El buscador de la verdad

The image of the capture of the screen that is contained in the comment of Lampshade indicates that Matt Wagner has stated that we "Certainly [do] not" need to wait until all of the videos are released until the module is available in Open Beta. I believe that the module will be available before the end of the week. A video of people using the module is on Youtube. The manual of the module is released. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/documentation/AH64D_flight_manual_en/ All of the signs are indicating to me that the module will be out within this week and I hope that we will not be disappointed.

I will live*. (* With a voice in my head saying that the KA-50 needs FLIR, radar, RWR, AA ordinance, etc and that I will never be whole until I have a comparable helicopter of attack that has these features ) I think that February is totally out of the question and suspect that 31 March, 2022, 23:59 will be the exact time of release.

Who is to say that I would not be conducting an assessment and reporting bugs during the time that I used it? It one any less capable of rendering a form of testing simply because one is not given special blessing? Are there no people that would enjoy seeing a version of an earlier point in development out of curiosity and interest in game making, etcetera? I advocate allowing people an option, I agree with what you said in regards to this.

Danny, please reference the comment that I posted in response to Cab. It contains an exploration of this exact thought.

It is these videos exactly that torments me. In my mind I think, "Stop showing me what I can not have. The machine of hype is cruel." Then, when the intentional hype functions you are scolded for wanting to access the thing that was hyped. "Just stop showing us videos of what we can not have. It is better to just be surprised when it comes out one day instead of having us wait in frustration."

1. So, the assertion is that the word, "preorder" precludes all possibility for early access and that there is no prior president in other things where those that preordered and pre-paid had early access? 2. A. If the other guy is not claiming that his position is the universally preferable position and that disagreement with it constitutes error, then is it reasonable to imply such statements when one expreses their disagreement to it? B. Would it not be more reasonable to reciprocate the same consideration that the other party himself extended?

I have not seen this movie, perhaps I will need to now. ( Ne he visto esta película. Quizá yo necesitaría verlo ahora. )

I asked him, "You forgot that we are using English?".

Oye, hermano ¿olvidaste que estamos usando inglés? Pues a mí eso no me importa, es igual de cualquier manera.

The implication of your comment was: If you do not like the current plan of people where FLIR will not be included, then do not let the door hit your ass on the way out, no FLIR will be added. You could have said, "Yes, the helicopter would have much more utility if it had a sensor with FLIR compatibility and I support this being included.", however you did not. If statements that are equivalent to: "It is going to be this way and if you do not like it, then too bad. Everyone else does not care about FLIR." do not constitute one as being an opposer of FLIR for the KA-50, then I do not know what would qualify one for this designation. You do not need to use these options if they were available. I do not demand that you use features, you ought to reciprocate this considerateness and abstain from demanding that I not have access to features. Life is not balanced. Nature hates equality, look at lions and zebras. Individual servers can select what options are available or not and so can you as to those that you would use if they were available.

No one is forcing you to use the FLIR if it was available. Now do not try to force a lack of FLIR on me. We already have seen how that BS3 will have features that are admitted by developers to be arbitrarily assembled Frankenstein style ( like the A-10C II if my research is accurate ). These self-appointed enemies of FLIR I can not comprehend. It is like me going to people that are using a gps and breaking it and demanding that they use a map, a compass, rulers, etcetera. Do not try to force inferior technology on me when it has already been admitted that the KA-50 of BS3 will be a frankencopter as relating to the assembly of features. It was a prototype helicopter and there were no pre-decided, set-in-stone, official configuration or list of acceptable sensors that the aircraft is or is not to have.

I dropped the issue of the video of the youtuber. I had not been active on forums or multiplayer, but rather single player. At no point earlier had I perceived a cause to speak up. One question that arose in my mind is: "What harm does having what is currently completed accessible for people that want to see and to try it?"

Alright, as ye folk were. I have made my thoughts known.

Perhaps they never considered expressing expectations for access as an option prior to seeing it modelled for them by another.

Someone made an analogy to food. You would not wait for one course for 20 hours, especially if the chef was making videos of him eating spaghetti and inviting others to eat it while you were told to shut up and to wait and that this is just the way that it has been and always will be. If no one expects differently, then without doubt it will remain this way. As a side note: How many here that said to wait also demanded that the Ka-50 not have FLIR, RWR or AA missiles, even as new features are mentioned for BS3 that are admitted to be made up? Anyway, if people are honest, then they will acknowledge that they share my feelings.

I paid for it. ED did not need to wait for my money. The customer makes the business possible. As the customer, my desires have value. If I was expected to just shut and wait like a good giver of money, then the videos of the module inspire the exact opposite. I would rather never have known that this was being made and then to just be happily surprised one day to see that it is for sale than to be dragged along, teased and disappointed like this.

I have edited the comment to remove errors. As a preface, my intention is not to inflame or to upset anyone. Rather, I seek to articulate what myself and many others that would not speak have thought. So remember my introductory exhortation and do not take any of the the following the "wrong" way. : I do not know how many of those that are talking about the necessity and the virtue of waiting have already paid for this module. I paid my money immediately. Neither did I give Eagle Dynamics a notice of my intent to release payment at some indefinite date in exchange for access to the module instead of providing the funds in the beginning, nor would they accept such an offer. I do not want to think of how much money that I have sent to ED over the years. My position is this: Those that preordered and paid ought to have access to what is available. I paid for it, give me access to it. I do not care if it is incomplete, almost all of the modules of DCS are incomplete to some degree. I have been a patron of ED for years and have promoted DCS to many people. Show a little reciprocation and make the beta version available for those that preordered, not just a few people. The F/A-18C and the F-16C are incomplete and I enjoy using them regardless. If modules were only made accessible when they were "ready", then many modules that are out now would not be available. No one that elects to download the beta, incomplete version could complain as they were explicitly aware that the module lacks various features and that glitches and other issues may occur. Regards, Bryce PS, if you think that waiting is enjoyable and preferable, and if my request for access being given to those that paid was granted, then you would not be forced to download it. You can wait as long as you want.