mikey69420

it's soon gonna be a year since the razbam thing was made public. You'll have to find another excuse eventually

I agree, but as a small detour, a simple AESA radar with full array beam steering isn't actually that hard to implement, the mathematical model is pretty straight forward to figure out (you simply consider a phase offset in each antenna of the array and calculate the field equations from there). If you want something more accurate, I'd say simply look up a picture of the AN/APG-81 radar on the internet, try to copy it's topology into a finite element solver like ansys hfss and simulate the shape of the beam. However we both know that the real radar is much much more complex than that. Consider now that individual antennas are steered, well, you've now got infinite combinations of how the beams may look like (not all of them may be interesting however). Not only that but no one outside the industry knows exactly how the AN/APG-81 controls it's individual antennas but even if we knew, it would be crazy hard to simulate this in real time in DCS but still, given enough time, they could simulate different beam combinations in finite element solvers and then do some careful approximations to have a believable model of AESA beams in DCS under different configurations. But it doesn't stop there, now that the beam is sent, reflected and received (which seems to be simulated believably in DCS as the razbam F15E seems to have sidelobe tracking, clutter and interference effects to name a few), the signal processing for an AESA with individual beam steering would still be the most difficult task in my opinion. Of course, it would be crazy to assume that the whole signal processing flow would need to be implemented in DCS but you'd at least need an idea of what the AN/APG-81 engineers did with the sent beams, the modulation and processing algorithms for different radar modes, else you may break the whole radar implementation. It seems like an insurmountable task almost. Though this is just my two cents after pondering on it for a couple of minutes, I am sure that some people at ED know far more about the intricacies of simulating radars than I do given their previous work, however, without any actual publicly available data of the behavior of that radar, I suspect they will try to make up the radar data by reading various sources and trying to imagine "believable" behavior and then fit it on a "simple" AESA radar model. How will they implement the intricacies such as individual antenna steering and all the radar modes that use different modulation schemes and signal processing without any real data? I've got no idea. Sorry for the long message but as an electrical engineer in ic design, after I saw you and other people brought up the point of the f35 having an AESA radar, it made me wonder of how such a complex system could be simulated. At first I thought it would be straightforward, but after thinking about it some more, you fall down a rabbit hole that seems impossible to get out of. I'm not a radar engineer nor do I do a whole lot of complex signal processing so the only thing I could do is wish ED good luck and move on (while remaining suspicious).

Perhaps if a third party, not from Russia, tries doing a export su30, then it could maybe just about fly under the authorities radar for ED not to get into trouble. After all the su30 is widely exported and seems to have variants custom built for exports (MKI, MKA, MKM etc...) that have either Israeli or Indian avionics whereas export su27's seem closer to domestic variants especially in the avionics and such. My guess would be that these export su30's are perhaps less secretive to Russia. Who knows, maybe I'm just speaking out my rear

I suspect the su27/30 modules not being developed is less an issue of documentation per se but rather more an issue of them having offices in Russia/Bielorussia whose governments won't let them develop such modules. They probably could develop the su27 given the f35 is in the works, but in the case of the 27, it probably won't end well for ed if they try...

If you're complaining about people "assuming" stuff, why don't you share more info about this whole situation to your customers ? As you can surely notice, your company hasn't been the most transparent throughout this whole process.

What about the damage modelling for example ? Seems weird to put this just under the remastered F5E category and then giving random other things that both the old and new modules will receive a few lines after. This youtube comment from the ED video did a much better job of explaining the differences in my opinion. easy answer: I don't plan to. Is putting a "coming soon" on one of your sold features really an excuse for it taking so long ?

Reading this one would expect that only the paid remastered version would be getting the bug fixes, thankfully it seems this isn't the case but yeah, could've explained it better in the newsletter. "coming soon" How soon are we talking about ??? I know it's coming off as hating for a product that hasn't yet released, but I am willing to bet my balls that once ED releases the F5 remaster and receives the money, the only ED staff working on the remaster will be redirected somewhere else and we won't see these updates come out for a long time, a year or so at least. They pulled the same crap with the A10C II and the super carrier. Had to wait a long time to get some of the features promised. I remember in the case of the A10C II radio, it came out after more than a year since launch because no coders were available to work on it (I believe one of the community managers told this, can't remember who exactly). ED, I get big features for complex modules take time, however here, considering the remaster is a much less complex endeavor than your full modules, you better not make users wait for months upon months until you get sufficiently pressured into fulfilling your contractual obligation.

Fair enough, I didn't quite get you were talking about the video itself and to make it clear, I don't dislike you either at all. Though I dislike the willingness to close this thread. It's fair if you think this video doesn't represent you, people certainly are debating this very fact in this thread.

You're absolutely right, I personally didn't see anything wrong with what was said in this thread either. I didn't read every comment so I assumed there may have been people that were projecting their views and opinions onto everyone, which is something I disagree with. I don't know whether that happened or not I must admit, you are the judge of that.

And I dislike people like you who'd rather silence a discussion they don't like than let people speak. Of course, I understand this is a private company and there is no free speech on these forums (courtesy of our dear moderators), but still, let people speak, it ain't that hard... I agree with your point though, ain't no one big enough to believe that they can speak on the behalf of everyone.

BN, I get you're speaking on behalf of your company but be real here, you must admit DCS has issues. You can claim your company works as hard as they can but no amount of effort can offset the bad decisions your company has made and are still making. Of course, I'm sure everyone at ED is working hard to pump out the next EA product but you gotta read the room, look at the comments in the recent Iraq pre-order video, look at the comments in this thread, look at the community posts on various forums. Will you just actually properly finish your early access products before pushing out more? Will you actually make the core DCS experience better ? Suddenly no one at your company is up for these tasks. All your main modules, be it the ah64, the f16, the fa18 and especially the suppercarrier saw their updates come out at an agonizingly slow pace sometime after their initial release, as an example, take the a10cII, I remember how you all took more than a whole year to add the radio. And don't even get me started on your older or more niche modules like combined arms or the mosquito. What about the core dcs experience ? You have been teasing dynamic campaign for a few years, nothing to show for it still. Ground ai is broken. ATC is pretty much non existent. There is little single player content available except for paid campaigns that get broken every patch because of the horrendous ai. Ohh yes, there are also the missions made by the community which carry the single player experience in my opinion. How do you reward these mission makers ? By leaving them with your mission editor from the nineties that hasn't even got drag select or an undo redo button because that would be "wasting thousands of man hours" to implement a undo/redo button or drag select in a 2024 simulator. Don't get me started on the feud with RB because I know you'll want to ban me for even mentioning the name. I am commenting as a customer who has paid more than 500$ on your platform, I do care about your product, really. But please, don't try to make us look like we are whining babies that can't comprehend the work you put in. At the end of the day, we are left with the product you present to us and given some of it's core and module features have remained broken, outdated or unfinished/missing for years while you manage to release new EA modules back to back, well, excuse us for not being very satisfied or having doubts about your product and the direction it is heading towards.

So for you, making your editor more usable and bringing it up to modern standards is "wasting thousands of man hours", thanks for hammering my point in even more.

Just as @Pillowcat mentioned, what are you on about with the complete re-write of the ME ? You even found the solution to the problem in your own reply, yes there is a system to save the mission and load it back up, THEN IMPLEMENT THAT FUNCTIONALITY INTO A BUTTON AND CALL IT UNDO/REDO. Even if it isn't a fancy solution, do something, show you (ED) cares. And even if we assume that for some reason the mission editor really needs a complete rewrite, what is ED waiting for, it's been 20+ years ? Do you seriously see yourselves in 20 more years telling people that same bs excuse ? If anything, your response has hammered the point that you people at ED don't care about the ME, yes it's a horribly outdated ME and if you are saying it is outdated to the point it is impossible to add a simple undo/redo button, what are you waiting for ? Rewrite the damn thing, do what bohemia interactive has done with it's eden editor in arma, make a brand new editor. Your team is certainly motivated enough to keep pumping out EA products but when you need to work on the core game, on something that won't reward you with quick cash, suddenly no one at ED seems up for it, surprising isn't it ? You're not fooling anyone, ED doesn't care about the ME. If it cared you wouldn't try to justify the absence of the most universally basic features in the core component of your so called sandbox simulation, the mission editor. P.S: Excuse my tone, nothing personal against anyone, I am simply criticizing your company's decisions and I appreciate your engagement in this thread NineLine.

If we're sharing our criticisms here, here's mine: you folk at ED don't seem to care about the mission editor. What makes me say that ? It's been what ? 20 years ? And still no left click drag to select multiple objects and even more important than that, no UNDO/REDO button. Unbelievable...

Thanks but you haven't really answered my question, is the customer legally protected if your company or a third party decides to either modify the original plans for early access or to straight up not deliver on them ? Basically, does buying into EA guarantees (legally) that the product will developed up to the original plans of early access ?