xaoslaad

The way you access ground units is a bit different. You need to enter a ground commander slot (there's another type of slot as well - the name escapes me) then go into the F10 view, select a controllable unit and click Me at the top and you should be dropped into the unit.

I don't see why giving beta or alpha access to a module requires an NDA. How many games give public alpha/beta access without any such thing, especially since steam started the early access stuff. I'm not terribly hopeful either, bUt in reality all you need is download links and to send out keys... since you can't fly without a key I'd argue the downloads don't evem need to be particularly locked down. Not knowing the whole process though I'm guessing there's probably something to make it not so simple.

I had no interest in physical stuff and my selections in the backer page reflected that. It might be better to compile a list of people who have selected physical rewards and seeing if they'd be willing to substitute - hopefully most if not all can be convinced; small runs of specialized stuff is probably going to cost a small fortune...

yep, already put in an edit :) "Edit: last post just beat me to it - guess that's more or less how they saw it too."

I'd argue it doesn't matter 'when' they were promised the key any more. I pledged at a sufficient level that I got my P-51D key right away, but it seems WWII is going to be released pretty much one piece at a time until we get the map/ground units at the end (and the 262/AI-B-17G even later). Why not start with the release of the available P-51D now instead of making them wait to the end for what reason I can't say. I pledged alpha teir 4 access and I'm guessing we won't be seeing anything alpha/beta now that we have this piecemeal release process. Just as an example, with an airfraft due in August with promise of beta access ("...DCS World FW-190D-9 with beta access (when available in early 2014)...") I'd suspect it's at or near that level now yet I hold out little hope of seeing anything prior to its launch, though I'd love if those of us that pledged it would still get the Alpha/Beta access to the products as promised. This isn't a complaint against ED. I'm hugely grateful that they are picking up where RRG failed - just pointing out that since the game (release plan) has changed and some of the promises may be hard to fulfill that it probably just makes sense to give everyone obligated their keys when possible... At least that's my two cents. They probably flawed for some reason, I'm sure. Edit: last post just beat me to it - guess that's more or less how they saw it too.

Funny, I think they should drop missions you play in multiplayer right into your missions folder with a .miz extension ready to go without hassle like so many other games do.

Oh, wait, except it's not. As I said, I have someone actively discouraging me from joining their server because I might like to use one of their maps. Maybe they're the same $2-3 person but unless they speak up I can't vouch for that. I do development too. I work on multiple open source projects. I submit fixes, bug reports, and pull requests to add features infrequently. I get no monetary incentive for it. It just improves stuff I use. Hell, I patch and build linux kernels for a distro to work on an ARM system and put them in a repo for others to consume all free of charge (couldn't sell it if I wanted to but I don't even ask for donations despite it sometimes taking hours to get them working, especially in the beginning...) People thank me when it works, sometimes. Occasionally someone stars, watches, or forks my github repo which makes me laugh that they would consider my junk worthy. And that's more than enough thanks for me. Maybe because I come from a culture of share/improve the idea that I want to keep something I created to myself because I haven't figured out how to make a dime off of it is foreign to me.

What Irregular Programming and Elukka have said boils down to what I believe. If this were Unreal, Arma III, or a myriad of other games people would be vying to get the most downloads for their maps/missions/whatever, putting them up on Steam Workshop, download sites as map packs, etc. They'd love to see their name plastered in the briefing/credits and get their 15 minutes of fame. And it is generally great for the games, providing good content, and re-playability. Not only that if someone has done something really clever in a mission and I'm inspired to do something else similar and so inclined I could look at the triggers in the mission editor to learn how to do that without recreating the wheel. But only when you get to flight sims do you see this jealous guarding of missions. I think it does nothing to grow the community or encourage people to play. I was actually playing last night and talking to a server maintainer who told me he preferred people did not copy off his missions. He had some arguments for that and I've made mine for why I think it's OK. We agreed to disagree and because I respect him I won't be putting up any servers with his missions (and I can actually say I have honestly _never_ done this anyway which makes the next part all the more amusing). On the other hand I got a private message from another server maintainer on these forums telling me never to join his server and how dare I even think about the prospect of copying his 'intellectual property'. Simply put: give me a break. Apparently I am not allowed to have my own opinion any more and should be bullied into stepping in line. Sorry, I'll stick to single player missions before that happens. As an aside, I think the fact that a copy of content that can be sold, if people have done that in the past as it sounds, is dumped on even non-purchasers systems if they play in a multi-player mission is a huge design flaw in the game.

It would be pretty lame to take credit for someone elses work, but its just about as lame to insist people only play it on your server. What happens when that server goes away (wont be the first time I've seen that happen)? what if you and your friends are on the side of the planet and I can't play with you no matter how much I love you. Or I have classes the night of the week you play. It really is silly.

That's f'ing amazing. Thanks for the mention of it.

Last paragraph is interesting, especially about DU being pyrophoric and fragments igniting after impact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_penetrator

3 missiles to take down one hind, plus a bit of gun, still lands it and walks away. track attached. HindDamage.trk

Easiest way to demonstrate how ridiculous the Hinds are is to load up the Su-25 instant action mission and shove 2 R-60's into the face of one of the Hinds. It will continue to fly like nothing happened. If you really need a track I can create one but it's not hard to duplicate. This is the shark to comanche conversion program. Flew back to base like that no problem last night.

The rail bridges are the worst, but vehicles will fall through other bridges and do funny things like drive on water as well. And with the mission with the bus that is invincible until it reaches its destination we tried destroying the bridge to get it moving again. No such luck. It continued to sit there. Once this happens the mission is doomed.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1988745&postcount=9208 No tail, missing wing, nose off the front, no hydraulics, an engine out... was able to maintain control and though I was bleeding altitude slowly I was able to put the thing on the ground behind friendly lines safely.

I'm with you on wanting the jammer aircraft, but I doubt people will settle for a 'less than realistic' implementation and that stuff from what I understand is about as secret as secret gets so we're probably not likely to see them. I don't know if it could be done the way are jammers work now where you have to be closer to the SAM for it to be able to 'burn through' like I guess our ECM pods work now, and if that effect could be amplified and made to benefit other aircraft in the range of the jammer aircraft, and if that's even remotely how it works or would be an acceptable implementation. Right now on the A-10C, etc. we flick a switch and magic happens in the background. I don't know if the interface for these systems is so simple on those specialized aircraft and if they could even get enough info to model the interface remotely accurately. Anyway, food for thought on why not to hold your breath. :cry: But I'll pray with you. :smilewink: This makes me love this stuff and the idea of flying something like this to aid a flight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPzFXW2KT2I

Gun pods? I think at least the Su-25(T)'s have those?

Sure, you say ego, but I go to the post that I created to report the bug to see status and now I have to go to another to see the update, when clearly mine was the original report. So your time is worth more than mine now. I deal with bug triaging, and I consider it a courtesy to the reporters to do an accurate job...

neither does your opinion matter to me, frankly.

If I report something on 4/4 and someone else reports it on 4/6, why is my bug marked duplicate? :music_whistling: I realize it's not _that_ big a deal, but still.

Looking at the tire it did not appear damaged. That is what I initially expected to see... unsure. Maybe I can try to recreate it and upload a track, otherwise at this point it's just annecdotal.

I landed hot, and just mashed the wheel break... something seemed to happen/break. Things got wobbly, but it didn't stop me stopping, turning around, and taking off again. Not sure if I 'just' broke the breaks, or what happened.

Thanks Sobek. I can see the huge difference in the distance the front tire turns when holding down the S key. Definitely makes a difference on turn radius.

dont know if it's a bug Not sure if it's a bug, or by design. I have no idea what the true ground turning radius of a F-15C is :-P http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2R3FvS4xr4&t=0m10s

Is the F-15C ground turning radius supposed to be the earth? I am finding it very difficult to taxi in confined areas where it was previously no problem. If this is accurate so be it, but is definitely a marked change.