LorenLuke

My issue with this whole thing is just how much of this whole thing doesn't make sense. And I do mean the WHOLE thing. You talk about accepting money, or the like, but that just feeds the narrative that swirled this whole soup sandwich. You have the issue of payment and demonization of ED, with some of the RB devs claiming not to have been paid for some time, despite the product still being sold. People come out to say 'Oh, Nick Grey is stiffing RAZBAM to go buy another airplane'... I'm just surprised there's not more 'Famously quick-tempered Ecuadorian CEO might have made poor decisions, blames others' narratives floating around. I mean, if people are going to go full speculation mode, I'm surprised there's not any 'The third party got managed into the ground and the head dude stiffed his employees and blamed their client to cover his own posterior' rumors. As for going 'tit for tat', mind whose statement started this. I don't think it'd be defamatory to describe the more-vocal party here as 'hotheaded', and there's a not-insignificant amount of evidence to this fact. If he's truly been wronged, what legal ground would enhanced by such a public statement? Why have a public statement, if you have rock-solid legal/contractual standing? If he has the receipts as he claims, just deliver them (to your lawyer or to the public, doesn't matter... just be consistent). But while the ED reply (probably not most professional, but still far more restrained) calls the whole thing a 'breach of contractual obligations', then we find out one of the devs mentioning a Supertucano project that (via those same devs' wording) people speculate to have used ED Intellectual Property in some unauthorised way. If someone took my work as a contractor and used it for someone else, I don't think anyone would say I shouldn't be upset and seek remedy. Perhaps not-paying isn't the answer, but I bet you whatever answer exists is there in bold print in the contract. Which, unless there's ANOTHER provision to void itself on breach, I imagine it's still in effect with all the relevant parts in play. All of the claims about what's even going on are based on the slimmest of information (which no right person could call 'evidence') and yet you have so many people up in arms based on simply Zambrano's say-so. I pieced together the handful of statements out there. I could be wrong, but I don't think the conclusion I arrived at is that crazy. And this still doesn't address ultimately that it's not going to just be ED that suffers over this. You'll have both the community in terms of trust, and the other 3rd party developers being held to even HIGHER standards, because some other company was being stupid about their contract. And for the breakout 3rd parties, that money could be the difference between having the fleshed out module people would love, and them going under because everyone wants a guarantee of more for their purchase price than they otherwise would have.

The biggest thing is that this whole thing is all so tragic for the community. This single statement by Ron has created this massive rift between the ED playerbase, and ALL the vendors. RB can say 'We want to assure you that it has never been nor will it be our intention to abandon our products', but I don't know how 'We're not adding features, fixing bugs, or doing jack until this is resolved' is in any way a commitment to your customers. If I were to buy the Strike Eagle or the Harrier today, where's the ongoing commitment to me as a customer if your development is paused? Hell, if your BUGFIXES are paused? If they want to complain about non-/partial-payment for all their work... can they explain to me how they'll now still happily take (near) full-price for a project that they've not exactly made clear they aren't just going to walk away from, half-done? You know, besides 'I'm totally not doing what my actions are saying'. And even worse, because of this craptacular behavior, now people are gun-shy. Those angry at ED won't buy another ED module, and those that have seen this infantile temper tantrum are so stunned by the idea that something they bought for full price could be abandoned half-completed, they don't want to buy any module until it leaves Early Access. What does this do for the SANE third parties that are already ED partners? Folks like Aerges, Deka, Heatblur? What about the NEW ones who haven't even built their customer bases here, and arguably need that money the most? Grinelli, MilTech, Red Star, Flying Iron? All these people are affected and ironically, that single RB statement about developers not getting paid may lead to far more of those developers not getting paid because a famously short-tempered CEO acted out (because of circumstances I personally believe were wholly catalyzed by his own poor actions), and now every customer is paranoid of another developer doing the same thing; and EVERY SINGLE OTHER THIRD PARTY DEV has to suffer as a result. It's just a goddamned travesty.

Because if the main delay they took more than a month to fix didn't exist, it'd presumably be released a month sooner than May.

YES! THAT!

I believe the C-Scope also displays the icons on the TADS, as well, but I'm not 100% certain on that.

Unlikely, though this was said back before the patch was moved to April 10th. (Timestamped video.)

Currently, there's no synchronization for multicrew, though depending on updates and what's included, that may change. Given that there's no synchronization at this time in game, only targets you have personally scanned will show up. However, if you're the only human player in the aircraft, scanning vehicles from the back seat, and then moving to the front seat will still have them present on your FCR and TSD until you start another scan.

Piggybacking off of this, though you can't have the radar scanning while you use the TADS, you can still bring up the FCR page with the icons for the detected vehicles still shown. In this page, you can use the cursor to select a particular target (or place it over the NTS text) while the TADS is slaved to the FCR acquisition source in order to look at targets on the FCR. Note that this data will degrade and become inaccurate over time (especially for moving targets) and you'll need to switch to the FCR and rescan in order to refresh target locations (which I believe will require you to reset your acquisition source back to FCR when you switch back to TADS).

IIRC, it'll try and move to face forward any time it's not active, but it'll still maintain its initial scan heading during a scanburst, or during a continuous scan.

SRS only seems to be able to detect the position of the cockpit you started in. So while it may follow adequate rocker position from the pilot seat, I believe the only way to detect the positions in the CP/G seat is to be slotted into it (rather than start as pilot and then swapping seats).

FCR range only goes out to 8km for moving targets. Stationary targets show up only within 6km.

Closer to eight. (video with timestamp) https://youtu.be/tG-aV0Nx1UQ?t=1695

I had a friend run into something similar, and though my solution didn't work in his case, his solution was to hop in the gunner seat, go to the Weapons -> Util page, and turn the TADS off and then back on, and that fixed his issue. Again, if this helps, great; if not, hope a solution is forthcoming.

I know I've run into this one before (though this may not be the cause in your case)- If you use the night vision system (not the goggles, but the Apache FLIR) as the pilot, and you have the night vision source as 'TADS' (selected on the Mission Grip/'lower' part of the Collective handle), George will report 'No TEDAC Available' when trying to search for targets. If this is unrelated to your problem, I hope you find a solution, else hope this helps.

To be fair, rarely is a module dropped as feature-complete and full price with no early access period, too.

They mentioned that it would cost 69.99 USD.

Are these people in the room with us right now?

Three ways- 1) The CPG can do it, as the aircraft can use the laser in the TADS to cue the radar Hellfires, so you can toggle between the two types. 2) If another AH-64 with an FCR data-links you a target, using the RFHO function, receiving the data will enable the FCR as a selectable sight even without an FCR (don't know if the real life platform still enables the FCR sight select without it, but in DCS, you can sight select FCR without a radar only after receiving an RFHO). From there, the Hellfire can be launched towards the target within parameters, much like a LOAL shot vs an acquisition source point. 3) Don't take radar Hellfires without a radar, and the you won't have to worry about stepping through them. I've found it only lets you after receiving an RFHO.

Your sight is in HMD. This only allows selection of SAL/AGM-114Kilo laser-guided Hellfires, which your helicopter has exactly zero of. You need your sight to be in FCR (or possibly LINK, which isn't modeled yet, so I don't know if that's true for switchology or not,) in order to select the RF/AGM-114Lima radar-guided Hellfires.

To be fair, their employee availability was cut in half when the nation with those employees was invaded by another a month after that announcement.

While not a bad assumption to make, 'most likely' is doing far too much heavy lifting in this sentence for it to be something up to ED's standards.

You'd have to had included the shirt with your order. It was just an add-on option that you could get.

For the rearming panel, are there plans to allow it to include weapon customization beyond just fuze and laser code functions? Particularly rocket zone loadouts for the AH-64 and hellfire rails (to carry a symmetrical load of say, 6 Illum, 8 smoke, & 24 HE rockets, with 4 Kilo and 2 limas)?

The other thing to consider is whose hands final release is in. HB might have a release candidate that they could push out the door (and have it be a version that is worthy of first release), and ED still would have to pick it up and test and verify everything before final final release. So even if they complete it within their Winter 23/24 window, have it shipped to ED and in the same state as what the consumer ultimately grabs, I can already hear the cavalcade of comments saying THEY LIED!!! about releasing in winter, even if it were to drop on something like the 26th of March. They gave us a timeline, let's give them some faith (and some reasonable assumptions of wiggle room on that, too).

I think making a concession for people who either don't have the VR to move hands or don't like playing while using a pilot model for whatever reason, shouldn't be excluded on that front. Plus if I'm using my hand to move the mouse around and shield an MFD, one of my hands is off the controls to use it. The realism of it denies that even the Wags says it's a 'game', and if the realism/sim argument has to be called in, I'll contend that it's clearly unrealistic that my hands are pinned to my HOTAS, that I can have sunlight come through the literal back of my Ka-50 with zero windows to glare up my shkval, and that me having my face in front of the glass of an MFD doesn't seem to block the light with the back of my head, despite me having my nose pressed against it like I'm a kindergartener watching their mac & cheese cook in the microwave. Any of these in a truly 'realistic' scenario wouldn't occur, but here we are.