Psyrixx

Not in the Dallas area, but perhaps my YouTube series will help? :pilotfly:

FFOjHDTNFq0 Money shot is at 2m 35s if you don't have the patience to watch the whole thing. ;)

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2216769&postcount=153 Looks like they are indeed the southernmost peaks of the Sierra Nevada mountain range. :joystick: :pilotfly:

Also, I believe in a previous post somewhere they said they were starting with 3 airfields but the possibility existed to add more from there in the future. I don't have a link, so it's speculation at this point. And there's always this: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2045930&postcount=16 ;)

The first image I posted is from Wags' post in the Official Updates section, and based on the current mission editor layout it looks like the light blue "border" of the map is simply covering up the "editor tools" portions of the screen while the map is fully zoomed out in the editor itself. And he states as much in his post (that it is a screenshot from the mission editor). http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2216669&postcount=2 So, yes, I would assume this is the actual in-sim map. :pilotfly:

So many terrain variations... Grand Canyon Lake Mead Desert Mountains Red Rock Canyon Down Town Vegas (Urban) Hoover Dam ... I used to bulls-eye womp rats in my T-16 back home, they weren't much bigger than two meters! ;) :joystick::pilotfly:

Actually, the new map DOES seem to include most of the Grand Canyon. Notice the blue outline on the original (official) image seems to be blocking out the Mission Editor interface, but the map itself seems to be fully zoomed out in the editor window. Also the distance of 329 nautical miles as indicated on the map is 610 KM. 610 KILOMETERS A SIDE. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

While I don't want to get too excited, this satellite view is only a portion of the map shown from the mission editor earlier shot from earlier today. Then again, the larger scale of the editor map could simply be an extended shot that includes the "barren terrain" areas as well, and the highly populated/modeled/detailed portion of the map might be constrained to the areas represented in the above image. But the map editor version of the map does extend quite a bit further to the East than this, and does appear to include a portion of mountainous/canyonous terrain even if it doesn't quite include the entire Grand Canyon.

It's just an estimate based on the map shown ... but I doubt East LA is modeled at all. Curious to see how accurate that ends up being? And, once map is able to be extended do we go West to the Coast first or East to the Grand Canyon first? ...and when do we get to do canyon runs being chased by aliens? 0-345y7uo0M ;) SO MUCH POTENTIAL!

Thanks Eduardo! Yes, all of the Flaming Cliffs 3 planes are very very similar. The only major differences are between which sensor you're looking at, but the controls should be close to -- if not exactly -- the same. Last Su25T video and the beginning of the TF/P-51D will be released very soon!

Here's what I whipped up real quick by overlaying with Google Maps...

Full tutorial series that I put together for the Su-25T. Links to Patreon so I can convince my wife that it's a worthwhile use of my time in video descriptions. ;) Next up is TF-51/P-51D Mustang. Enjoy!

It has been a long time coming, and is more geared towards my tutorial series, but if you're interested in supporting my missions as well, feel free to contribute! http://www.patreon.com/PsyrixxDCSTutorials

I have no objections to your attempting to do so, but I do plan on taking care of this in the near future. I also need to also add the MiG21BiS. ^_^ And then maybe start a Patreon page so I can release sequels! <_< >_> Actually, sequels are coming anyway. Patreon would just allow me to justify the time spent to my wife! ;)

I just wanted to say - I was having a hell of a time trying to take off in the Dora last night after having had several fine takeoffs and landings earlier in the afternoon. I realized that I kept forgetting to put the flaps in "takeoff" position ... and the Dora starts with the flaps full down in landing position. With the flaps down, the Dora gains enough lift at 50-80km/h to lose a LOT of traction and start slipping all over the place. What's more - it produces enough drag that once the plane does somewhat lift off the runway it still isn't going fast enough to not stall, resulting in a sharp drop of the left wing and the plane turning into a crater. So my first step after closing all the fuses? Flaps up. I also find that flaps fully retracted make the aircraft stick to the ground and retain traction for a much longer run of the runway. You still have to dance on the rudder pedals (start with 30%-50% right rudder and bounce to center as needed to maintain a more or less straight trajectory), but you should feel quite a bit more in control of your aircraft. So: 1. Start plane 2. Ensure flaps in fully retracted position (fully raised - the runways are so long you don't need "takeoff" flaps) 3. Position at base of runway, roll forward and lock tailwheel centered 4. 30%-50% right rudder 5. Throttle to 2,500-3,000 rpms and dance dance dance! For me the absolute key is making sure my flaps are retracted to avoid the loss of wheel traction at low speeds. While rolling I just keep my eye on the artificial horizon's vertical slip indicator. You shouldn't need to ever give left rudder during takeoff - just slide between 50% and 0% right rudder to counteract the tendency of the aircraft to pull to the left. Hope this helps!

I'm at ComicCon at the moment (today is the last day) and also in the middle of selling a house and moving into a new one, but I will take a look at the mission as soon as I get home tomorrow afternoon. As Markeebo suggested, most of the time just opening the mission in the mission editor, and saving it again (just on top of itself), is enough to fix errors in missions built with older versions of DCS World.

:thumbup:

You can still take up the case with RRG and Kickstarter. No one here is stopping you. :) Good luck with that! :thumbup:

Earmarked for DCS: F/A-18 Hornet. :D :joystick::joystick::joystick::joystick::joystick: :pilotfly::pilotfly::pilotfly::pilotfly::pilotfly: :thumbup:

Also from last update is that this is an estimated timeframe for these releases... nowhere have absolute dates been stated. This is a roadmap, nothing more. :) :pilotfly: :thumbup:

Glad everyone seems to be mostly happy now. Even though the new rewards didn't really have any bearing on me personally, I am glad that the lower tiers get to choose their aircraft now. :-)

However, ED is fulfilling backer rewards to the best of their ability as a corporation based on the original amount pledged to the KS and what they perceive to be a fair reward at each pledge tier, out of the kindness of their hearts. They could have just as easily said "RRG Failed, Project Cancelled. Oh but we're starting a new project called DCS: 1942, preorders happen here!" :thumbup:

Something that has been brought up a lot is that the kickstarter "promised" you rewards or that you've already "bought" all the aircraft with your $<insert amount> pledge. People are missing the fundamental point of Kickstarter. Nobody has bought anything by pledging money. No one "owes" or "promised" you anything unless the project is completed successfully as laid out in the original Kickstarter. RRG, the founder of the Kickstarter, has closed up shop. ED has picked up the project themselves and is going to finish it. The moment RRG lost control of DCS: WWII was the moment the Kickstarter failed. ED has no obligation to give anyone anything as, even as a "partner" in whatever extent that may have been, they were not the ones running the Kickstarter. Kickstarter is an investment platform. Not a "buy things for cheaper" platform. The Creator of the Kickstarter was Luthier and RRG Studios. ED was a Partner. Only the Creator is responsible for the fate of the Kickstarter. The Creator, in this instance, failed spectacularly. The Partner, happily enough, decided to assume control of the failed project and continue it. This does not mean that now ED "owes" anyone anything. They could have just as easily said "sorry, DCS WWII has been cancelled due to project mismanagement". You invested. The project failed. Luckily the partner decided to pick up the project and see it through to completion. They even restructured the original Kickstarter rewards in an attempt to provide some sort of return based on the level of financial commitment that each backer originally pledged. That's as simple as this situation is. Apart from a few particulars that have already been discussed to death in this thread, it is a favorable outcome from a horrible situation. Be patient, let ED sort through the thread and if they change their minds for the better then that's fantastic. But everyone should be approaching this as a failed investment first and foremost, not "someone owes me something and is not delivering".

Feel free to sue RRG / Luthier. They are the creators. :) ED is simply taking a failed project as publisher and pushing it through to completion.

Bait and switch implies ED knew this was going to happen. Yes, it sucks that the KickStarter rewards got restructured but would you rather no game at all? RRG went under because they over promised and could not deliver. ED picked up the project and, weighing the options, decided to finish it and release it themselves. They even hired the RRG team (most of them) to continue the work on it. ED could just as easily have said "well, RRG failed. We're picking up where they left off, but sadly we will no longer be honoring the kickstarter rewards." They could also just as easily have said "well, on the dev budget we have from the kickstarter, all WWII planes will be Flaming Cliffs fidelity flight models." So far, none of that has happened. Happily, they are trying to honor as best and realistically as possible the kickstarter rewards that were originally promised. Per the June update, it has already cost $120,000 just for the AFM for the Bf109. Without modeling, texturing, programming, etc that goes into the module. So let's take all six modules and just assume for a second that each one costs exactly that much. And let's assume, for the sake of argument, the rest of the module takes exactly zero more dollars to finish. So we're making a pretty unrealistic assumption here. $120,000 * 6 modules = $720,000. The kickstarter raised $158,000. I don't know what paypal raised, but I doubt it was an extra $600,000. And this is assuming there is no additional cost apart from AFM for each module. I'm betting each module, at a conservative estimate runs around $200,000. So $1,200,000 for DCS WWII, just for the modules. Not counting dev time towards the Normandy map, additional engine enhancements, etc. Honestly, I'm surprised Eagle Dynamics didn't decide to just cancel the project once RRG failed. I know it doesn't take the sting away as to why you can't swap the airframe of your choice with the P-51D, but I'm hoping it at least helps people reconcile why a restructuring of the kickstarter rewards has been done. And appreciate that ED is honoring them in any fashion at all. And if it's any consolation, you essentially get a 50% off voucher for each module that you didn't end up getting in your reward. We all know that in an ideal world being able to pick your primary modules would be the preferred reward, but if that's not going to happen at least you get *something*.