Hawk_UK

Did I say I was talking about Starving College Students? NO! I simply generalising about those people of whom $80 dollars is a substantial amount of money to be spending on a simulation or video game, people who have other priorities in life, a family for instance but would like to get into DCS in the little spare time they may have..... those people need to know that if they spend that $80 on a DCS module then they want to know that it's $80 dollars well spent for them and that they will not regret it afterwards.... it's a lot of money for them, if the module isn't what they wanted or expected then they might as well have simply thrown that $80 onto the fire and end up totally disillusioned with DCS altogether. Trying to come up with suggestions that will improve an already good trial offer for many is surely a good thing if it leads to more people buying into DCS World.... I don't understand some peoples negativity here..... The more people who buy into DCS the more development, improvements, details that ED can implement for us all.

Exactly correct.... Thank you for your understanding!

Thank you..... for actually understanding what I'm suggesting mate..... you are only the second one here that can understand what I've been talking about.... appreciated!

14 days "real world time" isn't 14 days actual use of the module to get to judge whether to buy or not UNLESS you can play DCS World 24/7 for 14 days..... 14 Days "Runtime" is STILL only 14 days possible use of the module to get to know whether you want to spend your $80 dollars on it, just that one can use that 14 days around other family priorities without losing valuable trail time in getting to judge whether the module is the one you want to spend your $80 on. PS: I suspect like many others here that you are not actually reading what I'm saying but simply presuming what you think I'm saying and so coming to a completely incorrect understanding of what I'm actually saying..... understand??? :))))) 14 days trial is 336 hours.... Ed gave us that amount of time, so it's not something I'm asking for any extension on, is it!! :)))

And just what, if any, logical negation was it that you think you understood from what I've suggested?

Yet another who simply cannot grasp what I'm suggesting..... Didn't you understand, that in effect, the slight change I'm suggesting doesn't give anyone extra time from ED to get to know the module on trial at all, it gives the very same time of 14 days, so what's your problem with the suggestion?? Maybe you should read through my suggestion again and actually read it this time instead of allowing all your negative presumptions to dominate your mind, eh? :))) And like I've just told Mr SharpeXB, I do know full well what the trial is about.... I even suggested the trail format to ED as is today before it was even implemented by ED... go figure.

Thank you very much for the advice , buddy, but I know full well what the trial is for. In fact I did suggest the trial format to ED as it is now back before it was even implemented, and I don't like blowing my own trumpet but who knows, I may have been the one who convinced ED to put the current trial format into place except my suggestion was for a months trial period but the 14 days implemented was very reasonable too, so yeah I do know what the trial is all about and what for, Mr SharpXB.... You like others here obviously don't understand what I'm trying to express in wanting a slight adjustment to the way the current trial format is delivered... the difference between "Runtime" and "Real World Time"... it would make a welcome difference in the trial to many, I believe, but in effect gives you the same amount of time(14 Days) that we currently get using the trial now....... so there is no disadvantage for ED not to make this slight change to the way the trial is delivered. And $80 for a module is a lot of money for some people, you simply need to get things into perspective.... and yes many other types of games do cost around the same amount but they too are relatively expensive for many people.... $80 is not something most people can simply throw around on a whim and yes the current trial is a godsend for that reason so people can definitely know that the large amount of money proposed being spent on a module is the correct module for them..... This slight adjustment in the way the current trial is implemented would simply allow those who can't play DCS 24/7, those with other family commitments to get to know whether that particular module is the one their hard earned $80 would be well spent on purchasing..... for those that do like to make sure they are spending their money responsibly & wisely and don't simply purchase items on a whim hoping they will be good. So this is nothing to do with wanting to, "joyriding the game", as you accused me of trying to do at all, sunshine... It's about making DCS World and it's modules a more attractive proposition than it already is.... attracting those potential buyers that otherwise may never buy into DCS world at all.

Jeez... another one who apparently cannot grasp the fact that 14 real world days is no different than 14 days runtime.... in the time that you possibly get to actually run the trial module.... The first happens in real world time so every second that passes even if you are not running the trial module eats into the 14 day trial.... whereas a 14 day runtime trial gives you a true 14 day trial period that is only run-down when you actually run the trial module..... Just why this would have you two thinking that is unfair on those that have already bought the module eludes me totally.... why would you think that? People on the trial will still only be getting a possible 14 day trial usage from any module on trail, so what's the difference other than it could be installed on their PC not being used for longer... don't you understand that it makes no difference that what is current in that sense? Yes indeed, that is what I'm saying...... I'm glad you now understand what I'm suggesting..... sorry and apologies for my last post to you made in reply to your first post not your second post here.... my apologies mate...... Glad you now understand what I'm trying to suggest to the community here..... probably my bad attempt to express what I'm trying to say.

After the third time of trying to explain the difference between runtime and real time - You seriously don't understand, do you - that you cannot "Try" or run the modules for 336 hours as you're suggesting, at all.... Just how on earth did you come to that conclusion, Tom? How much simpler can I put this: 14 days is 14 days no matter how long you have the trial is installed if it was operated under a runtime format.... you cannot convert 14 days runtime into 336 days runtime, as you are suggesting, in any shape or form whatsoever, so just where did you get your 336 days of trial module runtime from Tom.... please explain this to me!

Don't you understand: It doesn't matter how long you have a trail installed, the fact is that you personally can only use those trials for 14 days at most.... so if you want to spread that 14 day trial over 3 years then good luck to you, but I cannot see you getting much enjoyment never mind learning how to use the plane module with any proficiency if you're wanting to spread a learning or getting to know you trial period of 14 days over a period of years.... that simply doesn't make any sense at all, just simply sounds like an excuse from someone who doesn't like the idea for whatever real reason you have for not liking the suggestion? It's alright saying: "don't get me wrong", and that you could live with it if ED followed my suggestion, but if we get many negative people like yourself poo pooing the idea for no good reason then ED is less likely to follow the suggestion and you know it..... let's have some positivity if you really "could easily live with it", eh Tom?

I'd suggest you are missing the point of me suggesting this, totally.... It doesn't matter how many modules you personally "Would" think you would have installed all in trial period, the fact would be that all in all you would only be able to use each one for a period of 14 days max, so what's the difference except that being able to actually learn the module for an actual time period of 14 days runtime will give people the chance to learn to actually fly and operate the basics so that they will begin to seriously enjoy the module and therefore more likely to buy it..... As it is, there will be those that have the time to dedicate the current 14 day real time to learning to fly, enjoy and subsequently buy the module, but also those like myself who would like to be able to learn to fly the basics and begin to enjoy the module so that I end up buying it BUT due to life priorities I simply haven't the time to dedicate over the 14 days real time to get to that stage where I would want to buy it after enjoying it so much over a 14 day actual runtime period..... I just think a 14 day runtime trial would be so much more potential customer friendly than the current real time 14 day trial which for busy people can be over in a flash before they've even had any chance to really get into the module itself. 14 days is 14 days whether it's real time or runtime, just that one, the runtime trial format, allows a true 14 days to get into the basics and start to enjoy the module, the other due to life's priorities can be over in what seems like a day or two with no chance of getting to the stage of enjoying the module enough to want to buy it... I know which one sounds logical to me if I wanted to further encourage people to buy DCS Modules. PS: Btw, Tom.... I'm simply suggesting an improvement on the current trial period format.... it's not any criticism at all on the current generous trial period, simply an adjustment to make it better in my opinion for those who cannot spend 18 hours a day playing DCS and are not wealthy enough for $80 for a DCS module to be considered short-change.

Can I suggest an adjustment to the DCS Module Trail period format?? I downloaded my first trial module, the AH-64D Apache a few days ago, however I have not yet had the time to try and learn to fly it and yet my trial period is counting down the days past even though I haven't run the module for more than an hour as yet.... Would it be possible to integrate the time the module is run to the time period of the trial rather than real world-time hours and days... in other words instead of 14 real world days, rather have it so that the module can be used for a time period of 14 days runtime module use? I hope I've expressed and explained that well enough to be understood?

So we are not allowed to talk about potential competitors on this forum??? That's very very worrying indeed.... I mean what is this, a fascist NAZI German state of 1940's we are living under or a free modern democratic society.... and what about freedom of speech, eh?? Has all that gone by the wayside out of immature childish fears?? It's pathetic!

Mate.... if you cared to read the thread, the link to a military flight sim in dev and close to release has already been posted here above in the thread.... take a look then come back and tell me ED's got all the time in the world to implement these features..... The fact is that ED ain't alone in the Military Flight sim market anymore.... Like I said ED should keep an eye on his six or he'll wake up one morning to a nasty surprise!

Yep I'm having the very same problem.... this also happens with the CCIP, the bombs dropping way short of indicated aiming reticule indicator every time. This has only started happening for me since the last update. to DCS and the F-16. Also an issue with the TGP and Calibration of the Mavs. TGP is freezing up, WPN Lock won't lock so can't calibrate Mavs

But that's the thing..... DCS will soon not be the only product to choose from, and if ED doesn't pull his finger out then DCS could well be in deep sh*t mate if an alternative comes along with all the bells and whistles straight out of the box from the get-go.

DCS is still very much alive because they have no competition at all.... makes it easy to stay alive don't you think when your product is basically the only modern product out there. Properly implemented ATC would give DCS some much needed depth & immersion rather than simply flying around shooting at targets, don't you think? Same with the replay play-back system in DCS... it's terrible! And it's been totally neglected for over a decade and more!! Now don't you think that if they fixed the replay system then it would make it so much easier to produce YouTube videos from users replay footage that in turn would greatly help promote DCS and in turn would result in more sales of DCS Modules turning a greater profit for ED & DCS..... ED is simply overlooking the benefits of many features that ED is currently ignoring or very VERY slow in implementing..... Then of course we have the Dynamic Campaign, but seeing as ED says it is in development and currently being worked on then some more patience is deserved considering the large task at hand on this one.

Hi guys... Since the last update, the weapon aiming systems appear to be very inaccurate on the F-16: The TGP on the CBU97 CCRP accuracy appears to be offset from where it should be and dropping the bombs short, same when using CCIP the bombs are dropping way short of where the aiming reticule was point at the time of bomb release... I've even done a few laser ranging actions when approaching target to see if that would help the targeting system accuracy but in vail.... just wondering if anyone else getting the same issues or if someone knows something different about the last update that is causing these issues & needs addressing??

To be honest I don't play single player other than in flight testing so I really couldn't tell you if this does happen in single player or not, but this definitely happens in Multi-player.... though I doubt very much it has anything to do with any sync latency as you put it..... There should be collision detection meshes that detect any collision with surfaces such as concrete runways and block accordingly on the clients machines relative to the planes translation in 3D space... the host server should be duplicating and transmitting to other clients a planes position and translation in that space together with collision hit results, so it's more likely that there is an issue with the collision meshes than any sync issue, in my opinion?

You know it really annoys me when we have been shouting for the ATC system in DCS to be properly implemented for years and years, and then guess what.... ED announces a full in depth weather system is being implemented into DCS and apparently is already well in development & testing & soon to be released & implemented for DCS.... WHY???? I say why simply because we've been shouting for a full proper ATC system to be implemented for years, a system that surely should have a higher priority than a weather system..... A proper real world ATC system, despite apparently years of it being worked on in the background, has not yet been implemented or indeed have we seen any evidence that it is being currently developed or even worked on for DCS.... and no excuses about the vast array of spoken statements needed for it, Ed's had literally years to be slowly recording all the spoken parts needed for a full ATC System, so that is no excuse anymore.... I suspect what's been happening is that simply other ideas and money making ideas have continually side-lined such non-direct-profit projects as the ATC and Dynamic campaign systems that have been promised for SO SO many years now.... ED's literally running out of excuses and indeed time I would suggest with the massive increases in other developers interest in developing high fidelity flight sims.... all it will take is another dev company that creates a high fidelity military combat sim world and DCS would be in grave danger of simply being dumped out of the market.... the tech is there today for this to happen... all it would take is a dev team to do it and ED would be in deep sh*t. The way ED should be prioritising projects is not only for the direct money making projects BUT also the projects that will bring in so many more users and therefore customers for DCS World and it's modules... especially the projects like the ATC and Dynamic campaign system that will add so much in depth role-play and participation to DCS world than it's capable of now which is currently very little in comparison.... C'mon ED.... Get to it MR, get your priorities right or end-up losing out altogether!!!

This happens regular on any map.... I think it is an issue with queuing priorities, ie: If you request an action from the ATC while it is busy then your task simply gets ignored or not recognised at all, and this can happen regular throughout any session on any map... multiplayer is even worse for it.

The aircraft wheels/tyres are clipping into the runway/taxiway meshes on the caucus map as though any collision detection boundaries are below the actual runway/taxi surface meshes themselves, or the planes wheel collision meshes are not in sync with the wheel meshes.... Looks terrible. For REF: All my friends different planes have the same issue, so I'd guess it's a mapping issue..... Only tested this issue on the Caucus map.

You'll probably find it's a "Rough_Met" issue that can be resolved by adjusting the exposure or brightness of the Green-Channel Rough_Met texture till it matches up with the rest of the plane textures for brightness.

Okay... Thanks for the speedy reply.

I was just looking for trying the Apache on Trial but apparently it isn't available on the "Trial" modules.... Why?