JCav

Because every developer of every AAA game does the same, and the industry standard price for a AAA title is $60. Regarding the 'disappointment' that A-10C was - to me, that is the verdict. The simulation aspect was wonderful, but the reliance on scripted missions or user-generated content was lackluster, to say the least. That is my opinion on the matter, which has no reliance on any review scores. I simply don't care what metacritic has to say. Nobody gets to claim that my disappointment in the A-10C module is 'wrong' based on someone else's opinion.

Did I say that I was the authority on what is universally considered reasonable? Hrm, it appears that I did not claim to be adjudicating reasonableness for anyone other than myself.

You don't set the universal standard of reasonableness. I'm perfectly entitled to decide what is reasonable to me, thank you. It also isn't as simple as "spending money is too much." $80 is too much. I'd actually buy it if it was $60, but not when the company thinks $60 is supposed to represent a discount from what they consider the actual price to be. As long as they think it's worth $80, I won't be a customer at all. I've learned my lesson from the massive disappointment that the A-10C was.

As excited as I've been waiting for the F-18 to come out, at $80, you're out of your mind. There is ZERO chance I support DCS with prices such as that. And no - I don't consider "but it's $20 off right now" to be a valid argument. They're still attempting to claim $80 is a normal price, so screw that.

I have not had any issues with Nvidia's latest drivers and UMFCD. The blanket statement that it does not work with them is therefore wrong. I use the CDU export function. I will say that the text display of the CDU seems to take longer than I'd like to actually update for the export window, but it does function. Now if I could just re-size the export window with my own desired ratio, this software would be perfect for my use!

Just tagging this thread to show my support and interest. Waiting for the resizing of the CDU, as I cannot be bothered to fix whatever is wrong with my EMC, and I use Helios for CDU entry, but need the export window of the text. Would definitely love to be able to use your program to export the text, without worrying about clicking the buttons you also include in the CDU export window. Thank you for your efforts.

Not using the search feature is one thing. Not reading the stickies at the top of the forum...quite another. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=69481

Because your primary job as pilot is the safety of the aircraft, you ABORT the attack run. How much good are you to the guys on the ground while floating to the earth under a parachute with the rest of your munitions you were carrying, plummeting to the ground in a burning wreck, all because you wanted to lock up one target?

I appreciate your feedback Eddie, but I don't think you can show me a mission where I'm given an objective and am left to my own devices to plan my route and payload appropriately. As for my Falcon comment, I should've restricted it to "most people here don't like Falcon's DC." I fly Falcon regularly and still prefer to fly it over A-10C because of the planning factor I get to have input on. Currently, A-10C missions feel to me like "Fly this route, with these weapons, and strike these targets." My execution of those missions will be virtually identical to how another pilot will fly it because it's already been laid out.

Having recently realized that part of my distaste for A-10C comes from not having input on the PLANNING stages of my mission, I have to comment that a Dynamic Campaign is the only feature likely to bring me the entertainment I was really looking for. I know that most people here dislike Falcon4:AF, but one thing that gives me that DCS doesn't is the ability to PLAN my mission ahead of time. A-10C I'm thrown into a cockpit with limited time to get wheels up by the mission designer, who has pre-planned my route for me (and frankly, is unlikely to be as intelligent as I am). Timing trombones are not built into the flightplan, so if my wingman or I take even 2 minutes too long to get wheels up, we'll never catch our TOT. In short, every multiplayer mission I fly feels like it's on rails. A trained monkey could fly these missions. I know that I'm rambling a bit (watching The Unit while I type this), but in short: without a dynamic campaign, I can't foresee purchasing anymore DCS titles.

While at Cheyenne Frontier Days Air Show on July 27th, I was standing near the A-10C East Demo team while they started both aircraft. The APU was definitely on for a long while after both engines were running (it was a much louder sound than the engines so I could tell when it started and ended). They also did not lower their canopy until after proceeding a bit down the taxiway.

Wow, and to think you could've said the same thing minus the attitude with "Sorry if this has been posted before."

Was this really necessary? http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=75825 Still on the front page...

I also suffer from this problem. Custom SnapView works just fine on every other mission. Not this one. Single Player or Multi, both fail.

Apologies if this is a stupid question, but it seems that even the DCS manual doesn't get the startup procedures correct. Is this so? I can't give specifics without trying to revisit all the 'startup checklist' threads that I've looked through. If this is correct, why in the world can't we get the game manual to accurately reflect the real-world procedures for starting the A-10C? I and others shouldn't need to printout a different startup checklist for every iteration of the game. MemphisBelle - are your checklists appropriate according to military procedures?

I know how to find my version number by checking in Windows Explorer. I did not know about the rather obscure method you mentioned. I simply thought it was an effective and easy place to put a version number, which MOST game companies put on the main menu.

It seems to be somewhat difficult to find your version number inside the game. On the splash screen of the main menu, there is an A-10 to the left of all the options with a serial # on it's nose. Why not use this serial # to display the version? For example, instead of serial #81978 as it currently is, how about #01107 (soon to be 01108)? Pardon me if that's not called a 'serial number' on the plane. I wouldn't know what else to call it.

The X-65 is a piece of crap. I own it, and Saitek's support on the centering issue has been nothing short of abysmal. I suggest you return it and get a more quality item.

All I'm saying is that Saitek does NOT support their users. Flagship product doesn't center itself (X-65F). Suggestion from Saitek? Unplug and replug the joystick in until you get it centered good enough. We were promised a driver to fix the problem by Christmas, back in November....it's now March. Their support forum has seen absolutely *zero* posts by UKSupport in over a month. If you buy Saitek, you're supporting a **** company who doesn't give a **** about you once they have your money. Your choice. If I had my $300 back from my X-65F, I'd have saved up and bought a Warthog without a second thought.

Don't buy Saitek products. Their customer support is absolute ****. Their support 'forum' has one registered admin to answer questions, and he hasn't posted **** in over a month and a half, leaving customers with no help.