stburr91

As others have pointed out, to make a ff module with nothing more than video, and "interviews" completely changes the meaning of full fidelity, and study level simulation.

Not to mention that there are no red aircraft to go up against this one, it just doesn't make any sense to add an F-35.

Just make it all up is fine...for Flaming Cliffs aircraft, not so much for full fidelity modules.

I think Combined Arms is the aforementioned redheaded stepchild.

ED testing, "It works on our machine", so there's no problem.

This has happened to me while playing back the track file with the Hind. I'm also using AMD hardware.

Very nice shots.

I hope you are right, but if one knows anything about how to operate a business, there are some very concerning signs plainly visible for all to see.

A clear majority of their products are unfinished early access projects, and they keep pushing out many more new ones, and as a result, every project is now moving at a snail's pace. They clearly have far more projects than they have resources for, and you don't see a problem?

Nobody can juggle this many balls for long, especially not with the rate in which they are adding more ea products, and new features into the mix. It's causing every project to take much longer to complete than it otherwise would, not to mention making customers nervous that it's all going to come crashing down. How many ea products have been completed this year, compared to how many new ea products have been released/announced this year?

Are there other "slip ups"? There are some products on sale in the e-store here, that are not on sale on Steam.

I said nothing about deadlines. I said it's time to stop making more promises, and start completing unfinished products/features. There are so many unfinished projects, yet then just keep announcing more...why? They clearly do not have the resources to complete the unfinished projects in a reasonable timeline, why keep adding more projects?

Yes, it's a real problem when the majority of the announced features, and products are unfinished, and they just keep making more promises, and releasing more early access products. It is well past time to stop making more promises, and starting completing the many projects that have remained unfinished for years now.

Do you guys remember that video that was going around a while ago where the guy being stupid shoots himself in the groin? I feel like I just watched that with DCS this weekend. Anyway, I'm glad to see that the "error" is going to be corrected. I think the lessons to learn from this is, 1) don't shoot yourself in the groin, and 2) when a company treats you like crap, be very vocal about how unhappy you are about it. Have a great weekend everybody.

I must say, I've never seen a company allow a 3rd party developer to treat it's customers like this before. With everything OnReTech has done with the development of this map post launch, I sure hope ED changes how they handle 3rd party products.

I'm really glad I decided to wait and see what the update would be before buying this map...it's a hard no now.

Man, putting an Opinion tag on that thread, but not others like this one, was super petty.

^^^These were not helpful posts, in fact, they kind of make things worse. ^^^This was a helpful post, thanks. I'll be honest, after reading the posts by BIg Newy, I almost just said forget it, I'm no longer interested in this map, but after the post from NineLine, I will continue to watch the development, and will consider buying the map sometime in the future.

I know it's still in EA, what is still left to be done on this aircraft?

I understand the point about this map being in EA, and that people shouldn't get too worked up right now, but it's important to speak up about unsatisfactory quality while there is still time to fix it. To be very frank, people coming in just to say it's in EA, stop complaining, aren't adding anything useful, or helpful to the discussion.

Are these pictures in the areas that are not detailed yet? If what is in these pictures are the final product, I just can't see myself paying money for something like this.

I'm considering this map, and was wondering what the performance, and load times are like for this map? I have an 2T ssd, 7800X3D, 7800xt, and 32 GB of RAM, monitor is 1080p, I play single player. I assume I would get decent performance, what do you guys think?? I know the map hasn't been updated since release, but I am considering it since it seems an update is coming "soon-ish".

I never pre-order anymore, it's too easy to get burned, I now wait unit it releases, and do my research. In this case, I watched a number of videos of people flying all over the map, and based on what I saw, I wasn't impressed, and decided to pass on buying it for now. I haven't trashed the map, I just said I'm not impressed with its current state, and will watch the development, and see how it progresses. I think I've been pretty fair about it. I have concerns about the quality, but a bigger concern is the file size for what you get. For me, it may just be too much of the same thing over, and over again, and the gameplay styles too few to justify dedicating that much drive space.

Well, if the map is going to be some giant monster, then I get the logic of wanting it to include open water for carrier ops. As the map is now, it's a monster, but doesn't have much in the way of gameplay variety. Heck, Wags acknowledged the map's limitations in gameplay during his interview with CasmoTV. My logic is to go the other way, since it's so limited on gameplay variety, smaller, and more detailed would have been the better option. Since this is a counterinsurgency map, much of the action is going to be down low, so the map needs to look good. As things stand now, I'm not sure that this map is going to be all that popular. I'm sure some will love it, but it isn't going to be replacing Syria as the go to map, that's for sure.

I agree with those saying they aren't impressed by this map, that's why I'm passing on it for now, and waiting to see how it develops. I also agree with the op, that maybe the map would have been better if it was smaller, and more detailed (and a smaller file size). The map is super repetitive, flat, or mountainous. frankly making it all the more logical to have it be much smaller, we don't need this much of the same thing over, and over again. I think ED spent so much time wondering if you could, they never stopped to think if you should.