johnv2pt0

Right now anybody you see in DCS has a weapon in their hands. It would be nice to have an infantry type unit with no weapon to populate those cities.

I'd give you a dollar every time someone asks for an update if you could restrain yourself from making some developer apologist propaganda post. And if you really don't like the fluff in these threads you don't need to add to it. Thanks for the update Aviodev! Please keep them coming.

I didn't know the switch between 1.5s was so easy. Thanks all, much appreciated

Haven't checked in a bit...are mp servers running beta or stable? Thanks for the replies, not able to check right now.

I need to free up some space of my SSD. Versions of 1.5 and 1.5 Beta seem to be the same. Can I get rid of one or the other? Thanks ~

Love it.

:thumbup:

What kind of information is the hud giving you? Is it simply a boresight with depression settings?

Just a guess, but I'm pretty sure RAZBAM has been big in the FSX sim, so perhaps a lot of the development of the M-2000C can be thought of as a "port" from fsx > dcs. I Don't know for sure, but they're an established sim maker whereas some of the others are just starting so that probably helps a lot on development times. Also, it's always going to be different based on the actual tech they're simulating. For the F-14 something that seems fairly simple like variable sweep wings is actually insanely complicated aero engineering.

Aviodev should recognize that people complaining is actually a compliment. You don't yern for that which you don't like/want. :) ...and then they should give the people what they want. I'd be flying nothing else if it came out tomorrow.

Awesome thanks. Edit: 435mb! Why?! lol...it better contain 4 times the awesomeness...

Some links to IBM product test i mentioned...not the best but I don't have time for more (origination of Alpha,beta,etc...or so believed by many): http://blog.codinghorror.com/alpha-beta-and-sometimes-gamma/ http://catb.org/jargon/html/B/beta.html http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/40013/whats-the-origin-of-beta-to-describe-a-user-testing-phase-of-computer-devel You didn't cite or link what you posted, so why on earth would you get upset for someone not reading it? This isn't a troll, this is reason and evidence. Look it up. Reread...do whatever you like.

Yeah, as far as I understand it you're all wrong. Exactly opposite actually...the perversion of the term beta in recent years is not calling it feature complete but calling it incomplete. Not sure how you can even quote what generally means and draw the wrong conclusion. If generally equals usually then why on earth would you castigate someone for saying they're upset for something not being what it "generally" is supposed to be? Beta came from the IBM standards test or something like that...You might remember IBM...the original computers...? So yeah, beta meaning feature complete and out for testing outside of the developers to FIND BUGS predates the other interpretation. That said, I'm not a developer and could care less about the historical controversies over the software development cycle. The point is don't put someone down for being upset that their $40 simulation of a fighter jet that relies on IFF doesn't have a modeled IFF. :doh:

Hilarious. You are wrong...you've been told this before. I'm not sure if you really don't understand or you have fun trolling people. Beta = feature complete...with the likelyhood of bugs. Look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle Do you have any difficulty with that?

That seems like a long time. Is that just a flow limitation of the basket/probe design or is the bottleneck in the Mirage itself? A C-17 can go from near empty to 220,000 lbs in about 15-20 from a 135.

same for me and a friend as well

Does anyone else still get a DCS CTD when trying to fly this in a user created mission? Some people are saying it's fixed, but it certainly is not on my end. I've tried every scenario I can think of to try to pinpoint the problem to no avail. It does work when I do the instant action missions. It does not work with anything else.

Still crashes DCS 2.0 for me.

What's funny is that you just made a straw man argument. When the debate is over sophists use techniques like this to make people think they've won. But to answer your question that has no relevance to my post about updates not being updates...I have prepurchased the FIRST module from every developer as a show of good faith and trying to do my part to help these small businesses become successful. I will not be buying subsequent modules in beta form. Of course I payed out for this...otherwise I wouldn't be in this thread at all. And lastly, this is all I'm going to say because quite frankly I think I'm experiencing a little r/k selection theory going on here (you being the r), we were talking to AvioDev. You stuck your nose in to argue with us. If you really think AvioDev is that great shouldn't you have enough faith in them to argue their own case? And think about the ramifications if they choose NOT to argue their own case. :doh:

People that continually make excuses for other's business shortfalls are almost as bad as those I see actually asking for the price of things to be higher. There is no real world business knowledge and a lack of basic economics. There's a difference between getting the pitchforks out and stating that an update that doesn't update anyone on anything except to the fact that the writer is still breathing isn't an update at all.

+1...if I recall correctly there's been a few of this type of "update" now.

I had in the past, but I don't remember the random timing section. Thanks

That does make sense. I'll have to play around with it a bit. Thanks man ~

Hey guys, I'd like to have the players fly to a point and hold for a random amount of time before getting tasked on a mission. I have a flag that is on a switched condition and gets checked every 30 seconds. It has a random 1% condition attached to it but it always gets checked as true within the first 2 minutes or so. The logic is working fine, but the random seems to not be so random... I can just lengthen out the amount of time before the switched condition flag flip to a minute or two or whatever, but I don't want to do that if I can help it. Is there a better way to go about this? Thanks ~

Yes. This is their business model and I'm tired of fanboys trying to defend them.