osram

Some people might know me from my huge rant regarding the development of FW190 in the FW190 thread. My main criticism usually was, that ED should actually focus their resources on aircraft which actually fit in the era and battlefield of a modern military simulation, in order to get content and multiplayer diversity/completion growing as fast as possible. While I am still unhappy about internal focus on FW190, due to its WW2 scenario. I am glad to see how many third party modules were, and will be released. Happy about their quality.. and happy about what is to come from that corner, even for full realism aircraft. Some more modern era aircraft will hopefully be coming from that corner in time. Another good thing is, that some of the WW2 mumbo-jumbo... will now actually be covered through the IL-2 kickstarter project. Which will: A) Save resources for ED to focus on modern era. and B) cover the WW2 market... at the same time. Which is a very good solution, from my POV. If ED is able to convert these rather smart moves and circumstances into the release of timely modern era content, which fits well with existing aircraft... i.e. the battlefield, I have a really good feeling. Especially considering a new Engine or Nevada Map is underway too. Introduction of DCS World and it's modular functionality seems to really pay off. Especially when it comes flexibility... and resources. Glad to see that ED is actually heading in the right direction. And I'm totally looking forward to what is about to come. Also introducing cockpit/model updates and AFMs for existing/amazing aircraft like SU-27 Flanker is great too: I totally love the SU-25 T. Despite it's low-fidelity. Those quality, but low-fidelity-system aircraft.. will actually gap the bridge for non-hardcore sim-market... or beginners. And it is great to get some more variety in that regard. In my case for example, I enjoy the KA-50... and the SU-25 T. Sometimes it's just nice to have simplified "routes" to access weapons systems etc. Despite low fidelity systems. Since refreshing the hi-fidelity systems, after a period of not playing much... can be annoying too. Both low and hi fidelity have their advantages and target market. Totally hyped to see how this will go on over the next few months and years. Good Job - ED! :pilotfly:

The only thing I know, is that the HSI can deviate from readings if someone somehow rushes startup and doesn't wait for the needles to center. Other than that, it sounds like a bug.

I usually welcome healthy criticism myself.. since I'm usually rather critical and direct myself. Your complaints come across a bit wierd though: I think it's okay if someone does not want to get involved with the Editor too much, or finds it time-consuming to get into. That's perfectly fine. What I don't understand is that you blame the game for "lack of replayability", while sitting there.. running out of offline-campaigns... and complaining about locked servers... and the time-consuming editor... and how someone should implement some sort of campaigns or system... where you can get into more "easily"... etc. etc. etc. While actually sitting there, in Singleplayer/Offline.. isolated... from the actual "people"... and their content, available/playable online. . Instead of giving multiplayer a chance.. and therefore accessing more maps and "content" made by other players. And kind of getting in touch with the "rest" of DCS world. It sounds to me you don't care too much about multiplayer. Maybe I'm mistaken. But that's how it comes across. I believe there are still enough non-locked servers with challenging maps out there. Missionwise there is still quite some content and experiences to be had, or explored. Not everyone cares about "Stories". I prefer to have my own "stories" and experiences.. happening, dynamically.. while playing with other people.. during missions, online. No need for some phoney text and fiction. And blaming the game, for your own desinterest in actually exploring the game's full potential and possibilities.. kind of doesn't sound fair or right to me. A virtual "squadron" is not needed either. You can easily join an open server... hop into it's Teamspeak... if available... and hook up with others. Or just play along without comms... Still amazing, with decent servers/maps. And therefore experience... very individual events and stories... i.e. "campaigns". Maybe even more intriguing than what you know from Singleplayer. If you open up a bit, you might tap into content or experiences you might not have expected. Plus the maps/missions available for download on websites in no way reflect the mission-landscape actually available online. Since most people just host things running on live servers. It's only a fraction of what there is to be experienced in terms of "replayability".

I think my personal higher end of vikhrs numbers is around 5-6 in one pass... Manually disable laser. It will automatically laser on next target acquisition: This might be useful: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=102633&highlight=su+tutorial

If you really care, you can read it up in my posts within the FW190 Thread. I'm not going to explain myself again. Already done that thoroughly. And that's just my opinion and personal concerns.. so. Yes. You mean like with their official DCS World announcement about DCS being an open world zombie survival game? True. DCS has always been known for WW2 stuff. I remember those days in LOMAC/FC1/FC2 ... lots of fun with those La-7's and Spitfires... *sigh*

But make sure to include Ki84-LC. Those explosive rounds are amazing... plus crippling all the clients on a server to 2-3 FPS for 3 seconds isn't good enough IMHO. I'm pretty sure the Ki84-LC reigning fire and explosions across the land in DCS world would finally bring every client to below 1FPS. That would be great.

That's exactly what I don't like about all the FW-190/P-51 fandom, in a way. It doesn't really fit and belong into the DCS universe... at least not right now.. it would need so many modules to make it really "viable". And for my part: I want modern era modules over WW2 stuff. And here we go... despite my criticism in the FW-190 Thread.. they go "Nono... working on WW2 modules will not delay release dates of modern era modules... 100% guaranteed." Right.... And here comes the next module. The La-7. I don't know..is FW-190 considered an E-Fighter or a Turn & Burner? - If it's an E-Fighter to match P-51... we would need another Turn & Burner for the La-7, right? Because else the La-7 is going to be "out of place"... within a DCS module which is already out of place. So... we need a Spitfire, after the La-7.... because else the La-7 and all the WW2 fans are going to be sad. But wait a second... what do my eyes see... while flying over the DCS map of Georgia, in my P-51/FW-190/La-7? These houses and building models... they look totally out of era.. for me and my WW2 plane... Can't we get WW2 building modules? ... And the tanks... and ships... there's not even 2nd WW Yachts. Can we get those? Plox? Preferably before suitable DCS World, modern era content. Because i REALLY LOVE 2. WW PLANES in DCS WORLD!

Thanks for your addendum, Falcon. Interesting stuff about the Autopilot and other things too... much appreciated. Totally forgot that Kab-500Kr is TV guided. AP/ENR issues can also be avoided using "Course" AP mode, but this means additional time wasted to get back on course. Your solution is probably more elegant. The video is hosted on Twitch because it does not cost temporary drive-space and it streams/records directly to the twitch platform. I wouldn't know about vimeo, but recording, encoding... and converting videos for upload on Youtube or similar services is a serious PITA. Unless you convert exactly to youtube's internal "dimensions" in the proper formats, YT will just do whatever it wants to adapt to their formats/dimensions. Which means: Terrible quality and surprises, plus tons of work and time wasted. The video is recorded on true 1680x1050 at around 7/10 Quality... I can't test how that runs for downloading/viewing with low/medium bandwith connections. But its simply the best possible quality for my rather high upload rate of 10Mb/s. Jumping/skipping works for me... although lately I noticed that the position is not really visible, but seems to work nonetheless... maybe Twitch changed something. Rarely I might get short loading times... but maybe the quality is just too much for regular connections.. and pause + preloading might be needed. (If possible at all) Twitch has a direct Youtube upload function, might try out how that works. But still... that means max. video length of 15 minutes... which means like more than 5 or 6 parts on YT. -> Kind of "meh". IMO -.-

Ye.. that's just Track IR... and usually I don't have a "disable" button bound in Track IR, but I'll try to remember that before my next video. Guess when alt-tabbing, quickly checking something else.. drinking... sneezing.. etc. it can get quite noticeable. If you refer to a constant shaking/movement though, then there is not much I can do about it. Then maybe you are a non-Track IR user... and not used to it's movements? Hey there DieHard ;) I'm more of an office/IT guy.. but ye. I make sure of cussing enough, wherever I work. Even if it isn't on construction sites. About weapon engagement ranges, not sure if I forgot to talk about those. But I sometimes fire missiles, even if the range is really close to the limits... depending on angle/speed etc... sometimes they can still hit. The server is located in Switzerland. It is running on my 150Mbps DOWN / 10Mbps UP line right now @ 4.2Ghz i7 2700K, 16GB ram, Geforce 580 GTX. The packet routes don't seem to be too bad either. It should be close to optimum pings... i.e. East coast should be doable at around 120-140ms... it doesn't get much better than that, considering the distance. Plus in COOP it shouldn't really matter that much. Coop-Flightsims are especially forgiving in that regard. It's not a Multiplayer FPS, or PVP dogfighting. So basically even playing at 300ms ping wouldn't matter a lot.

Thanks alot for the positive feedback. Great to hear, and to know that my work or the way it has been done is not vain, i.e. of useless quality or without any "thought" behind it. This means a lot to me and is much appreciated.

That's an interesting thought. After all, with all the code & content redone and replaced... I suppose the only thing in the way of getting rid of Ubisoft's shackles.... would actually be: renaming the module to something which has no relation to "Flaming Cliffs" from a copyright POV. My suggestions: (Parody/Provocation/Payback/Stupid route) Framin' Cockpits (Artsy hipster style or hard-working metalworker style.. with a slight asian pronounciation, i.e. R-touch.) Frederic Cliff (Nothing to do with anything, at all. But sounds like a good, random name for the book-character of a detective i.e. private investigator. - Cool and smokin' 60ies Dick-Tracy style.) Fancying "Culottes" (Rather french and sexy direction... for playful skirt-chasers.) Glowing Fuselages (No comment. Just sounds really stupid, which could simply be interpreted as political critique towards stupid and unfair/artifical applications of Copyright. And a shout-out to press freedom and The Pirate Bay. The first letters at least have similar shapes... but are reversed.) Farming Carrots (Natural and agricultural touch. For the more traditionally oriented.) Forward Clockwork! (Enthousiastic, philosophical hypothesis about the ongoing and unstoppable nature of time... with a slight touch of Clockwork orange.) Cherry Fruit-Pie. (Yum!) Charlotte Fitzgerald (Another book-character: A bitter and disappointed widow, who has never been really understood by anyone... *sniff*) Changing Flaps (Yes. Because I can! - Idiots.) Or: Fighter-Jet Champions. (Slightly childish... but somehow has the cheesy and cool retro 80s touch to it.)

Well... as the title states... I'm kind of surprised that the replay issues have not been addressed. I'm sure it's no trivial problem to fix, otherwise it would already be gone, obviously. But nevertheless. I remember checking out DCS World when it came out, it had replay issues, which messed up most of my recordings when I was messing around alot with the SU at that time. It felt like problems caused by inappropiate "weight" from the loadout, or something like that. And since in the early days at replay start the loadout GUI would pop up (IIRC?) you could at least try to fix the replays... if you knew what kind of loadout was used in that specific recording. (I.e. what "weight" was assigned to the vehicle".) I came back after a "little" break.. and ye. None of my tracks work longer than 5-10 mins. max. With the current state it's actually impossible to create some cool movies for my own enjoyment and since I'm probably not alone, community-wise promotion of DCS is most certainly stagnating a lot? Which is a shame. :/

*Buh*! No. Not a reply with a solution, it's only me, osram. (Hah! was getting your hopes up, eh? :P) But maybe that little *bump* helps. I would say you need all the help you can get. My bet still stands: Doesn't really work without external SW. Get Xpadder or something similar, and do it yourself. Will probably take you like 1 Minute, even if you don't know the program. Even if it worked, you would already be done with Xpadder or simile by now. Goddamn "DCS only! *Mimimimi*"-Freak. You should not have wagered your soul on DCS! As soon as your soul arrives in my mailbox I'm gonna unpack it and draw little, pink penises and flowers onto it. Then I'm going to dry it, frame it and hang it up over my bed. And each time I go to rest, I will chuckle slightly and be content... about that wager with silly Xecky. Before sleeping like a baby and dreaming about the SU25-T 6DOF ED-Cockpit... and the DCS Ka-52 Alligator. :P

Wohoo!!!! It looks so beautiful. *cries in tears* - If that finally comes to the SU25-T I'm gonna be such a Happy Snapper sitting in a SU Cockpit all day long... with childly, glowing eyes... looking at that magical, sparkling cockpit. Hell, I might even try out the SU25-A for the first time... just because of that Pit. <3 ED. ^^

If people actually use it, it's still not completely useless when it comes to take-off/landing permission and preventing accidents. At least when it comes to not let 2 different people take off and land at the same time. And I think it will kind of even "warn" when theres some crashed plane on the runway. So I would recommend people to still use it in MP for taking off and landing. But yes. It is rather basic. For me personally it's still an enigma on how to get the ILS working reliably with the ATC, for example.. kinda broken. Also the Bearing/Heading replies from the ATC to properly move to the start of a landing glide-path don't make sense to me either. A better or more realistic AI ATC system or even a human player controlled ATC/Awacs role for CA would be quite great indeed, I agree.

I'll make sure to include more of those in future videos then. :P But IIRC the fecal ratio should decline quite rapidly after those first 2 minutes to make way for other wierd statements and at some point even some brief excursion to the joyful topic of "elefant-penises". Yes. I know. Don't even ask.

That's kind of wierd: After 1.2.3 I made a little Gunpod test with a mate. And thought they kind of "work". From what I can tell DCS has resolved to some sort of Hotfix regarding the Infinite-Gunpod-Ray and therefore other clients will not see your Gunpod-Tracers at all. But if I'm not completely mistaken they worked on my tests. Make sure to press C and then Ctrl + Space until you are NOT in "Gun" or "All" mode... Lasering for your Gunpods only works in GNPD Mode. I have noticed issues with Salvo Mode for the Vikhrs though. Not sure if SU25-T and/or even KA-50.

Thanks alot for your interest. ;] What do you mean by S and F bombs? Oh I guess.. probably Seeking (?) and Freefall Bombs. In any case: Thanks again. I haven't gotten to thank you for that old PM regarding the fix for SU-25T 6DOF and Angle-Restriction-Removal btw, but it hasn't gotten unnoticed. Just playing Ka-50 mostly, busy with server and other stuff.. Angle-Restriction is most important to me.. but maybe I'll get pissed about missing 6 DOF in formation flight or something, and take the time to verify your fix. Three Thank-Yous ... Jesus. I guess thats my new personal record for Thank-Yous in a single post. :) I'm getting too friendly. *grumble*

Interesting. I'm really not experienced with the DCS Engine or it's Editor. I mainly take care of running and maintaining our server/mods. We mainly use self-made maps, which are made by my valued friend, =STP= Moehk. Regarding your suspicion I'm not sure if there are any modified/placed ships in our missions. If there are, probably only "default" stuff. (If some ships actually are placed by default in the DCS Editor or whatever.) Also it's kind of annoying that regarding error analysis, looking at the crash file and its corresponding Servman Level 3 Chat-Log (Most complex Log) there seems to be no way to actually see which map was actually played during the crash. Since we only have two maps at the moment, it should be quite easy to identify the related map by looking at the killmessages from players on map-specific vehicles. But if that wasn't the case, or more maps involved. How is one even able to pinpoint which map was played? Gonna tell Moehk about it and let him know, so you two can possibly verify about your suspicion in suitable "mission-maker" meta-language. Because I basically have no clue about the editor. You can normally find us on GMT+1/Euro evenings on the TS in my signature.

I have most certainly taken my time to research the subject. And I disagree in your statement that most of my assumptions are incorrect or flawed. The only aspect debatable is actually IF resources and time is possibly "wasted" on an early FW190, over other work-projects: I still like your answer though... because if that truly is correct, then we wont be waiting for years until the next CA-related module is released. (And with that I'm kind of not referring to a FW190 - Even though I might at some point actually enjoy some P-51 vs. FW190 myself... as long as the other CA aspects/modules are being worked out too.) If ED is adequately efficient I suppose working on Aircraft B might not delay work on aircraft B... but for me, as a non-ED-employee that is hard to judge. Since I don't have the insight, it's hard to say if stopping/halting work on Aircraft B, might not actually accelerate progress on Aircraft A. Guess that depends on the question if each team within the different ED projects are actually being assigned their maximal number or maximal "saturation" of assigned employees, or not. Let's just hope what you say is true, and work on 5 different projects is done at the same speed within ED, as if it was only.. let's say, 3 different projects. i.e. if they actually hired an efficient number or enough employees... for all of their current projects. I hope you are right, so we can all enjoy the fastest number and highest possible quality of DCS modules ASAP. ;) And despite sounding critical within this topic, or towards ED.. and despite the fact that ED support has a lot of workload and possibly some backlog. I have had the pleasure to get in touch with very competent and caring ED-employees which have really taken care of my needs as a customer. And I really love their product. I think it's more than fair to mention this too, as to not make it sound too one-sided against ED and the work they accomplish every single day of the week. My posts within this thread were simply some slight concerns regarding the FW190 and/or module-priority.

Sorry.. but only a little test.

I am assuming it has to do with altitude.. The "problem-mission" takes place within large mountain-valleys mostly. since it's rather difficult to judge altitude in mountainous area... bottom mountain-valley level doesnt quite feel "much" higher, than regular plains areas. And even flying a bit further up, while turning back onto targets over the mountains at around 2-3000m (barometric?) altitude, it somehow feels exceptionally worse than flying at around 2-3k altitude over flat terrain AND around 20 degrees Celsius higher temperature on the "better/warmer" map. I don't think the SU25-T normally uses radar altitude, right.. its barometric? What I thought about is possibly turbulences/wind around mountains.. but I dont think that is actually modeled in DCS, is it?

1. I never stated that I know or am certain that FW-190 is the next module. I wouldn't like seeing it prioritized over new-age modules though, as I have thoroughly explained already. 2. Once again: I never stated that ED is certainly developing the FW-190 next. Seems like repeatedly stating my standpoint is still not enough for some to understand. o.O From a customer POV here there isn't much to "understand" in that regard... with ED's conservative information policy. And I respect their choice. I don't see how that would be any different for you? But hey. If you know anything more about module-prioritization within ED than us "regulars" do... feel free to enlighten us. I am very interested. 3. Nowhere did I state ED to disencourage development of a variety of different modules from 3rd party groups. I have no clue how you come to that conclusion. As a matter of fact I would actually prefer a FW190 in that specific case to be prioritized by 3rd parties over ED... to save ED's resources for "other" modules. But once again, I think I also made that standpoint quite clear repeatedly. Guess it's just a lot of text to read. Which doesn't mean you should misinterpret my statements. -> Really? 4. Makes sense. *shrugs* 5. I honestly don't feel like embarassing myself at all. And I usually don't give a damn about "political correctness", or always happily saying "yes" and agreeing to everyones happy opinion just for the "comfort" of it. And if I feel like a different standpoint might be a valid point or possibly valuable to the large picture I will simply make sure to be honest and get my message across. Not caring about "political correctness" doesn't mean I don't value respect. To the contrary... it's just that I prefer direct communication instead of hypocrisy. I still wonder how a user is supposed to gain comprehension about this specific subject matter, if there is no information available. So if ED publishes barely any information in that regard, the users are not allowed to at least make assumptions or talk about their concerns on the forums? Is that what you are trying to get across, Eddie? Because honestly. It doesn't make much sense from a logical POV. You are basically telling me to not debate and keep my opinion to myself... unless I start to learn about a topic where there are no official statements or clues. Kind of impossible what you are asking from me, isn't it? I see that especially wierd coming from an "ED Testers" dude, although I know you do not officially represent ED. And I'm pretty sure you don't hear that kind of statement from people in debates for the first time. But maybe that might still be a good incentive to be a little bit careful before telling people to basically STFU. ;) Just because there's an ED Testers Tag below your nick. I value respect. But I'm not here just for the sake of making "friends"... I am here to participate in a forum. A place of respectful discussion. Even if my standpoint might be part of a "minority" or the "uncomfortable" side. Or even if that meaningless "reputation bar" turns deep red, because nowadays people are too lazy to thoroughly read a few pages of text on the internet. I will voice my thoughts anyway. Feel free to prove me wrong regarding any assumptions regarding module-priority. And I'm not saying that I can predict the future, or have a business or marketing degree. Or know what's going on within ED. (Which is a shame, and might actually help) Just a customer/gamer discussing about the FW-190 module in DCS. Now that's what I would also call an assumption or rather direct accusation. ;) The "no offense" was actually meant in a truly honest way towards mjeh. I am not trolling. (There... another accusation) I am serious. But guess in a debate many people just read what they want to read. And calling the "Troll" card is always easy.. especially if you don't like someones opinion. Also I was truly smiling when reading Silver-Dragon's statement. But guess it's hard to get that statement across in a non-offensive manner.. especially in a "hostile environment". You can assume or accuse me of personal-level things like that all you want. I can only repeat how it was meant, not much more to be done. Sometimes it's just a good idea to actually "man up" a bit... instead of being overly sensitive on a personal level. Especially if there was no personal intentions whatsoever. Gonna leave you guys to the regular FW-190 talk now. Let's just hope for the best possible ED/DCS future. ;)

Your points are moot. Doesn't quite look you've read or understood, or actually "want" to understand my replies within this thread. I'm sorry, but simply stating I "contradict" my own statements out of thin air, doesn't quite cut the cake. The only contradictory thing happening here is you actually trying to turn my statements upside down since obviously you are possibly unable to refute with facts, or at least a weighted opinion. Man. I don't even care to check how old the whole 1946 release/stuff actually is... regarding flight model, that statement is possibly still argueable. For my part: I had amazing experiences with the P-51 in high-energy fighting and high altitudes. Can't say the same for the P-51 in here. But maybe that's just because it is kind of a "non-module" which doesn't fit in ;) It is very clear. The P-51 is almost impossible to integrate in a relevant manner, when it comes the predominant "coop" multiplayer gameplay. If I fly and enjoy flying in coop within DCS playing with friends in SU-25T, A10 and KA-50. I can actually "do" something.. and sort of complement the vehicles my friends are flying. The P-51 is extremely HARD to fit into that ensemble. It just stands there... and is useless. Does that make sense to you? No contradictions. Nothing to see here. The P-51 doesn't fit into what we currently see in DCS. And IMHO adding another WW2 plane will possibly not be the "magic remedy" for that problem. IMO The issue at hand is bigger than that. Here you are kind of admitting yourself that the P-51 alone is out of place. Why else would you need one or even more than one specifically tailored/fitting modules to change that situation? Plus you are acting as if ED or gamedevs had unlimited resources and 2-3 WW2 modules wouldn't actually push back back everything else by YEARS. So when will the customer feel the whole CA thing getting to a rather "completed" and diverse state? In 15-25 years? When ED AND 3rd party devs "pump out" a module every 6 months, I'll be the first to STFU and say: "Cmon! bring all that stuff.. bring it on! 1st, 2nd WW.. modern era... I don't care... development is fast and quality is good enough anyway!" But we haven't even seen a single 3rd party module yet... so none of us knows how well it will go... and don't get me wrong... I wish the 3rd party modules to push the rate of DCS, but we simply don't know yet how it turns out. Therefore my concerns. And in what order is ED prioritizing the modules? Can you answer that question? I can't. Because if it is FW190 first and possibly even WW2-module 2 and WW2 module 3 before everything else... then I don't like it.. that's all I'm saying. From what I understand the FW-190 is supposed to be an ED-internal non-3rd party module. So if that's the next priority, I'm honestly unsure if that's the "best choice" and direction we should be heading in since it WILL take up limited ED-development resources. Not 3rd-party resources. But here we are.. discussing about fairyland unlimited-resources development instead... and pretending that there is no need to be "careful" or critical. Acting as if that "single" nay-sayer has no right of existence. It's like "democracy" in the european union: It's a democracy where you're not allowed to say "NO."... and if you do the non-process is just repeated until everyone is forced into the EU and has said "YES". That's kind of how I feel right now, but that's OK. I am pretty sure my concerns are perfectly valid and I don't care if you, mjeh, respect that or not. That's correct. It's rather not my cup of tea... at least not withing DCS. But where you are wrong, is that it is more than just my personal opinion. It is rather a fact, as I cleared up for you above, the P-51 can hardly be "integrated" in multiplayer DCS mechanics.... and be it the P51 alone or turning this into a P-51 vs./with FW-190 will not change a single thing about that. It will just make it a P-51 vs. FW-190 which cannot be reasonably integrated into coop or versus with the EXISTING modules. It will be about a rather useless P-51 and FW-190 flying alongside other DCS vehicles in COOP vs. AI, but actually rather apart of the other modern Strikers and Fighters.... Or: It will be flying separately in COOP. P-51 AND FW-190 vs. AI OR P-51 vs. FW-190. Absolutely correct. And I stand up to my opinion. And there is zero contradiction in what I am saying. WTF are you talking about? How am I being disrespectful? For being critical? Or generally voicing my unpleasant/critical thoughts? I'm in no way personally/subjectively attacking ED or any other user within this discussion. And seriously. I don't want your respect... since you obviously lack it in first place: You on the other hand claim I'm disrespectful and simply constantly contradicting myself.. and try to push this to the "personal level" due to lack of arguments or respect/understanding/tolerance and repeated paraphrasing. Therefore you are actually the one being disrespectful and negative. I repeat for people who might be offended by my concerns regarding ED's direction: If my opinion is unpleasant... it should be considered "healthy concerns and criticism"... but actually an unpleasant incentive for the better. No personal intentions. Really reminds me of "democracy in the EU". ;) In EU parliament, and apparently some people here are having the same issue: failing to understand that healthy discussion and democracy needs a "YES" (PRO) and/or "NO" (CONTRA). Kind of perverted if you ask me. A healthy subculture NEEDS a PRO and a CONTRA. Otherwise it's simply not efficient, democratic and natural. If you really believe I am contradicting myself up to now, and even after this post.. you should seriously work on your "reading" skills. By all means... not trying to offend, but expect reactions if you are attacking someone and twisting their words. So how does Silver-Dragon's quote prove I am contradicting myself exactly? I am perfectly aware of his ED-marketing/thread quote. I remember reading it before his reminder and still have it present. If things go perfect.. that's good to know. But looking at it realistically it's nothing more than a neutral, friendly.. PR statement from ED. Nothing wrong about that. But it doesn't explain or guarantee anything of what we are discussing here. And I have to repeat: Even if my opinion sounds very unpleasant. I love ED. I really do. And I love playing with people who love ED, this game.. as much as I do. But I am also trying to be realistic and critical. LOL @ Silver Dragon. Sorry.. but I find your statement funny in a sympathetic way. ;) It seems rather cute. Don't know if it's your use of English or the statement or both. And this is not meant to belittle you.. really makes me smile, my friend. ED is not "lossing" Focus, and Silver-Dragon extracted that information from the forums! ;) *smile* Now I'm gonna sleep better at night! But honestly... I really wish ED and the 3rd Party devs completely succeed in whatever endeavors they have or whatever directions/decisions they finally take. But this ED statement does NOT give much information about WHICH modules are actually prioritized. Therefore it doesn't really answer any of this discussion or what I am actually talking about. And well... that statement is certainly debatable. I know ED is being extremely scarce with information/confirmation to protect themselves.. but as a customer it would still be great to actually know more precisely what product they are actually working on for the NEXT release at least. No offense, mjeh.

Just witnessed a wierd crash of Fightgenossen.ch, seemingly/possibly linked to a client using some specific weapontype? --------------------------------------- # -------------- 20130310-114119 -------------- # C0000005 ACCESS_VIOLATION at E6947AD2 00:00000000 00000000 00000000 0000:00000000 E6947AD2 001AF490 0000:00000000 ?get_burst_len@cLauncherAutogun@@IEBAHN@Z()+32 E6948A99 001AF4E0 0000:00000000 ?prepareNewQueue@cLauncherAutogun@@IEAAXXZ()+E9 E694975A 001AF520 0000:00000000 ?fire@cLauncherAutogun@@UEAAXXZ()+4A E693E463 001AF570 0000:00000000 ?control_fire@cLauncher@@UEAAXAEAN@Z()+193 E6958D57 001AF5A0 0000:00000000 ?maintain@wBarrel@@QEAA_NXZ()+167 F29986A1 001AF630 0000:00000000 F2998B6A 001AF680 0000:00000000 3F64B419 001AF710 0000:00000000 3F64DEFD 001AF770 0000:00000000 3F667594 001AF7A0 0000:00000000 3F66746B 001AF7D0 0000:00000000 3F6F7148 001AF840 0000:00000000 3F6F8598 001AFD30 0000:00000000 3F6FB11F 001AFDE0 0000:00000000 7754652D 001AFE10 0001:0001552D C:\Windows\system32\kernel32.dll BaseThreadInitThunk()+D 7777C521 001AFE60 0001:0002B521 C:\Windows\SYSTEM32\ntdll.dll RtlUserThreadStart()+21 DCS-20130310-114119.zip