wadman
-
Posts
65 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by wadman
-
Great - but they keep saying refund which seems to be a lie if it’s actually a store credit. Words matter and it’s not that hard to use the correct one instead of being a bit misleading…
-
Is it a refund or a store credit? Huge difference between those 2 things - you should be transparent on what you mean. A credit is worthless to me as I have no desire to buy any new modules from ED until they sort this stuff out and fix the many incomplete things like super carrier (F14 still not properly recognized for traps, etc.,) and get a real dynamic campaign mode to make single player more engaging (I have no desire to play the MP air quake thing).
-
Yup - same here. Has Heatblur acknowledged this bug???
-
Some people like to get what they paid for - an unfinished module pretty much abandoned since April with no signs of resolution AND the possibility it will never get the planned updates and expansions doesn’t cut it for many people.
-
Game developers (as much as you claim otherwise, this is still game - very detailed, but still a computer game) would go bankrupt if they made products targeted to people like you. Gamers might have a hotas, pedals and VR - but even with all of the other things that you mention that you have, you are not even remotely getting the experience that a real pilot has. That said, I’d be OK to allow the unrealistic things to be tuned off for folks like you - but don’t make the rest of us suffer in the name of ”fidelity” when these “sims” can never deliver an experience that is close to real life.
-
It’s actually a game. Regardless, these “sims” will always lack the physical feedback/cues that a pilot would experience in the real world. So… having things like audible cues that might not be exactly realistic can be a good thing to help make up for the gaps!
-
Odd - it's working fine for me.
-
... and nobody has said it WILL be completed if Razbam drops the module and that is the reason why a disclaimer would be in good faith. However, I get it: it’s with lawyers (who never really don’t care about end consumers - just $ in my experience), so enough said as a disclaimer is obviously not happening - but that fact has changed my view of both Razbam and ED for now.
-
I did read the first page but that doesn’t mean I can’t voice an opinion that both parties are not doing right by consumers - which does not at mean I’m riled up at all: just voicing an opinion. Just like you, I’m participating in a thread on a serious issue affecting a significant and much hyped module/studio in DCS - but, unlike you, I’m not trying to suppress others expressing their voice and opinion on the topic (respect to @NineLine for letting folks voice their opinions here).
-
Oh, but I did ask a question - you just chose to ignore it in your responses. No problem as I didn’t expect an answer from you anyhow. I also didn’t resort to calling folks self-entitled just for voicing opinions that differ from mine. Have a nice life!
-
So, in your twisted world, it’s self-entitled to to post a point of view that it seems ethically wrong to continue to sell a module that has serious support issues and an unsure future without adding a disclaimer? I have not demanded anything - just suggested what I think would be fair to consumers. So… go ahead and keep giving poor customer service a pass as you appear to want to do. I choose to point it out when I see it. Oh… and I assumed that you would not answer my question and, as expected, you’ve lived up to my low expectations.
-
Based on what I read here, $80 is a lot for many people who buy DCS modules so why not ensure folks who are buying a module that has a serious support issue (may not ever be finished) are aware of that fact before they decide to purchase. Rather than blindly defend ED/RB, please explain why you think the lack of transparency for new users is OK given THIS ISSUE HAS EXISTED AND IS UNRESOLVED FOR OVER 3 MONTHS now? ED has not provided a response that justifies this situation in my opinion. Your comments on the free base product and not being forced to buy add-ons is silly at best. While technically true, DCS would cease to exist if no one bought add-ons. You must realize that the free base module can’t exist for very long without the revenue stream from paid modules - it’s the way to hook you into buying the other stuff! I’m also not putting a gun to anybody’s head - just pointing out what I believe to be a somewhat unethical situation that is being allowed to continue. Hopefully new users might see these threads and be able to better understand the situation before they potentially waste their money!
-
That still doesn’t make it right - beyond greed for dollars, I just don’t at all get why a disclaimer on a known/public dispute can’t be added so there is transparency at the time of purchase. Regardless of the damn lawyers, it’s a bad look and a massive disservice for new customers - there is no changing that sad truth.
-
Actually, the real question is why is there not a disclaimer on the store to let folks new to DCS that the Razbam modules they are purchasing are currently not supported and, in the case of the F-15E in particular, may never actually be finished? Im my opinion, that is just flat-out wrong and there is no valid reason I can think of as to why that could not be added - unless Razbam does not want that disclaimer added (which seems unlikely). As it stands now, it’s the new consumers that get the short end of the stick here and may lose some of their hard earned money (as they might not want a store credit after this type of introduction to DCS). It’s not a good look for DCS at all - what a shame.
-
But that means they won’t make money on future sales where folks will use the credit - so I’d bet they are not thrilled with the financial implications of all of these credits!
-
Thanks for the transparency - but the fact that you know how it happened but “hope” it will be fixed suggests that Razbam has to fix it. That means it is dependent on reaching a legal resolution where they resume support. Otherwise, why would you say “we HOPE it will be fixed”? I do hope you guys work things out as it would be a shame to lose the F15E and other RB aircraft!
-
That may be true, but this AV issue likely is stemming from the lack of Razbam updates as it “magically” only started popping up in the last 2 weeks or so.
-
Thanks and hope for a resolution so as not to need either a refund or credit.
-
A refund or a store credit? Just want to clarify that as there is a big difference between those 2 things.
-
Money grab may be too harsh, but I was not talking about the amount of money. Regardless of the semantics, the lack of transparency on this significant issue for a new user buying a module that might end up not supported just doesn’t sit well with me ethically. The dispute between ED and Razbam should not mean that new customers potentially get left with a module that doesn’t get promised updates, has no support or worse: loses existing functionality (like the current radar issue). Also, I did not suggest removing the module - just adding a disclaimer so that purchasers could decide with full knowledge of this (unprecedented?) situation. I also did not ask for a refund. I’ll leave it at that - you won’t change my moral compass on that aspect of this mess.
-
I’m sorry - regardless of who is at fault here, the fact that you are still selling the F-15E module with no disclaimer to alert potential buyers to this situation is unconscionable. I just don’t see anyway to see that as anything other than a dishonest money grab. If you want to have a loyal customer base, you owe it to potential customers to be transparent about known issues that could very negatively affect their purchase! If folks decide to buy, then they do so with full knowledge. I, personally, will not buy any new DCS modules until I see how this plays out as I’ve lost trust in ED based on this lack of transparency for new customers.
-
Did the F15E get pulled? I am now getting this error on sim startup: null I just started getting this message today and I restarted sim a few times, but this is a persistent message and the F-15 is NOT showing up for me in DCS now. All other modules are fine. WTF????
-
Feedback Thread F-14 Tomcat - Update April 13th 2023
wadman replied to IronMike's topic in DCS: F-14A & B
Where do you access/control this new AOA option? -
Something significant appears to have changed with this patch and it's not good - F14 radar on TWS with AIM 54 seems "porked". In the Instant Action "Beyond Visual Range" mission on Persion Gulf Map, I could pretty reliably press in at a slight offset while reducing altitude and take out both Mig 29's with Phoenix TWS shots (one at ~30 miles and the second at ~19 miles). Now with ZERO changes on my end, the TWS tracks drop before 30 miles range and do not reappear. So... pre-patch both Migs could be taken out consistently - but... post-patch it's not possible as the tracks drop and do not reacquire for some reason. So something definitely got screwed up here. It's very frustrating as DCS never seems to settle down - I get's it's open Beta, but things that worked keep getting broken!
-
Clouds issue with SSAA 1.5 in new patch
wadman replied to Ala12Rv-Muscat's topic in Weather System Bugs & Problems
https://youtu.be/7BQaVbWgf60 Link to video showing this problem - I continue to be amazed at how major stuff like this is not caught in testing before release? I get it's a beta, but this is pretty standard settings for a higher end PC and with zero mods!
