statrekmike

Can we get a official word on this issue? The Syria map's performance doesn't really match up with the rest of DCS's maps and while I can appreciate that it has more details, I also can't help but feel that it really should run better. Has there been any significant progress in this department internally?

Considering that Harriers tend to operate from airbases whenever possible, the most realistic approach would probably be to have them fly out of Turkey. At least when considering the limitations of the map. In real life, they may be coming in from bases further out.

Seems odd to make the assertion that a developer that has yet to release even one module for DCS is a "natural" choice for future projects. It would be wise to let them show us what they can do before we start talking about what they "should" do next.

Do you have the finger lifts enabled in the special options?

This is something I have suggested on this forum before and I really, really hope ED considers doing it. If anything, it would perhaps be useful to take the basic idea of the AWACS we have now (where it is very simplified) and apply that same theory to a JSTARS equivalent. You could have it where it uses the JTAC datalink setup already in DCS to send target data or a system where the player asks for enemy ground unit locations in whatever coordinate/MGRS format they need. We really need this in DCS, even in a simplified format.

So there are two different issues at play here. The first is that anti-radiation missiles in DCS don't really go straight for the radar emitter but instead the unit itself. For example. If you launch a Sidearm at a Shilka, the missile will hit the vehicle in general and not the radar emitter specifically. This leads us to the next issue. The vehicle damage models in DCS are not detailed so if a missile doesn't kill it, the vehicle will still function. The Sidearm is a tiny missile and isn't really designed to kill armored targets. To put it bluntly, it was a failed weapon in real life because of its lack of range and it is a failed weapon in DCS for the lack of range and the simplified vehicle damage models.

As others have already pointed out in this thread. If you open up the manual and follow the steps it outlines, you will not have problems starting the engine. It is actually a pretty straightforward and logical process.

Something tells me that such a movie would not be terribly watchable.

One way you can potentially come to a choice is to look up each aircraft and get a sense for what roles they are best suited for and what kinds of scenarios interest you the most. For some players, it is all about air to air combat so they will focus on aircraft that specifically provide that experience. For others, it is about multi-role capability so more modern aircraft like the Hornet, Viper, or the JF-17 end up being strong contenders. The more you know about the various aircraft, the more informed your choice can be and the less likely you are to get something that doesn't quite scratch the itch you were hoping it would. To give you a quick summary of each of your choices to kinda see where I am coming from. 1.) The F-5. As I said before, the specific version we have is pretty sparse and is more at home as a dissimilar air combat trainer (think the planes they used in the real-life Top Gun to simulate enemy aircraft) than as a front-line combat aircraft. It can still shoot a couple of missiles, fire the gun, and do some bomb/rocket trucking but it has a very primitive radar, avionics, and only a fairly basic adjustable radar gunsight to help get weapons on target. Deploying weapons from it can be a lot of fun and rather interesting but when you try to fit it into a mission where you need to bomb protected targets or fight dedicated air to air focused jets, you will find that the F-5 starts to hit some pretty hard limits that can't always be overcome with a romantic notion of "it's the pilot, not the aircraft". There is a romanticism for the simplicity of planes like this but at the same time, that simplicity has a cost in terms of capability. This is why I tend to think it is a good third or fourth module since it is a lot of fun to fly and learn but if it is your only high fidelity module, it will not cover as much ground as you might like. 2.)The F/A-18C. First and foremost. The Hornet as a module is not done yet. It is pretty far along and is almost at a point where it is largely complete but it is important to know that it is early access. Beyond that, the Hornet was the first true multi-role aircraft in DCS and as such, it can cover a lot of different mission types without significant compromise to any one role. With the Hornet, you can do dedicated air to air missions or a wide variety of air to ground/surface missions with its various weapons and sensors. If you want a aircraft that you can use to sample pretty much every major mission type that DCS offers, this is a good plane to get that experience. There are two things that really stand out about the Hornet from a "buying your first module" perspective. The first is that you get to explore carrier operations in a pretty detailed way. Properly landing on the boat is very challenging but it can be quite a lot of fun to learn if you let it be fun to learn. Likewise, its ability to mid-air refuel also offers the new player the ability to learn that skill and feel rewarded when they eventually are able to pull it off. 3.) The A-10C. Out of all the aircraft in this list, this is the one that is most specialized and really highlights how important it is to understand mission types and roles before hitting the buy button. The A-10 as a airframe has largely been focused on close air support, CSAR, and COIN. All these mission types rely on the aircraft operating in "low intensity" areas where enemy aircraft, long range radar SAM systems, and other major threats are either gone or too far away to do anything. Unlike the Hornet or other fast multi-role jets, it can't really do deep strikes into defended enemy territory without getting shot down. About as deep as you will get behind enemy lines is just behind the front line to do some BAI attacks. If you can work inside its limits and really commit to the roles it is actually supposed to be used for, you will find this to be a potent, rewarding experience. If you try to use it like a Hornet or a Viper and try to use it as a strike platform, you will have a bad time. The A-10C module has a reputation for being "very hard to learn" and "very complex" but I am not sure I really buy that. If anything, I think a lot of that comes from players who are using incomplete and/or incorrect information sources to learn the aircraft and as a result, they understandably get confused when they don't get all the info they need to effectively learn and use the aircraft. This is a module that REALLY rewards players who can embrace learning from a manual since using the manual will probably be the (despite popular belief) smoothest, most complete way to learn. It isn't really a difficult module to understand but you do need to get over a bit of a hump at first. Once you understand how the HOTAS controls all come together, it actually gets pretty straightforward to learn.

I am not sure I agree with the somewhat popular notion that it is a good full fidelity module for a beginner. On one hand, I can understand that its simplicity makes it a popular module overall and I can understand that said simplicity can make it seem less intimidating to new players at first glance. That being said, we are talking about a consumer flight simulation built largely for entertainment and as such, new players should be encouraged to only spend money on aircraft that truly excite them and they should be ACTIVELY encouraged to use the rather ample, easy to understand resources resources to learn whatever module they end up choosing. I kinda think of it like this. The specific version of the F-5E that we have in DCS World is more like a DACT aircraft than anything else. It is great if that is something you very specifically want but if you are a new player that is attracted to DCS via more glamorous aircraft like the F-16, F-14, or the F/A-18, getting told by many voices (who will seem very experienced to a new player) to buy the F-5 and essentially "work your way up" to what you actually want is not unlike getting told you should buy the L-39 to work your way up to the F-16. It is unlikely that the new player who wants to get into the F-16 will ever, ever touch the L-39 again after making the jump. It turns into potentially wasted money that could have gone to what they wanted to begin with. Now, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that one should NEVER buy the F-5 module. I own it myself and enjoyed learning all its various systems, procedures, and quirks a great deal. What I am saying is that the F-5 (like the L-39) is a good module for those that specifically want that experience. If I were to go back and make all my DCS purchases again, I would still have gotten it after I got modules that interested me a lot more. It is a good second, third, or fourth module but I am not sure I would tell a new player that it should be their first just because it is less complex.

This gets into something I have noticed more and more as DCS's public server multiplayer scene has grown over the years. At its core, DCS is a very good "single sortie simulator" where someone builds a stand-alone, single use mission with a defined beginning, middle, and end. This is where you are going to find a lot of DCS's strengths as a platform come into their own. The problem with these kinds of missions is that they simply can't work in a public server setting. In a public server, you need scenarios that are pretty open ended, sustainable for long periods of time, and allow for players of wildly different skill/knowledge levels to jump in at any point and feel like they are participating meaningfully. I suppose what I am trying to get at is that in a public server environment, aircraft modules that favor carefully planned sorties are going to feel less satisfying because the mission makers who design public server scenarios can't really do much more. Modules like the Viggen are great in small-scale co-op or single player where you can really explore them but in a public server, they need more attention than the mission maker can reasonably give them.

The Mirage generally meets the standard but that was most certainly not the case until the French AdA actively got involved in the project and provided data and feedback. Keep in mind, the Mirage came out in 2015 and the AdA informed overhaul didn't happen until 2018. That gap in time is important since before 2018, the Mirage module was in a pretty bad place in terms of meeting the existing DCS standard for attention to detail and the impression of realism. As I have said in the other thread. I think the big lesson that should be taken away from this controversy is that ED needs to put in place some tighter standards when it comes to third party module approval. Perhaps even a full outline of what data/documentation a third party has/can realistically get access to during the project, what SME's they can secure, and what their overall "feature complete" product will look like in terms of overall fidelity. That might help maintain a standard while still giving some wiggle room on a case by case basis.

If I were to put forward some modules that I feel represent good ways to handle the standard we expect from DCS as a whole, it would be the A-10C, the F-14B, and the JF-17. The A-10C is a obvious one. it is quite complete and while there are bugs and some performance inconsistencies, it has a massive amount of obvious systems depth and what is changed due to classification/secrecy issues makes sense and isn't obfuscated from the player. The F-14B acts as a good part of the standard because you could see the effort Heatblur put into research and getting all the data/SME support they could possibly get. They came into the process with a clear goal to model a specific set of aircraft with specific characteristics and did not deviate. On top of that, the F-14B (while only part of a larger upcoming package) released in a nearly complete state. The functionality it was missing was consistently talked about and those who wished to know more were never dismissed. Even now, the Tomcat is receiving obvious support from Heatblur. The JF-17 is on this list simply because it is a good example of a developer handling a aircraft that is still somewhat mired in secrecy issues in a open, straightfoward way. We know that some aspects of that module are kinda guesswork but Deka went out of their way to make sure that they still felt right to the player. What's more. Like Heatblur before them, Deka are very good about putting in "place-holder" features that are actually functional while they wait for ED to come in and fill the gaps with core functionality. What both Deka and Heatblur have in common is responsiveness when major DCS updates break functionality. When ED recently changed the ground radar EXP functionality, Deka already had their own "place-holder" setup that was broken. Instead of complaining about it and refusing to work on it until some unspecified time, Deka got with ED and worked out a fix very quickly. While all these different modules have varying degrees of realism and systems fidelity, they all feel consistent to the player overall and are properly supported without major fuss. This is the standard that I think a DCS player should reasonably be encouraged to expect and if a third party isn't meeting that standard, they are going to stand out and get a lot of attention they may not want as a result even if a subset of their customers think the aircraft is "still fun to fly".

I have full faith that you and everyone else at ED are trying very hard to find some kind of solution to all of this. Even then, I am concerned that this will result in perhaps a six month long burst of meaningful progress and communication and then we will end up right back where we are now. This cycle isn't a new one and that is the part that I think some of us are really concerned about. We know that you are in a tricky position because you are kinda stuck in the middle with all of this. To be bluntly honest, RAZBAM themselves should really be handling this and not you. The question I have is what happens if we end up in this situation again a handful of months from now? I know you can't speak for RAZBAM but maybe you could tell us where ED stands on this kind of thing. Is there a system in place that can help soften the blow of a worst case scenario? Again. I really don't like being negative here and I am choosing my words pretty carefully so that I don't step on anyone's toes but this isn't the first time this has happened and while I hope it will be the last time, I also hope that if it isn't, ED has some kind of plan or system in place to get people what they bought and payed for. I mean, as far as RAZBAM is concerned, the Harrier is out of early access and while I am aware that they have stated that they will continue to update and support the module through "product sustainment", I am still getting pretty worried that I have been waiting a long time for a complete module that will never happen. Hopefully I am wrong but if I am not, I would like to know that ED is willing to step in and have a stance on things.

There are some that keep coming into this thread with this same line of thinking and while it isn't outright correct, it is also not the whole picture. I have been playing DCS for going on a decade. I have bought just about every module with only a few specific exceptions. I know that when I buy a module, I am more than likely getting a early access product with the promise that it will eventually be a full, complete release. Obviously sometimes things go very bad (VEAO and the Hawk module is a good example) but for the most part, ED, Heatblur, and Deka have been good about (and this is key here) demonstrating their willingness to complete the modules they make via steady updates, (at least) decent enough communication, and generally positive, non-adversarial, usually professional behavior when faced with the occasional controversy. When I bought the F-16 module, I knew I was getting a extremely unfinished aircraft but I didn't freak out about it because I also know that ED is quite likely to finish it. I know that they went into the project with the information and SME support they need to get it up to standard. The same can be said of the F-14 and Viggen by Heatblur. Heck, even Deka has come in with not only a pretty solid module but also a strong amount of early access support that has meaningfully pushed the aircraft towards a complete state. The point I am making here is that for the most part, while it can be sometimes frustrating to wait, ED, Heatblur, and Deka have managed to release things into early access that one can be reasonably confident will get finished. They all seem to be shooting for a similar level of fidelity and sometimes they even go above and beyond what is in DCS's core (which is another very important detail in all this). It might take a while but buying in to early access with them isn't a obvious risk. RAZBAM is a different case. When they were gearing up to release the Mirage, they marketed it as if it were a full, DCS level simulation of a Mirage 2000C-RDI model but when it came out, it started to become pretty clear that RAZBAM's lack of support from Dassault, the French Air forces, and even SME's just wasn't where it needed to be. They filled in a lot of gaps themselves and we got something pretty similar to the "frankenviper" in the other combat sim. Heck, they even used performance charts from said other sim to build the Mirage module.) We didn't really get a full idea of how far off it was until the AdA actually stepped in and helped them out much, much later. Had RAZBAM not been approached, the Mirage would not have met the standards set by its own store-page. With the Harrier release, we saw a lot of this play out yet again. Its initial release had a lot of bugs but that was forgivable. The big issue was really that it didn't get as much post-release support as other modules from other developers regularly got. It would get a patch here and there but things that other DCS developers would handle without snark and complaint were often somewhat drama filled with RAZBAM. They (like VEAO before them) would often retreat behind "DCS updates will just break everything anyway so why bother fixing this or that". People would point out bugs or even incomplete or absent functionality and RAZBAM would give us a a line like "ED needs to do that" or something to that effect. When they released the MiG-19, even that involved some drama as the RAZBAM developers were pretty quick to complain about the standards that ED had set for something beyond a early access release. They seriously thought that the MiG-19 was a full release when it first came out. Let that roll around in one's mind for a while. It was horribly buggy and had some serious, obvious flight model problems but as far as RAZBAM was concerned, they felt it was feature complete and got offended publicly when told that was not the case. Alongside the MiG-19 itself, its release also heralded some community upset about the state of the Harrier. Keep in mind, this was last year. Pretty much the same upset we are seeing now is only a repeat of what has already happened last year. During the MiG-19 release, I can't be absolutely sure and won't assert that it is true but I strongly suspect that ED talked to them about the Harrier's state because they seemed to come back at the Harrier with some degree of renewed vigor and didn't seem so bitter about having to do so (At least publicly). Again. this is my theory so take it for what it is. Sadly, here we are again. Only now we have some statements on the Discord from RAZBAM that indicates that they genuinely consider the harrier "feature complete" even though it not only technically isn't but is (more importantly) quite incomplete with what is there. I am not so much talking about issues that could fall into secrecy territory. I am talking about just things like how the knobs and switches function and basic stuff like that. Looking at their discord, we are again starting to get a picture of what happened and it is looking like the Mirage all over again. It is my guess that they took on the module without having a plan to get all the information they would need. They did the best they could with what they could get their hands on but it clearly wasn't quite enough. Sadly, I don't see a scenario where the USMC or Boeing will come in and help them out like the AdA eventually did with the Mirage. What we have is probably about as much as they could do with the information they were willing and/or able to go out and get. So here we are. The cycle repeats itself and while folks who have (sometimes very patiently) been waiting for a complete module are still waiting for some pretty significant and long acknowledged issues to get fixed, we are also yet again being told to shut up because early access is what it is. Well, the Harrier isn't in early access anymore and we are still waiting for early access problems to get solved. What else should we do here? What other choice do we have but to speak up a bit (hopefully politely) and hope that ED puts them to task? I have said this before but I think the real thing at stake here is not the Harrier module but every other complex module that RAZBAM makes in the future. Knowing what we know from the release of the Mirage and the Harrier, isn't it about time we get a clear, unmistakable idea of what RAZBAM considers a complete module? Isn't it time they tell us before releasing a module what they were able to get in terms of information and how that will translate into a complete module? Perhaps it is time for ED to set firmer, stricter rules when it comes to third party project approval? This probably comes off in text as more hostile than it is in my head as I type it. Please note that I am not saying that RAZBAM is "scamming" us or that they are intentionally and maliciously misleading us. I think they genuinely have a standard they shoot for internally but perhaps that standard isn't what ED and other third parties have led us to expect. This current debacle is going to keep repeating (and probably for future RAZBAM modules as well) until they either make it clear that they are working towards a lower level of fidelity or they find some way to reach the standard set by their peers. I for one hope that this is the last time we need to (as long-time Harrier owners) ask why we have not seen significant, consistent updates.

Perhaps that was a aggressive word choice and for that, I apologize. I should also have made it clear that I am replying not just to your "what to expect next" list but also the post you made before it which I will quote below. Again. I am not trying to put you on tribunal here for issues that are out of your direct control. The larger issue here is not just communication from RAZBAM to us on the ED forum but also the module itself, it's overall quality based on time developed, and what its final form is to be (and how that final form compares to what other third parties and ED strive for). While I am not really blaming you for any of this, I do think that the reason things have gotten where they are is because RAZBAM doesn't really make it clear what they consider a complete, full fidelity module. This happened with the Mirage (before the AdA stepped in) as well. When RAZBAM first released the Mirage, it was not only incomplete but also incorrect. It took a long, long time for RAZBAM to even acknowledge that they didn't have all the information they really should have had before starting the project. Maybe this has worked for them thus far for sims like FSX but the community here will really dig into this stuff and will get vocal when something isn't right. The Harrier has had a very rough life so far. Maybe RAZBAM largely considers it feature complete but it does not currently match other DCS modules in terms of basic levels of detail and overall systems fidelity. Some of that can be explained away due to classification/secrecy issues but some of it just can't. So. I apologize for picking my words wrong but you can see how I might come to the conclusion (based second quoted post) that you spoke a lot about what the community is doing wrong without really tackling the root cause of that (sometimes too extreme) upset.

To be honest, I don't really worry myself about the other modules they tease or even officially announce. What worries me is the Harrier module and the fact that has been out for so long and so many bugs, incomplete systems, and outright missing systems haven't been dealt with even when RAZBAM actually acknowledges them on either this forum, facebook, or their Discord echo-chamber. I get that you got a bad deal. I didn't envy your position as a CM at all. Still, don't try to deflect this all on us when we are here because of the quality of RAZBAM's work and their business practices.

None of this helps and none of it actually confronts the real problem. Passing the blame to people who bought the modules doesn't really make sense when you consider that a good many don't even go on the forums, the discord, or anything and just buy the modules they are interested in. Are they also to blame in your eyes? Are they also responsible? It is true that the community tends to think about wishlists more than they should. It is true that some are probably too quick to defend a developer when they really, really push things to far. Still, that doesn't make this issue any less worthy to confront and all you are doing with posts like yours is to help maintain the status quo as it is instead of trying to find real, honest solutions. Right now, we are at a point where ED might be able to make RAZBAM see the problems we are talking about. It might not amount to much for the Harrier but maybe this will help clarify things for future modules they make. Perhaps it will help RAZBAM to understand what is expected of them. We gotta try to stay constructive about this. Sneering and pointing fingers isn't going to solve anything.

I would be more willing to get on board with this line of thinking if RAZBAM had made statements about flight modeling difficulties that supported it. So far, RAZBAM seems to maintain that the issue is more about secrecy and what they are and are not allowed to put into the module (or even complete if it is already there). If they could not afford to complete the rest of the systems after doing the flight model, that is on them and it is simply not appropriate at this juncture to give them more money on top of the original selling price to get the module that we were promised as part of that original selling price. Don't get me wrong. I get that making a DCS module is a tough, expensive, time intensive job. I think many of us in this thread are more than happy to acknowledge that it isn't easy. That being said, the harrier being VTOL/STOVL doesn't justify the state it is in now. From my point of view, this isn't so much a Harrier specific problem as it is a RAZBAM issue in general. After seeing how the Mirage development went, I am not surprised to see a very similar set of issues crop up with the Harrier. To be honest, I don't think RAZBAM was prepared for the level of detail that the DCS community (rightfully) expects. Nor does it look like they were prepared to meet the general standards set by ED and other third parties (both in terms of quality of work done and desired level of overall simulation/fidelity). Perhaps this is a case where RAZBAM has their own internal standard and that would honestly make sense considering they got their start as a third party developer for Microsoft Flight Simulator stuff. That title has many, many developers who all operate largely independently from Microsoft and can all set their own standards. In DCS, there is one general standard that everyone strives for and audiences expect, I don't think RAZBAM was prepared for this. I don't say this to be mean to them, I say this because it seems to be how they have operated thus far. My fear right now is that if we don't get this all clarified with the Harrier, it will become a even bigger, even nastier problem when they release the F-15E and it has a lot of the same issues. If they want to make modules that sit in their own realism/complexity/fidelity level separate from all other full fidelity modules, they really need to make that clear right now so we can all adjust our expectations for their future work.

My big concern right now is that the communication issue goes much, much deeper than not getting on the forums (which really should be a requirement in the contract if it is not already) or even the elevated emotions and rather rude statements. I think the big issue is that they really need to be more forthright about what they think a finished, realistic, full fidelity module looks like when it leaves early access. When ED or even other third parties announce a module, there is usually a understanding that there is a certain standard of fidelity/realism that should be met. Sometimes things need to get fudged for secrecy's sake but generally we know that when we buy a full fidelity module from ED, Heatblur, and Deka, we are going to get a simulation of a specific aircraft that has been heavily researched, sourced, and recreated to at least mostly match the standards set by ED. With RAZBAM, I get the impression that they are not willing to do that to the same level that other DCS developers are. It seems like they didn't really expect the expectations for detail to be so high. I mean, it kinda makes sense since they were coming from FSX where the standards are very different and they didn't really have to work on a still developing/evolving product (like DCS World as a whole). So maybe now is the time for ED to have a serious talk with them about the expectations they should prepare to work under and what kind of methods they should work on adopting to meet those expectations. Given their track record, I fear that the F-15E release will be a very controversial affair for the larger DCS community so it might be a good time for ED to nip some current behaviors and approaches in the bud before they become a much, much larger, much more visible problem.

When it comes to the public server regulars, I agree with others that this is the kind of time where some folks get a bit busy and may not be able to hang out on the servers as much. It is just how this kind of thing goes. On the other side of things, I think it isn't exactly a great idea to use the public servers as a meaningful yardstick for player retention overall. Many players (like myself) have no desire to go on public servers and instead focus on private groups and private servers. For a lot of players, single player is also a big deal (even if such a statement is controversial in some circles). The public server scene in DCS isn't really for everyone and will sometimes act as a pathway for players to eventually find isolated, private groups to spend their time on.

NineLine, I appreciate your replies and the time you have spent doing this thus far. I do have one question. When the internal bug tracker does start generating some results and all that information gets to where it needs to go, what should we (as the community) do if things don't really change for the module itself (via updates and the like)? What can we reasonably expect ED to be able to do? I don't ask to be a downer or anything. I guess I am just at a point where I struggle to even have cautious optimism about the module. I hope that there is a way to get everything on track again.

In pretty much every other case of early access in DCS, I would absolutely agree with you. Even ED's own projects are fine in that regard since there is obvious forward motion with every update. Sadly, we can't really say the same about the Harrier. It has seen some minor updates but considering the sheer amount of time that has passed since a major update, I think we are past the point where patiently waiting for early access to run its course is going to mean much. If there is a issue that is preventing them from making any more significant progress, we are at a stage where we kinda need to know. We have been waiting for years and while I am indeed patient, I am only so patient before I start to feel like I am getting taken advantage of. Perhaps my big concern isn't so much about the Harrier at this point. It is that the F-15E is a much more complex module and I think it is not unfair to ask if it might be a good time for ED to really have a straight talk with RAZBAM about their definition of a complete module and how that compares to the expectations/standards that ED and other third parties are setting as the norm. I think the big frustration here is that the Harrier module is a pretty decent foundation. It could be a great module but it needs serious commitment to get there. RAZBAM needs to demonstrate that commitment and thus far has not really done so. Don't get me wrong. I don't want to be a downer here. I don't like being this negative on the forums if I can help it. Still. We have been waiting years for the Harrier to see significant progress but all we seem to get is either ignored outright or excuses that don't quite add up. If they want to sell more modules to those that already own the Harrier, they are going to need to put more effort into the process so we can have faith in them again.

At this point, I think a good step would be to have someone in the RAZBAM development team actually post a serious, meaningful update about where they feel the Harrier is as a module and where they expect it to go from here. As of right now, the module isn't really what we were advertised and as much as I would like to avoid being negative about this stuff on the forums, that is not okay. If they are happy with where it is at now, so be it. If not, it would be good to actually know where they want it to go and what they plan to actually do to get it there. Is there anything ED can do in this regard?

Unless I am testing stuff in the mission editor, I always do a full start because why would I not do so after paying a significant amount of money for the ability to do so. Additionally. I find doing autostarts and the like really boring. It is just more interesting to learn the start-up procedure and do it.