm wondering if it might be related to a particular setting instead that's causing some to see FPS issues, and others not.

Just wondering if anyone's found a way to reduce the sensitivity of the AI Hover Altitude adjustment, or know of any tricks. At the moment I'm finding when I'm hiding and want to reveal the mast only, the AI will jump up and expose the whole helicopter. I can't seem to get more finer adjustments and was wondering if there's a trick to it?

Hi, I am extremely excited to see this type of trim option available in the new OH-58. I was just wondering if the speed at which this works is customisable. I'd like to experiment with increasing the trim fade time. The only place I could find this referenced was in optionsDB.lua, which seems to just be whether it's in use, no option to customise the time, so I'm wondering if this might be hard coded into the actual binaries instead? If so - would Polychop please consider moving the time for fade to a .lua configuration file so that we may be able to change this? It's still a great feature as is, and I'll be using it - I would just like the option to increase the time so it's not as quick to return to center. Cheers DZ

I too am known as the pessimist. I just like that 'engineer' saying when people say I'm a glass half empty person. I go, no I'm not... and continue. You were right - I was confused. I actually came from a polychop thread and thought for a moment we were talking about the OH-58 (hence the 2 weeks remark). Yes, it's disappointing to see that there's still no updates to this map. I'm not keen about the very long waits between updates, but even though I'm a pessimistic grumpy engineer, I am hopeful for an update to Sinai within the next patch or two that will be significant - a years worth. I really hope so, at least. I could be wrong though. It's not often I switch to the optimistic side. It paid out for the Kiowa, so I'm going to ride this high until I get shot down. As they say here downunder "avagoodweekend".