Rotorhead

Every Friday when Wags posts his update, I can hear people whining "We don't care about the new contrails, we don't care about new 3D models, where the hell is some info on Nevada?" Well, there we have Nevada and BAM! People say it's ugly, it's disappointing, nada nada nada... :doh: I don't really know what can please some of you guys. Maybe the hills are still too much pointy, maybe it doesn't look that cool as you expected it but come on... You heard it's early WIP. And... This. This thousand times. Performance is what are we looking for. The current engine is slowly becoming a joke and we need something more efficient ASAP. There will be no use of new beautiful eye candy if it runs no better than what we have now.

I cannot speak for Belsimtek, but I dare to say that their reply will be obviously YES. Once developed, things like troop transport and (hopefully) slingload capability will become part of DCS: World and will be available for anyone who knows how to implement them. Or at least for any other Belsimtek module, that's for sure. Actually, I believe that Mi-8 will include many of these features already in Beta. Once these functions will work for one module, it will be not that complicated to implement them into another one IMO.

:megalol::megalol: Sum Ting Wong with those news guys... Their source must have been Mike Rotch :D

Thumbs up for this thread! Yeah, it may be helpful. So here we go: 1. Yes, I have no problem to take part in crowdfunding as long as it is a high fidelity module. 2. Yes for Beczl's Mig-21, no for F-35. 2a. For Beczl, I donated the lowest amount ($10 IIRC) and I'm a bit ashamed of it. I'd donate more, but I was in process of buying a new computer and had not much money to spare. Only reward I really want is a digital copy when it comes out. All the T-shirts, DVD's and printed manuals are nice, but nothing for me. 2b. As for F-35, I didn't donate because there were no assurances from the devs except unsupported promises and few renders outside of DCS. The plane itself was pretty interesting to me and I'd pledge it under other circumstances. (Although I'd not pledge any plane I'm not interested in at least a bit.) 3. The least I want to see is a 3D model with at least raw, basic AFM flying inside DCSW. If there are already some working bits of avionics, even better. It's also good idea to post some development change log, to show the progress. This way, people can see that the developer knows how to make things work, and already invested some of his money and effort into his / her module, and therefore is likely to finish it. It's also good when the developer has already some previous experience with DCSW to base upon. Generally, the developers may get in touch with the community in the very beginning if they want, but not ask for money unless they have shown some serious work and gained some support over the forums. 4. Well, hard to say. It depends on the plane, my level of trust towards the developer, my current financial situation etc. But let's say something roughly around $50 would be my ceiling. Let's hope that F-35 haters and fanboys won't turn this thread in another of their battlefields. :D

Agreed. Those angry nay-sayers are just a tiny fraction of our (mostly) friendly community. Of course they're also much more noisy than the rest, which makes them appear stronger in numbers than they actually are. All I hope for is that KI and all other 3rd party devs will take this failure as a lesson how to not promote a DCS module, and will take a more sensible (and succesfull) approach next time.

I'm afraid of the same, but I sincerely wish to be wrong on this one. I'd like to fly it one day. I understand your concerns. I think nobody here wants DCS to turn into semi-arcade game. But right now, we don't have enough reason to believe this is the case. After all DCS is ED's baby and I hope they will pick their partners wisely, so DCS can grow and flourish.

Which explains their failure I guess. What they've shown was not enough for so many people... Well, the guy was probably exaggerating when he talked about DCS Paper Plane, but he's got point. Yes, some planes are more popular than others, but I think that every "mainstream" module (F-18, Mig-29, Harrier, you know what I mean) would be in similar sales numbers as the previous modules. Same for F-35. And yes, many people here do buy all the modules, not always to fly them day and night, but sometimes only to try them out or just to support the devs. So please don't make the same mistake you're criticizing and don't speak for "the community". Really? We have some people around here who know quite a bit about real F-35, including a crew chief... Great. Now the situation has developed into name-calling. Yes, maybe some of them are little easy to convince, but calling them all outright idiots? :doh: And what about me? I haven't pledged, because I haven't seen enough evidence, but on the other hand, I don't share your hating point of view towards KI. Tell me, am I stupid too? You seem to be happy that there will be on potential DCS module less. Can I ask why? Maybe more diversity should actually help DCS, no? And who cares? How many Ka-50's were produced, and how many combat action have they seen? Not much, right? And does it stop us from enjoying Black Shark? I'd happily fly overpriced crap if properly simulated, shame on me. Well, it's always easier to see causes of the failure on the other side... But maybe you overestimate those "haters" a bit. But honestly, this discussion is getting a bit boring. It seems that there are only two opinions to KI, both of them extreme and not entirely true IMO. Life is not black and white, guys.:smartass:

Hi! I had this very problem in some early version of DCSW. I don't know exactly how I fixed it back then, but IIRC it disappeared after a complete reinstall. Maybe repair function should do it as well. Sorry that I wasn't much helpful. Hopefully someone with greater knowledge about this issue will post here soon.

:clap_2::clap_2::clap_2:

It depends... Yes, the decision to model F-35 was pretty controversial, because it's high-tech and classified and stuff... The widely accepted belief on this forum for long time was that 4+ / 5th gen aircraft cannot be modeled because of military secret. Every time somebody asked for DCS F-22, PAK-FA or even a Superbug, he was usually replied something along the lines "You don't know it's top secret? Go play HAWX you noob!" Yet now somebody comes and says "I can develop a high fidelity F-35 sim!" Of course it met some serious disbelief. The F-16, on the other hand, is declassified enough to be modeled at highest possible fidelity level without any problems. Everybody knows it because it was already done. So yes, F-16 would bring some more backers I guess. But I really don't believe that the "too much hi-tech controversy" was the major cause of KI's Kickstarter failure. As I already said many times, they came out of nowhere, having no experience with DCS and no proofs of concept in their hands, and asked for money. I guess the results would be the same for an F-16 marketed this way. And finally - I know I will be in minority in here - I'm not interested in F-16 so much. Yes, it's a nice plane - fast, agile, truly multirole and fun to fly, but personally, I was never appealed to this bird. I would rather put my money in F-35 (or many other jets) than in F-16.

Well, that part about "hope" sounds to me a bit like "we are not pretty sure if we can make it", but no matter - as always, better quality release a month later than a bugged one right now. But of course, having 1.2.5 by the end of this month would be nice. WOO-HOO!!! Of course it will! The vortices do look pretty! And did I hear performance? :thumbup: Great update, thank you Wags and ED guys!

I'm no gun expert at all, but AFAIK the knock-down effect is caused by the pain and surprise of being shot instead of the actual kinetic energy of the bullet. For what I know it's entirely possible to withstand a bullet hit without being knocked down. You mean that some of the energy of the aircraft is transferred to the bullet? True, because plane's airspeed adds to the bullets speed, giving it a little more punch. But some 150 knots of extra speed can hardly add so much energy to the projectiles to give them such magic power. The same goes for aircraft weight. Even if it was as heavy as the tank, the incredible recoil would stall it on dime.

I will judge by the final quality rather than names. I'm gonna wait then. Good things come to those who wait. Sometimes... I think it will be as much as fun as before - maybe more, because many people take the flight model as part of the fun and enjoyment. Actually, many spend hours just flying formations / aerobatics / just for fun, because they enjoy the flight model so much. I had tons of fun with LOMAC back in the day as well, but the AFM makes the experience significantly better. For me, there is no going back.

And that, I believe, is exactly what KI should do as well. If they had some money to spare (and I believe they had), they should invest it into early development and make something at least half-working. Then, they should open the Kickstarter campaign and say: "Look guys, we are working on F-35 sim, and this is what we've done so far. You can see that we have very nice results, but we need more money to make it to the finish." Yes, that would mean risking their own money, but that's business. I'm no financial expert so feel free to prove me wrong, but I'm sure this approach would bring them much more money than they have now. If nothing else, they would have my money already.

That. The only reason I bought FC3 was because AFM's are coming. And still, the simplified avionics is not interesting to me. So I guess my only use of FC3 will be some aerobatic routines with AFM Su-27 and that's about it. Honestly, last thing I want in DCS is more SFM planes. If they don't plan clickable cockpits (sadly, I always wanted to fly full-DCS IL-2), then I hope at least for AFM. However, it's exciting to hear that another gang is onboard. I wish them best of luck and hope they will bring us some nice addons! :thumbup:

That's what I said in another thread just hours ago: Man, I love to be wrong! :D You're my guys ED! :thumbup:

Fixed that for you. But don't mix up skepticism and mere negativism.

Thank you for clarifying it. Glad to have this one sorted out. :thumbup: Sadly, I have to agree. :( I always loved to participate on this forum, because of its friendly atmosphere, and the reasonable and educated discussions going on here. But for some persons in this thread, it seems no longer be true. I understand that F-35 topic naturally brings a lot of controversy (hell, I'm skeptic too and you know I don't hesitate to express it), but just like you say, some have stepped far over the line. No matter how this project results in the end, I really hope all the emotions will cool down over time.

So true. I'm only 25 (and I feel like 12 most of the time :D), but I'm already noticing this too. Especially, when the summer workers at my work who are 18 or so greet me "Good morning sir" instead of "Hey dude!", I always ask myself "So I'm really that old?!" :)

Right now, I was responding to outlawal2's post rather than criticizing the project itself. His words appeared to me like "Everybody capable of thinking was already convinced, those who weren't are bitter, sad idiots who just don't wish KI to succeed." Sorry if I misunderstood it, but that's really the impression his post made on me. Sure, there were trolls, but that's no reason to treat everybody who shows a trace of disbelief like this. As not being convinced myself (and I really hope I don't fit outlawal's definition of nay-sayer), I felt I should respond to this unfair statement. True, and that's why I don't like to see anybody with positive opinion demean somebody with negative one. And the burden of proof, by the way, should really be on the side of one who asks for money. So you don't see me. Trust me, there's a big difference between saying things like "They can never do it", "This project is a joke and I will NEVER buy it" or even "It's a scam", or just stating the fact that I'm not convinced and why. You could see me to do only the latter. That's what I admit all the time. That's what I already said insane number of posts ago. Agreed, I just don't like some people here to present their opinions as more valuable than the of others while they of course aren't.

Naturally I voted Yes. The 33 was my all time favorite back in LOMAC days and now, when I finally grabbed FC3 in sale (just to enjoy Su-27's AFM when it comes out), I would love the same changes to be applied to Su-33. But honestly, after ED giving all FC3 users 3D pits, and now even AFM for the other jets (except the poor MiG) for free, I'm not very optimistic on seeing them do just another major improvement for no money. But maybe one day... I would love to see it.

I wish I were as thoughtful as you are, to see hard evidence where actually is none. All reassurances I heard were Mr. Kinney's statements like "We are sure we can do it" or "You will not be disappointed". These are surely evidence of his enthusiasm, determination and dedication (which are good signs indeed), but he would not be the first nor last over-optimistic person who got burned. Of course they will. Of course. Very thoughtful mate. :doh: Maybe some of them would be actually very happy to see F-35 in DCS, they just haven't seen enough to be convinced and risk their money (no matter how small amount of it). But hey, it's easier to just throw them all in one bag and diminish them as bitter, spiteful and mentally ill individuals, right?

I sincerely hope they base their decisions on something more solid than mere faith.

True, but look at Beczl for example. He already did addons for FC before, and he showed us pretty big share of his work before and during his campaign. The basic idea was: He has the knowledge, he has the skills, he's already got some work done, but he doesn't have enough money to make it to the finish (or at least not in this decade). For me, that's all signs that it's relatively low-risk investment. KI, on the other hand, has done nothing for DCS before. They have zero experience with this platform, and no work done to base the following progress on. And nobody here is asking for a fully working model, so please stop twisting my words. What I'm asking for is a partially working model. At least basic 3D model with simple FM, flying in DCS. Bugged, unfinished, without avionics and stuff, but basically working. So we can say "This guy apparently knows how to do it, he just don't have the money to get it done." But that's not what's happening here, sorry. Stop comparing incomparable. When Belsimtek came up, they already had a working Huey to show us. And they asked no money beforehand. Once you paid for it, you could fly (almost) fully working Huey just minutes later. And we can see their another project, the Mi-8, to be at pretty high stage of progress as well. There I have no problems giving my money. But, if they came, let's say, two years earlier, before they started with the Huey, saying "Hello, we re the guys from Belsimtek, we have no previous experience, we have nothing done so far, and we cannot show you any proofs, but here we promise we will deliver an excellent Huey sim in less than a year", I wouldn't give them anything. Nobody here says KI is unable to start from nothing and make it happen (just like Belsimtek did - after all, all of us started somewhere, right?) but right now, there is no evidence to support it. That's all. I especially like this part of your post. Read this thread properly and you will see that nobody (except few trolls maybe) called anybody crook and liar. Being a liar and having no evidence to support one's promises are two distinctly different things, but both are a good reasons for me to not invest my money. So again please, stop twisting our words and basing your accusations on clearly faulty logic. You just decided otherwise than we did, no need to defend yourself (and KI) such a personal way. Thanks, your commendation really gladdens my heart...

So you come in here and start advocating KI after seeing ZERO evidence of their abilities, right? Truly, much wiser. Without any doubt, Mr. Kinney is surely a skilled and experienced man in his field. But have you seen any particular demonstration of his F-35 inside DCS World? Or, have you seen any of his previous work in DCS World at all? No you didn't, because unless I'm really missing something, there isn't any. Sorry, but just saying "Hey, I'm pretty good at my job and I'm confident I can do it guys" might be nice, but I don't consider it a convincing presentation of my project. So please don't be upset if somebody doesn't share your gullible approach. Let KI to convince us themselves, preferably by showing us something working inside DCSW. Isn't it essentially the same? *runs*hides* :)