Yskonyn

Ah right. Well that's a standing claim, so I am not sure why people would think otherwise. If I look around me, however I think the dissapointment comes from a few keypoints: (these points are not in chronological order) a) ED confirmed Nevada / EDGE. b) ED confirmed a DCS: Fast Mover c) ED claimed the DCS brand would only feature high fidelity sims. --ED sets itself apart as THE dev studio picking up on high fidelity combat sims, after not having one for years and years-- d) ED confirmed the fast mover to be the Hornet e) Nevada got pushed back. Even an apology about it was posted revealing that work had been pretty non existant for a while. Big dissapointment. f) P-51D got released, where people questioned the fact wether this, in fact, had not taken up resources away from their main focus. What is the status of Nevada, for example? And wasn't the result really due to their aparent shift in focus, for real? Speculation rose. Did ED spread their resources too thin? Focus seemed to have shifted away from the projects announced before with the announcement of a new Flying Legends brand to include different era aircraft. g) An announcement about DCS F-15 was made in the newsletter. Excitement! g2) A marketing video and interview were released, hinting at products to come. Excitement! h) Wags initial post stated DCS F-15 and DCS SU-27! But.... were not going to be full fidelity sims afterall. And the DCS brand doesn't neccessarily stands for high fidelity only afterall. i) Debate ensues, post gets edited. I don't find it very odd that people area bit dissapointed after all the above. Sure, we have to keep it in perspective, true. But people should be allowed to express their feelings no less.

Let's all play 'who's the mysterious enlightened one', yay! :D Seriously, it would help to just post the point that's been missed over and over in your opinion, instead of remaining silent and pretend its only for the highly intelligent among us. :D I can be an observer too. (disclaimer: this is meant as a light hearted joke, not a sneer)

Which point might that be, then?

Well, to be totally honest, the initial debate began before Wags edited the post. :) At first it actually said DCS F-15 and DCS SU-27 instead of 'modules for DCS World'.

I would pledge as well. For every study sim module they will make, that is. :) Oh and make a stretch goal a hardcopy manual please. :D

No I never saw it as criticism towards myself. I was just the one actively posting replies. I have a feeling most of us sort of agree in between the lines anyway, but certain points got snowed under I felt and needed reiterating as well. All good though. We are all having the same interest at the end of the day. But a good debate is healthy for the mind, don't you think? ;) Have a good one! :thumbup:

I suggest to take a look at the tutorial video made by Gary Abbott:

You call it a complaint. Perhaps that doesn't come without a sense of entitlement indeed. But I never complained or called it as such. Being dissapointed is something different. :) BTW, I thought I was going nuts a bit earlier about the debate where Wags had never used the DCS label in conjunction with the F-15 and SU-27 in his update post. Well he did, but the post has been edited. I thought I was going nuts by refering to it earlier and obviously I couldn't find it anymore, but I have got it confirmed on another forum. :D Bad choice of wording, eh. ;) NOW the update post is nothing to get fed up over. :) A module for DCS. Like FC3 is.

Do those of you who keep pressing 'relax its not the end of the world' actually read any of the posts on the last 5 to 6 pages? I think the general consensus already is that its not the end of the world and almost everyone is appreciative of the work ED is doing. The AFM is regarded as a darn fine piece of coding too. And yes, it is a step towards study sim fidelity and yes the Eagle and Flanker might be upgraded to study sim level later on (however that is speculation at this point if they ever will). ED is still loved by all. But by God, are you all so thick that you can't see where poeple might be genuinly dissapointed without having a sense of entitlement at the same time? It's the bunny chasing the carrot. And the bunny finds out the carrot isn't that fresh orange thing it anticipated it would be. That's all. And the wording and buildup by ED themselves is to blame. Video's, interviews, a newsletter. People get expectations from those. And people can be dissapointed if things turn out differently than they expected. Plain and simple. But we still value ED. We still love seeing work being done, progress being made, whatever module it may be. And yes we understand it is all a foundation for greater things. Don't try to be the Holy Avenger of the forums. Jeez. ;)

The Huey is not an ED project. It's Belsimtek.

That is a good point. Oftentimes they have explained the burden that LockOn/FC lays on progression because that brand is still owned by Ubisoft.

Good point and I do. :) I am just trying to make my point clear. I have stated several times that I do understand ED's move from a business perspective. If word of mouth starts flowing about 'that DCS brand with that insanely difficult stuff now also has platforms we like because they are simpler!' probably works very well to pique the interest of a lot of outside gamers/simmers. And I wish them well. That's not the point however. ED is not my friend. It's a company and I am their customer. If a company changes its policy I would expect them to inform their customers with full disclosure. Not build up a tease on wrong expectations. Sure, views can change, policies can too. I am open to that like anyone else. But as I do not have a personal relationship with ED, but a business one I value those changes a bit differently. As do others I am sure. Nothing too big, though. I am still a supporter. Just a dissapointed one at this point in time. ;) From the last newsletter:

If you buy a Ferrari which had a V10 engine in its specs while being advertised to you and once you take it for a testdrive you find out it has a Nissan 1.6 litre engine instead, would you feel cheated? :D Like said before; it was ED themselves who have always claimed the DCS brand was for high fidelity stuff only. Now they state that this is not neccessarily true in the future. That's dissapointing indeed.:thumbup: People might be flexible and just shrug. As a company I believe you have to stand for your brand. You have been building up a community and expectation around your brand for several years. You're bound to step on some toes when you just state it has changed over night. People do understand you need to make money, again, I do too. But you need to be upfront to your customers.

I don't think it is as much the fact that people don't see ED has to make money. I think almost everyone does. People are just dissapointed because ED chose their words badly. Calling a module 'DCS' results in people expecting it to be a high fidelity one. Now it turns out they will not be.

This is besides the point. There are a lot of developers out there that cater to your suggested type of gamer. What has made ED stand out was that -after many years of not having one- they were actually a developer going to take the road of true combat flight simulation again, with a brand (DCS) to show for it. Even the FC3 fidelity aircraft are hard to fly with keyboard only. A joystick is the bare minimum to have as an input device. But that's a whole different subject.

I personally feel dissapointed and it's not because of ED releasing lower fidelity aircraft at all. It's -like others have pointed out earlier- that I feel ED didn't communicate very well about what the roadmap was going to be. Initially ED claimed that the label 'DCS' would stand for high-fidelity study sims. This was all around the release of the A-10C and up to the release of the P-51D. Just recently they suddenly confirmed a DCS F-15 and DCS SU-27. This has led many to believe these would be high fidelity sims as a result of always claiming DCS modules were going to be high fidelity (although some eyebrow raising was going on questioning about how they would have found the time to create another two high fidelity sims next to the F/A-18 ). Illustrated by a tester: Now, however, ED claim that the label DCS can mean a lot of things regarding era / type of platform (which we already knew), but also level of fidelity. And that is new, at least for me and quite a few others. This resulted in the feeling that ED hasn't been entirely upfront, because what first looked like true DCS fidelity modules of old, now actually are upgraded FC3 aircraft. Also, we get confirmed that the Hornet is a long ways off still too. People are entitled to be a bit dissapointed and we can discuss that here without resulting in flamewars. I can see the why ED takes this turn from a business perspective, though, and this is fine if this generates more money, of course we all want ED to be able to continue creating software we all love. But they should either be more upfront about things or choose a different way of communicating (read: choosing their words). As suggested earlier, a roadmap would be superb and would prevent a lot of rants and dissapointment.

Well indeed, opinions vary. ;) I am a long time fan of the MW games as well as the Battletech Mini's game and I don't like it. It's good to see the Mechwarrior theme getting some exposure again, but this game -in its current state- is nothing more than an arena based instant action shooter, which just happens to feature Mechs. Nothing wrong with enjoying it, of course, but like you said, opinions vary. :)

I would rather go out and actually do all the things mentioned in the OP, than play it on my computer from behind a desk. :) And yeah, that comes from a simmer. Go figure! ;) Seriously, though, there is a limit to simming, isn't there? Scuba diving? Nile peddling?

It's a nice game. Very fun in a group, but otherwise it's very archaic in its gameplay and graphics. Fun times no less, though! :)

The spam issue is due to TS's spam protection. You can alter this in the 'Virtual Server' settings. Bij rightclicking on one of your channels on TS and choose 'Edit Server'. Increase the ticks needed amount to 15 or so and you should be fine.

That's rather enthousiastic! :) We have one plane to fly. A good one, mind you, but only one. And no adversaries whatsoever. No new announced projects either with a WW2 theme. I'd rather say we still have IL-2 1946 for WW2 planes.

Here lies the problem, diveplane. ;) The optimizations are from recently. You should take another look at the current build. :thumbup:

It runs smoothly now on highest settings on my machine. I think its time to invest some more time in it from now on.

So is this a mod or a patch by Daedalos team? Is is available yet? If so where?

For efficiency a tip for next time would be to not have several threads open on pretty much the same subject; http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=95665