CaptJodan

I didn't know about Bob. Now I like Bob.

I'm getting really tired of this narrative. "If you want to hold ED accountable for bad release date estimates you clearly want broken patches rushed out the door." No, most of us just want a date that will be reasonably accurate. If that can't be delivered, then don't give a date. A few patches here and there slip...give them some slack. But this cycle has become an epidemic, and it's no longer even just mission a patch here and there, but promising another release, then missing it, then another, and missing that one. Smartest thing they're doing now is NOT telling us when the next patch is right now. Just stop giving the dates and it comes out when it comes out. Of course, that's not the business model. The model is to gin up hype so people are excited for a release, and fair enough. That's marketing. But you should only be doing that if you know you can hit that milestone. You have a buffer. You have real confidence you can hit that target. Can ED not see that this hurts the brand and their PR? Or do the numbers show that the people who hate this cycle really are a minority and it doesn't affect their business all that much? I have a hard time believing that as this cycle continues, it won't hurt the business over time.

Thanks for the clarification. The release notes provided did make me confused based on "force trim" being a later edition, and I was under the impression the "push button and this becomes center" was what force trim was. Either way, that helps ease my mind a bit. Thanks.

Some people really like to try and get out ahead of a story that has yet to be told, but these kinds of statements are not at all constructive. 1. Official statements from both parties continue to maintain they are working towards a resolution. So RAZBAM is not "out of the picture". At least not officially yet. 2. Even if RAZBAM stays in some capacity, we don't yet know if things will turn around that they will want to continue to create new modules, or just finish the F-15. Unlikely, but for all we know a resolution is reached where they continue development on the Mig-23. 3. No one else has agreed to do the Mig-23, so "I'm glad someone else will be doing the 23" is also baseless and premature. It'd really help of people would stop trying to cosplay as a fortune teller, as it spreads misinformation about where in the process this all is.

As posted in the other thread, I hope ED will provide more information on exactly what constitutes "basic" trim. Bonus points for why "force trim" was left out. The latter really feels like it should be available day 1. Not having a basic intuitive trim system in a helo is not a standard I feel we should be sliding to on an EA release. Everyone has their line, but this feels more like a return to the F-16 release. I can excuse DAFCS as I imagine it's more complex (I don't actually know, but that's my assumption), but if I recall correctly every other ED helo release has included force trim on day 1.

I hope more clarification would come on this as well. I saw this and was deeply concerned about F-16 release Mk 2. I can understand not having all the autopilot functions in at launch or some of the other features, but no force trim? And what is covered by "basic trim"? I'd trade the AI helper out for later access in exchange for proper trimming (yes, I know this isn't how development works). I'm kinda baffled by this and would like further information on how exactly this is going to work.

I would like to thank Nineline for the otherwise thankless job of having to moderate now two of these threads in perpetual purgatory. While I question the wisdom of just opening a new thread to stoke the fires of this topic again, I do understand the initial reason why it exists, to hopefully provide updated information when it becomes available. Like so many others, I've been saddened by this series of events and, in the beginning, was hoping for a quick resolution. Like so many others, I'm frustrated that it has dragged on. If it wasn't for this, I feel like this year is one of DCS's best, with the release of the Phantom, Kiowa, Kola, and the upcoming Chinook and Afghanistan map. We may still even get the Mig-29 later and a few other modules are getting closer to release as well (La-7 maybe?). It's actually been a banger year so far. I can't recall a time ED has released so much new content. It makes it all the more grating to see this issue bringing down what should be a celebration of one of the best years so far. As I don't know all the facts (even after 100+ pages combined between the two threads), I choose to keep my hat out of the ring as much as possible, and feel best if most of us do the same if we want or hope to get things back to normal. I have my biases based on years of being a customer of the two companies and seeing how each company handles themselves, but those biases do not aid the current situation. Most of us, those not looking to simply watch the world burn, want F-15E development to resume and for the two companies to resolve their differences. We can insist that they "grow up" and "just solve it", but we have been told that they are trying to do just that. We can judge one side or another without the full picture, but that just makes getting back to normal harder. At the end of the day, raging isn't going to resolve the issue faster. If this destroys your faith in the game, that's fine. Many others want to see this through. I know I'm waiting it out.

I can't even describe how much the fade in/fade out setting on the trim has changed my life. Okay, a bit of hyperbole, but seriously, this system is amazing for making those trim changes as I can smoothly re-center without huge wild gyrations. I would second finding a way to get that system through the rest of the rotorhead fleet.

I can confirm the sideways 90 degree flight bug. After seeing the vid I tested to confirm and it does indeed occur. Tested without the eyeball and no weapons aboard.

If you're looking for perfect, you're in the wrong hobby.

I feel it's a bit too early for me to be giving any opinion as I haven't had a ton of time with the module, so everyone can take this with a grain of salt, but... I've found myself pleasantly surprised, enjoying the flight model far more than I was thinking I would. It has its own quirks, not near the power I'm used to with other modules when fully loaded, and just feels like a scrappy aircraft, but fun to fly. There are issues, as there always are. Some of the things I've tripped over are damage modeling, especially with devastating crashes into the ground. I see the lesser textures but honestly they don't bother me that much. I'm sure I'll see more in the coming days and weeks, but my initial impressions are not negative. I can contrast this way the opening days of the Gazelle and my utter loathing of that module, and I'm happy that I took a second risk with Polychop and wasn't left with the same feeling I had then. This heli has a chance to not be a hanger queen the way I thought it might be, but time will tell as I learn more about it.

This was a question I was also wanting the answer to. I know HB does their research and would probably have far better knowledge on this than I ever would, so I trust they got it right, but it almost feels wrong when comparing it to every other jet engine in game. The spool seems so quick. If it's right, it's right, and I'm glad to hear it is. Or at least close?

Maybe it's map dependent? Vegas is relatively small (and hot?, though by default most maps start at the same temp). Kola gave me a ton of run time from one airbase to another. I'd try a large map, cool air, bags to get you up there and get you started above mach 1, and then drop and try and maintain level flight or maybe just a bit of a dive ~45-35k feet. All I can say is it held up for me (though had a heat warning on the master caution panel).

What altitude (for the former)? I just got back from a speed flight, and was able to get up to mach 2.1 or so. Took bags, which obviously did not get me up to that speed till I dropped them, but used them to get up to speed and altitude, then dropped and burned the rest of the way. Did this on Kola. I've also reached about 1.2 at or around sea level. Anyway, can confirm she isn't slow, just takes a while to get there and less than 100% fuel.

Certainly you're free to not play anymore as desired. Everyone has their own reasons for playing or not playing a game. Still, it's a very strange position. The F-15E in its current condition is still in the game. You don't have to play DCS without the F-15E, as it's still there. Is your desire to play DCS contingent only on the F-15E being complete? Well it's not complete so far, so why were you playing DCS before? Or is your desire to play based solely on the hope that one day it will be complete? In that case, why not wait till the product is complete when you know you have all (or most) of what you want from the product? It seems like your motivation for playing DCS revolves solely on whether or not this one plane is in active development. Doesn't even really matter what stage of development it is in, just that your enjoyment seems to come exclusively from knowing devs are still working on it. That's wild to me. Different strokes, I guess. Or it's just a reactionary tantrum to some unfortunate news. Denying yourself enjoyment of a module that still exists and was good enough to play before this Raz/ED issue. Judging by the subsequent public messages by both companies, I'm tentatively hopeful that some kind of arrangement will be worked out between them that doesn't mean the end of these modules. I'm also hoping both companies do not have intentions to part ways. Time will tell, but in the meantime, I still have a game to play.