lunaticfringe

Understand two things prior to the following: 1. I am in agreement with Sith pretty much across the board, and 2. I was only in the E3 thread long enough to review the tail end of the conversation that docfu was driving, which I do find to have been "constructive". That said, this has to be responded to: That's just... wow. Have you ever been part of a beta? It's *all* criticism. Every bug, every modeling failure- that is criticism. But let's not have that. Every release is hunky dory. Let's just have us an echo chamber and treat one another as though we're all three years old and need to be taken on walkies, nappies, and snackies. Nothing is ever wrong, nothing is ever out of sorts. Everything is great all the time. No one ever has the right to post criticism? Don't go into business on your own.

Have I stated that it requires these tools? Nope. I have no problem with the F-15 not having JHMCS, Sidewinder-X, or APG-63v2/3- I only have so much time in my day to cope with whining. :D

No, my statement is functionally accurate and deliberately pointed. No, it was a specific aircraft, as qualified in the exact same sentence. Following along with the rules of English is not especially difficult.

An APG-63 with PSP or a -63v1 against a Su-27SM is unbalanced against the Flanker. The Su-27 is not capable of going 1:1 with the F-15 BVR. Stop calling it unbalanced. Balance is generated through applied doctrine and scenario design- not false equivalency.

You're making the assumption that it is only by pure numbers (players and dollars) which constitute success for the developers. By that measure, they might as well throw in the towel, as DCS will never reach the volumes that Ace Combat will. Simulation by its very nature is not accessible, except by those who have the drive to learn- competency becoming a means to its own end. But a simulation that instead lowers its difficulty, not for the lack of sufficient modeling data, but for the aim of "bringing in the unwashed masses", is not a simulation. It's not even a game, really- it's a circle jerk. There are enough rabid true-simulation fans on the planet willing to spend their money on ED's products that, should they continue the stream of releases that those show interest in, the firm will never go hungry. But you cannot maintain their passion by, for lack of a better way of putting it- "selling out". You won't keep your best customers- those who make the mods, those who bring people in as advocates, by lowering the quality. And that goes for the nature of players brought in as well. Working on a board wargame simulation that is more advanced than anything else on the civilian market, and operates in a very small space of what DCS would do comparatively, I've had this conversation with a lot of people- it's not always the product; sometimes, the one at fault really is the customer, and their inability to discern what it actually is that would be a better expenditure of their dollars to find what they're looking for. Just because the customer wants something easier or "more accessible", it doesn't mean that the design staff has cause to create it. If they have the mind, they can devise an entirely separate product and line. If one wishes to abide by a standard, then they should abide by it, and do their utmost to attain. Otherwise, they're only fooling themselves.

Unfortunately, Frostie, he tried derailing the thread and never picked up on the fact that the rest of us weren't going along for the ride. Yes, a new thread that can e ignored would have been awesome. Instead, we get told that we're not paying attention to something that actually didn't happen.

^ What he said. ^

Next time you want to go sit in the corner and mumble about "not talking reality anymore", be sure and delineate this for the rest of the forum. So that you can be ignored, and others can refrain from wasting their time.

There is a very specific reason that an ARH missile requires going active (unless the shooter has the target in STT) that you apparently don't know, Maximus. And frankly, it's not worth the time to explain it to you. So please continue blabbing on and on- I'm getting a really good laugh out of it.

In light of the upcoming F-86, I ask: Interested, gents?

Sure. Yet, should we also not advocate for what will be best long term for the simulation as a whole?

Yes, and one can stick their hand in the blender and push "Puree"; doesn't mean it's a bright idea. :)

I disagree with this premise for a very specific reason: it forks what ED constitutes as baseline. They need to spend the time doing the real work on the radar model to define how it will be represented across the spectrum of products, so that, while aircraft will not be fully attributed to their real world performance, they will "scale" appropriately across compared systems. DCS' radar model should be internally consistent, which means that ED must lead the way.

There are a dozen ways to skin a cat; it all depends on how clean you want it to be, and the quality you want it to be left in when complete. Now, given that you don't like the height, I'm not sure if the drop of a few inches (thickness of the desktop and the minor shift down based on the offset from that to the top of the sliding tray) is going to make this any more comfortable for you. Thus, I would redirect your attention to the ballasted pedestal linked in my last response. This would allow you to find the sweet spot based on your chair and sitting arrangement, independent of the desk itself.

Yes, yes, only temporarily. All of the force you're applying to the stick as leverage will work its way to the rail. Based on the illustration you've provided, when you're maneuvering in the y-axis, that force is going to work against the design of the rail's guide wheels and track, pushing them up and down relative to the desk- the direction that they are not designed to go in. Too much exertion over time, and you start warping the rails. Not with 30-50lbs of ballast. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=121049 As to the quick-release clamp, I've got to disagree. First time you accidentally hit the release, you'll know why. For temporary stuff, depending on how you feel about the desk itself, I'd consider installing studs along the length of the stick stand's path, same as you were going to drill holes for the rails. Drill matching holes in the stand, and install with wingnuts and washers. This gives you the ability to pull at any time, and braces your stick as a solid fixture, allowing for load to be borne by the whole of the tabletop panel itself along that path, rather than just the immediate screw points for the rails.

And we did it! Thank you gentlemen! If you've been on the fence, unsure you'd get some sick threads, you better get in while you still can- less than 48 hours left before this baby goes to press, and away for good.

I wouldn't expect anything until after air to ground radar is proven to work. Ergo, you're stuck waiting until after the F/A-18C.

Target is now *2* away (given that I'll put my order for two in tomorrow evening). Get the word out, and let's get this done!

Speaking from experience, stay away from rails. Ask yourself how often you will be using that specific station for simming, and if it is the primary role, make the mounting station permanent. If not, devise a pedestal device such as those that have been constructed for the Warthog or similar. You can get away in hardwoods beginning at 3/4s if constructing from lumber with the correct fastening methods.

Alright gang, one bump late in the game: with just over four days left, we are at 80%! So if you have any friends, family, or coworkers that you showed this to, but they were uncertain, now's the time to remind them to put in their order.

There was on this subject too, until it vacated the premises. Thus, you'll understand my query in light of the immediate events leading up to it. Always am; I expect nothing, thus I am not frustrated by delay or changing priorities. Others do, hence the volume that can take place here. And understand- I am sympathetic to the events that forestalled what ED intended to do at E3; I myself have traveled cross-country and had thousands of dollars in demonstration materials destroyed in transit, being left to pick up the pieces on the fly. It is indeed a known hazard from this chair, and one that I have respect for from your position. However, I'm looking at this too from the perspective of others who were involved in the aforementioned conversation. Having it disappear doesn't do much in the credibility department; its easier to confront the issue head on, and, even if you choose not to act upon the suggestions offered, maintain the air of interested party. Always intend to maximize the impressions, as it were. And so I agree- it didn't go as intended; but I also see it as being a potential learning experience for more than just the technical side issues.

Seriously: Weta had a point. Yet, so did docfu. Sorry gents, but this is getting ridiculous. The E3 thing was rough. Technical difficulties suck. But presentation does count. It doesn't mean bringing a full-up simulator with all the switches to a private back room showing, but if you're going to let them tickle the ivory (in opposition to Weta's angle), you let them play the Steinway, not the Casio (which was docfu's). It sets a tone- you've got a serious product on the way, using this new technology, and you want them to experience it to the level they can in their own home. People using the Rift are going to *have* high quality gear, and what's more- they're not going to be able to have full-up simulators anymore. But being able to hold on to what they *can* use with the visor down gets them far closer to what you want them to experience when you let them into the aircraft. It's not harping; it's not expected that a small studio is going to have a lot of folks dedicated to real promotions. There does, however, need to be some polish. It's not like handing a runner the corporate Amex so they could run down to Frys or Micro Center and pick up a Warthog and pedals is going to put a massive dent in the budget. Refreshments on the way back aren't a hit if you're making the person comfortable. Feelies can be done as late as the flight over, with print on demand services for the local Kinkos. This is part of business, and for what is little cost, reaps benefits. People want to see your product. If they're jumping through the hoops to schedule the time, making them feel like you're happy to see them, and not just putting them in a headset, is worth the effort. And realize: people aren't frustrated in this context *AT* you; they're frustrated *FOR* you, because they want others to see your product, which puts dollars in your pocket. Thus, getting confrontational, or upset because people aren't necessarily looking at the angle the same as you do cuts into what amounts to free PR. Don't cut that vein. This is not the programming side of the house where your experts abound; it's abundantly clear. Stand up like adults and take the criticism. Respond if you like. But pay attention to what is valid critique.

Site dedicated primarily for EVE.

That must have set somebody back a couple hundred bucks.

No, because I read the Russian military press and see the volume of complaints about the program. The blowers are well behind schedule, and nowhere close to their reliability targets. OMG those crazy russian aviation fans- if only the objects of their affections could fly on the strength of their dreams...