VincentLaw

I thought it was any press is good press.

Speaking of which, didn't they say the P-47 would be free? What happens if someone doesn't select that flyable at all? Then would they still have that since it is free?

Thanks for the info. Can we add it from 9 days ago? :thumbup:

This is a step in the right direction. Good to see progress.

This worked for me. My primary issue has now been resolved. At this point, a confirmation email for paypal would be redundant.

I want my ambulance to have an AFM. I plan on ramping it over the crosswalks.

This is essentially part of what a dynamic campaign would do. Not all events of a campaign occur during (or near to) player flights, so there needs to be some way to handle things that happen while the player is not there. This would almost certainly not involve any physics. The discussion on dynamic campaigns in general can be found here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=64161

Leatherneck Simulations is now in the fortunate position of having their own crowd funding history that people can refer to when deciding whether or not to contribute, so you don't need to worry about that. With the failure of the Kinney Interactive campaign and the apparent general displeasure with this one, cichlidfan is probably more concerned about the other developers who have not attempted crowd funding yet. I generally agree with your statement though.

I am not complaining about my inability to post on the kickstarter page. I am explaining to you why I am posting here instead of bringing up the issue on the kickstarter page, which is what you said everyone should be doing. No, lets keep it here where everyone has the ability to discuss it. Yes. That is how paypal works. Of course paypal is not magically going to get RRG to confirm anything. That is entirely on them.

As a paypal backer, I do not have backer privileges to make any comments on kickstarter. Yes, I have a confirmation from paypal that paypal sent my money to RRG. Other than that I have absolutely nothing. I would like to know that RRG actually recognizes my status as a backer, and that I will be getting the rewards I payed for. Right now, I have absolutely no assurance from RRG of anything. I am basically in some gray area of uncertainty. Consequently, I have no confidence in RRG. Actually, we did. This is straight from the kickstarter terms of use: Of course I used paypal, so they are not bound to those terms regarding my money.

Having a good experience with the final product will not change the fact that I had a bad experience with the kickstarter. This is not something I can forget before I consider contributing to future kickstarter campaigns. It is March. They are not on track. Being able to admit that is not a bad thing, and being off track doesn't make you a bad developer. (Pretty much everything is always off track)

So I joined a server that had CA slots on the other team. I jumped in a Leopard tank, took out a FARP, dodged concentrated airstrikes from several player jets, and destroyed three player helicopters (2 Mi-8s and 1 ka-50) with my main cannon on my way to the enemy airbase. I was finally destroyed by a missile when two Su-25Ts lined up attack runs on me from opposite sides simultaneously so I couldn't get behind a building. I think at least 5 multistory buildings got completely leveled as they were trying to destroy me, and I made it about 2/3 of the way to capturing the enemy base. And then the track file was messed up so no screenshots.

Just because something is not acknowledged does not mean it was not heard.

Okay, I just did a fairly exhaustive search, and these are the three statements I could find regarding the maps seen in the Avia videos: Regarding the third quote, which I assume is the one you are referring to. While he does not explicitly say "These will maps will never be in DCS," (nor does the comment he quoted) that would be a reasonable inference to make. It is worth noting that many of the static objects and civilian traffic seen in these videos can also be seen in NTTR screenshots.

Actually, I disagree with some of the others on the SDK. The SDK has been shown to have a landscape viewer separate from EDGE, so it should be possible to develop maps without EDGE being completed or even functional at all. RRG said they want a dedicated community team to have a high quality community map ready in time for the WWII release, then they should be giving the community team the best head start possible. Of course, that would require coordination with the community.

Yes. There has never been a statement one way or another about this. It is a possibility, but better to assume we won't.

Just multiply that date by an empirical correction factor based on past release date predictions and you should be good.

We already have the Mi-8 and UH-1H. There is an AH-1G, A-7, MiG-21, and F-100 in development. There are already many AI vehicles applicable to Vietnam like the T-55, M113, ZU-23, ZSU-23, OH-58, CH-47, CH-53, C-130, B-52, F-4, F-5, or F-14 for late war. Some of those are the wrong variant, but I think that could come together. Likewise, we are not far off from having a WWIII environment.

Allowing third party devs to make aircraft from any period they want makes DCS a more attractive platform for third parties. Attracting more developers will probably get a single time period filled out with modules faster than enforcing restricted focus to that specific period would. We all have seen how long it takes ED to develop modules by themselves.

The DCS already has fictitious campaigns, so it wouldn't really be any different. DCS is a systems simulator, not a history simulator.

Yeah, everything at the store was either glue of some sort or a lubricant designed to reduce frction. What I ended up making is essentially a lubricant that increases friction between the things it is lubricating without actually gluing them together.

The end result looks exactly like what I started with, except now the two main age related problems my joystick had have been fixed. The gimbals were still in good condition, and I didn't want the repair to cost more than the joystick (besides, I didn't really know what I was doing). Some pictures with narration in the spoiler below.

I think the ability of a commander to spawn or deploy units during battle would be nice. I know spawning is kind of a gamey thing, but currently battles have a finite number of predeployed ground units, which means once all of the targets are destroyed the mission has to be restarted, and it feels kind of rinse and repeat. Basically, to make a much more dynamic battle experience, players should be able to spawn in aircraft at any airbase their coalition has controlled for a sufficient amount of time instead of just the predetermined ones, and ground commanders should be able to deploy ground units at these bases (or other specified locations connected to supply routes) so they can then advance onto the next base. This could also tie in well with DCS:Heavy to drop supplies at newly acquired bases or rapidly drop troops at the front. (It can take hours to advance ground troops between bases, so being able to paradrop troops and mount infantry on trucks for rapid advances important)