Thamiel

It isnt. It never was. If the guys who hacked that module into existence are still around the house, you may consider to have a go at it. If they moved on, you dont (and sell cosmetics instead).

What you cant have should be put out of your head.

Simply dont call it a "small change" if you are not the one to make it happen. You dont change a running system if the benefits dont outweigh the risks. Especially if the system is sorting things out in the background in order to be able to give you the FPS you like when its finally ready to rumble.

I wonder if the Swiss operated their F-5Es without NVGs.

As Startup, TO and approaching EP ist much more faster than egressing, performing an uncertain landing, repairing and then TO and flying back to where the fun is, I can tell what behaviour the current setting induces on MP servers.

As a sidenote: I would be somewhat cautious to call something "easy to do" if Im not the one to do it.

So its a huge amount of cosmetic work.

*Bumping* MP environments: F5-RWR doesnt show anything, wether in search mode or not, wether ground or aerial radars, wether searching or tracking. Just tested it on a SA-6 site, got suspicious after being killed by a Mig-29 a week ago, the pilot wondered about my apparent ignorance of being locked for 5 minutes without any reactions on my part.

Could it be they are dependant on the feedback of those VR users?

Who is "we"? If you can spare $23 every month I would assume, your salary has nothing to do with the monthly average, has it?

Depends on how long I will be still capable of enjoying it (aka. how many flight hours I will get in the future). My guess is: in approx. 2 years and pending no hardware upgrade or further investment will be necessary during that time, playing DCS will lose its leading role as my current most expansive hobby to learn for my RL gliding license. It was even more expensive than obtaining and supporting my local hunting license 10 years back and for Germany, that is saying something.

(*) "and complete the building with them." (- small but important addition IMHO) Thats not what happens here. There is no guarantee that EA content will eventually be finished, there is neither timetable nor deadline published. ED is notoriously known to claim months when there are years of development ahead. There are even hints that this payment in advance is not used for the build it was payed for but just for the bare necessities of keeping things going.

Of course. ED would'nt do it if we would not allow them to do it. It pays obviously for less effort. Simple choice. But as of now, the pendulum swinging back with first signs of discontent and disappointment concerning the different semantics of the term "EA", I would wager to predict that ED is realizing that this business model has its limits. At least I hope that they do, because I (and most of you too, as this sim is not known for an overall efficient performance) also invested a lot of money into my rig and DCS. But Im not throwing good money after potential bad money anymore. Yes there will always be those who still dont have enough aircraft in their virtual hangars to realize that they can fly only one module at any given time. There will always be the "first-adopters" among us throwing themselves at everything new (and not caring if it is shiny as well). Iraq is just the latest example in a growing line. One has to ask: How many modules and maps were introduced as EA content during the last years and how many modules and maps actually left this status during that time, freeing their ressources for further development and repair.

As a sidenote: it just occured to me, that building on EA to that extent shares many similarities with those of a snowball system: For a promise of the future, you cash in money (adding to your future workload in doing so) to keep your current activities alive and your only salvation is to promise even more things for the future and/or to a bigger base of customers to keep going. I wonder if ED has a clue of how long it will take to complete the current available EA content with available ressources. Or the other way around: when will be the point, that new EA content is advertised without being able to deliver it in full? As a customer, I could not say if this point has already passed or not.

You forgot to add "... again.".

Yep. This time, I will happily pay some extra bucks for the safety of knowing what I will get for the money. If at that time it still peaks my interest, that is.

After this particular journey started 1 year ago, we eventually arrived at something better before we suddenly went back to start. Evidently, ED is repeating itself here.

Back to the VR setting: Im wondering about the argument of making people sick by disconnecting FOV and head movement. Looks easy enough to solve, at least to me: for instance allow free FOV positioning but black out the visual feedback when out of bounds (out of canopy, stretched too far unter high G loads,...). What am I missing here?

Without (beta) testers impossible to do. That is why you are all experiencing this wonderful test setting free of charge. You are all essential to this process. How dare you do misinterpret that appreciation as mistreatment?

As a sidenote, those weird proportions do not stop at trees. Flying around Caucasus and Syria always gets me wonder from where they got those funny tiny windmills. Im more used to this scale:

Quoting myself, I apologize for beeing such an optimist hardly a year ago.

Well, there is at least one other side to that coin: many VRs would lose their favourite method of doing things in the cockpit if they are unable to aim the mouse cursor with their heads.

There you go.

After the Update last week it occured to me that the new slot selection mechanism is not showing CallSign information anymore. Without it, it is a guessing game to determine which aircraft is (according to CallSign) Lead or Wing in a 2Ship. As roles are preassigned in a MP PvE environment, this hampers gameplay esp. with a human ATC going nuts which 2Ship's Lead is featuring a -2 suffix in todays flight regime. Furthermore, it is impossible to check both coalitions for slotted players, making it difficult to pair 2 players quickly for PvP (e.g. Dogfight sessions). I dont know why this information is now withheld from the player, but I hope its a good one. In conjuction with that, the dynamic refresh functionality of the slot list is now rolled back to a manual refresh, hampering coordination even more without assistance of additional external communication (e.g. SRS, TS). I dont believe that was the intention, was it?

... due to current events