Hawks5

I understand. All I was trying to do is illustrate that several people in this thread talk as if the allegation has been proven as fact. I myself am waiting for both side's argument/allegations to be proven or disproven.

How so? Were the leaked legal documents not merely still an allegation presented by one side's legal team, yet to be proven in law?

If it were so cut and dry, an arbitrator/judge/whatever legal body would have found in favour of ED and we would no longer be discussing this.

There are many moving parts to this issue, the IP dispute being one of them, and per the quote above it is still an allegation. I've certainly seen nothing to suggest that this allegation has been proven from a legal standpoint, yet many posters in this thread seem to believe it is gospel.

You need a better translator. I can rarely understand your posts.

This is my concern with Early Access. To me Early Access should be we pay full price for the product and we are provided with an early version of the product, with the funds generated from the Early Access sales used to fund the timely remainder of product development. However from my observation what seems to happen is we are provided with a minimum viable product, most of the development resources are then pulled off the project to begin development of the next EA product which is funded by the EA sales of the product we have purchased. A skeleton development team is left to work on the product we paid for and updates are slowly trickled out. Rinse and repeat. In your example the Hind developers were seemingly pulled off to work on the Apache EA development. I believe we have seen the same thing with the Hornet and Viper development with the Hornet maybe nearing EA exit nearly 4 years after release of the initial EA version. To me this is not the way Early Access should work and is why I have decided to no longer support this approach.

It would be good to get more detailed information on the big ticket core items that have been in development for years. Again, not looking for release dates or estimates of any kind but sharing of any roadblocks which may be hindering development progress would go a long way (IMO) towards explaining the long development time with seemingly very little news on progress.

This is from their Discord channel about a week ago: "Real talk though, we're back to 7 days a week on the A7 & I have made some nice breakthroughs with the code that I've been hung up on for awhile. Progress on the art has paused while our additional art contractor finishes up on another warbird of ours. He should be finished in a couple of weeks, at which point he'll be moved onto the A7 full time for a remodelling inside & out. We'll be sharing some images of the work he is doing for us soon - he works insanely fast and produces incredible results, so expect to see some nice A7 screenshots over the coming months Meanwhile I am splitting my time between improving drag modelling on our FM, capturing & integrating CFD data for gear + flaps & have now also started working on logic for the more complicated digital sensors & avionics Trying to squeeze in as much as I can for the writeup which I will be doing over the next few weeks"

Which is a shame as I find it kills immersion to have multiple aircraft from the same squadron in a mission all carrying the same modex number.

With the speed that Razbam can pump out 3D models I don't see why ED doesn't sub-contract (or come to some other form of agreement) them to work on replacing the aging models from the LOMAC era.

Navy Phantom would definitely be cool. There's also something about the F-4G - would love to get this variant. Planned F-4E sounds pretty good however too.

Well said. EA works on trust and in this case that trust has been broken.

I don’t think we’ll see HB develop anymore. In my opinion they will finish their commitments with regards to the remaining items for the F-14 and Viggen but no development of additional modules for DCS will occur. Simply maintenance for F-14 and Viggen in response to core DCS changes. Would be happy to be wrong but sadly don’t think I will be.

In my opinion the B should have been done with the Sparrowhawk HUD to provide enough differentiation between the A and B. Would not make me want the D so much for something different.

Will this work for the F/A-18C as it has no product key?

Delete the options.lua file located in C:\Users\<your name>\Saved Games\DCS\Config, then restart DCS World and reconfigure your settings.

Have not flown since, will fly again in a couple of days and see what happens.

I've had something similar happen a couple of times flying the F-15 using the Rift. The first time, the canopy opened mid-flight by itself and the electrical system turned off. Same thing happened again on another flight with the canopy, only this time just after I had landed and was taxiing. Very weird and definitely a WTF moment both times.

Agreed, jumped into the M-2000C training campaign last night hoping to finally learn how to operate it. Alas, it was a no-go because of this issue.

F-16 first, then MiG-29

Then why go to all the trouble of doing extra coding work and art work to put it into the map in the first place if people are unlikely to use it? Request from OP does not seem unreasonable.

F-15E A-6E

Advanced carrier ops?

I turned this on, and whilst it looked great, I was unable to use the mouse to click anything in the cockpit as the switches seemed offset from where the mouse cursor was pointing. Is there any other setting I need to change?

Just reading an older issue of PC Pilot, issue 89 which I think is from January/February 2014. This issue has an interview with Wags and he is asked a question about ED taking a hardcore approach to realism. In his response Wags states that there are in fact 2 different levels of simulation - FC3 level and DCS level. He then states that the next 'hardcore' DCS level products will be the F-15C and F/A-18C. Has anything been stated since which indicates that this is no longer the case?