johnv2pt0

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.

I enjoy the 25A more than the 25T. As others have said, it's faster and more maneuverable at the expense of some capability and fuel. I enjoy the feel of it in the hands and the fact that it forces you to keep your eyes outside of the cockpit...which is a mistake I see basically everyone make in the sim. Systems are supposed to enhance situational awareness not replace it so it's fun to force yourself to practice the fundamentals ... imho. To the OP: It's a personal preference thing, but the more you fly the more you might find yourself seeking out the other aircraft you didn't think you'd want. I'd get FC3...good bang for your buck.

For the record, same problem here. GTX 690 (basically 2x680 SLI). I have to set Nvidia Inspector to 1 GPU and force single rendering to stop cloud flickering. Nothing else matters. I lose quite a bit of horsepower, but the new engine really is a nice boost, so one GPU running near 100% in large scenes with lots of stuff going on still yields 50-60fps most of the time. When running in SLI I get 100-140 fps. Max settings minus DOF and sun glare. 512 tv displays.

You probably already know this, but there are different controls for cycling weapons on one turret, and cycling to different turrets. Pretty basic, but easily overlooked in the controls. I haven't been in CA in a long time, so if you already know that then I don't know and can't speak to those particular vehicles. :)

Noticed same thing when I was under parachute canopy. Looking from top down towards pilot the parachute looked fine, but if you rotate camera upwards from the pilot looking up into the bottom of the parachute it is invisible. This may already be part of that ticket...just mentioning in case.

Same problem here. Civilian traffic worked before the hotfix, but now does not. Same problem with heat blur as well. Worked before, now does not.

I know and can apply every system or maneuver from every module. I never forget anything and never make mistakes. ...also, I am a liar.

^+1 I'm glad they finally told us something but disappointed at the content. Personally I wish people would stop sticking up for devs altogether. If there's verbal abuse or something of the like there are tools already in place to punish that person. There's really no need for the community to "stick up for them." And I'm tired of people using the "but it's hard to develop a game" response. Business is hard...life is hard. You get paid for the work you do...the value you add to your customer's lives. That's why you get paid minimum wage working at a fast food place and hundreds of thousands of dollars if you're the President of the US. Nobody made AvioDev decide to get into this business so nobody has the right to chastise those who demand a product for the money they've spent (or at the bare minimum, communication). And, off topic, but this thread exemplifies the problems with pre-sales, alphas/betas, etc. I long for the days of going to the store, buying a game off the shelf, and then actually owning and playing said game. Done.

SR-71 was retired because of money and duplication of effort with the U-2. Their were only a few missions that would require the SR-71. The Mig-31 had nothing to do with it...but don't let me spoil the Russian-tech-fanboy-club's fun. I kid I kid.

Congratulations everyone ~ Thanks for hosting Bunyap...that was fun. I showed the wife thinking she'd be impressed, but she said, "If you're not first you're last..." ...rough. :)

I've had the exact opposite experience for what it's worth to anybody looking to buy a trainer/light attack. Even without weapon capability atm I find the 101 much more enjoyable than the HAWK (only other option right now). The cockpit looks wonderful and it feels like home to me. Although I do wish it was in english :) McBlemmen, it sounds like some weird stuff is going on with your settings. I'm curious what would make the 21 perform great and the 101 to fail for you. Very strange. Also, just curious, why is ATC so important to you in DCS? It doesn't do anything...not like it's going to give you a PAR or something. I'm not saying it shouldn't work in the jet, just curious. If I had to guess, I'd say they're waiting for 2.0 since the ATC system is going to change a lot.

Awesome! I too would like to know how the Sea Eagles are working. Thanks for the update...please keep them coming! Hawk? L-39? Nah...I think with what I've seen so far on the EB and updates on the CC the C-101 is going to be my preferred light attack a/c. Very excited to see it released!