npole

I agree, but it would suits much better with the whole rest.. eventually. But the problem isn't just about the era (what about the P52?), but about the info available for a certain aircraft (we discussed much about it in the previous pages tho).

It must be because this thread is in the DCS forum. It would be better to concentrate the effort for something better IMO. No, I don't. Exactly.

I kinda wish they'll cancel this, to dedicate their efforts to something "better" for DCS (a fourth gen fighter).

They aren't really haters, but "old people" (i'm talking about their mentality) that refuses to accept the innovation because they doesn't really understand how it works: if I don't understand something, I call it "useless". Luckily these ppl are left behind by the progress. They won't cause much damage tho (unless they can make decisions, and most of them can't)... you can just ignore em. ;)

Realismo per realismo.. se pure riuscissi a distruggere le piste, chiunque potrebbe partire da qualsiasi altra parte, taxiway, parcheggio, se non addirittura dai prati... visto che "l'off-road" e' simulato malissimo (specialmente con i velivoli "arcade" come quelli di FC3 ad esempio).

Yup, I have been considering of transforming/integrating my racing cockpit to be used for flight sims as well.. but then I've realized that for a much much much much more less I would have a complete dynamic cockpit using the OR in the near future (i'm receiving my devkit next week, but I look more at the final version with improved res). Btw the silence by ED is frustrating... they could add the rift support with minor effort really but they seems not interested (waiting for the retail version is IMO stupid, we need to introduce it today and tweak it with time, nor waiting the next year).

EDGE and F18.. the rest can wait. :)

I'm saying this from the start.. and playing with a little of malice, I can say that going with a "unknown" aircraft, none would have the capability of saying if it is accurate or not, especially in the avionics.

Really? Even the US government has some reserves about it: http://pogoarchives.org/straus/ote-info-memo-20130215.pdf ...do not consider the partners that are considering to cancel their investment this days. Being fanboy about an aircraft is stupid, and calling other "ignorant" (especially after not having performed any reaserch) is childish. This has nothing to do with the KI project, this is about the real F-35. If you have data to support your tough, they'll be welcome, otherwise it would be more convenient for me to ignore you. :)

It's a combination of reasons: 1) the simulation world is a niche market, the crowd interested into flight simulators (in general) are a way less than traditional (casual) gamers. 2) taking the already small number of customers you need to consider only those ones that trust unconditionally those KI words. Me in example, I follow this forum and I play DCS by a while already, I love any simulative module (ie: A10C, BS/2, UH1) .. but I don't like much the approximation and the compromises. I believe (if i'm right or wrong doesn't change the meaning) that KI doesn't have enough data to deliver what it promises, and I think that this module wouldn't be at DCS standard in the near future (maybe in "some" years.. but surely not in the time they have announced).. so I wouldn't put much of my money into it. My idea: if they would have dedicate their time to something else, in example an F14, F16.... today they would have collected X3 those money, not from ppl outside here, but from any single member of this forum. The criticism is not about KI ability, but it's about the choice of that plane: not enough data + you don't even know if it will really be delivered worldwide (looking at the latest news, there's even a chance that the F35 "as is" will never see the light! :) ). we must be honest... the F35, whenever the good intentions, is a failing project (I mean the real one, not the DCS module).

It is a prerogative of Kickstarter: the project financial goal is a requirement to authorize the bakers funding. When you're going to bake it's explained that your money won't be taken if the goal is not reached (it's a sort of assurance), so cheating the total by injecting your money is circumventing the rules and you will be reported. I'm not sure what's the "surprise", it's KI that have decided to go for Kickstarter, with THIS rules. There's other funding method that are more elastic (in example IndieGoGo that is well recognized worldwide, offers a variable funding, so you won't "loose" the bakers if the goal is not reached).

What the hell you talking about? Yes it matters! There's other methods to collect variable funds (donations), Kickstarter is a platform PER project, you cannot scam ppl saying: "we need $75k" .. but after 20 days saying: "...but maybe the half are enough" .. it's not against the rule, it's even "amateurish" .. and I wouldn't trust any person or company having a such [NOT] plan.

Absolutely NOT! When you launch a project on KS, you say: "we need that amount to do this thing", in other words the goal is a sort of assurance for the baker. The pledger cannot inject his own money for the sole purpose of reaching the goal, because this would circumvent the meaning of Kickstarter. Wouldn't you think that if it was only a matter of "total", the project wouldn't be cancelled, even if it wouldn't reach the target? But it's not: the bakers are baking knowing that there's a certain number of external investors giving their own money, funding a REAL (KS) BUDGET, inject your own money is faking the kickstarter budget. I would avoid any company prepared to do such thing with the purpose of grab bakers money, and I would invite anyone to report such situations to Kickstarter (I don't mean this project, I mean in general).

Don't spread false informations, if the project won't be funded (and it seems clear that it won't be at this point), bakers will not be charged and the Kickstarter project will be cancelled (the KS project, not the project itself). When they said they would their own money, they means that they would add their money at the top of those $75k IF the Kickstarter project will reach the goal. If not they will use their own money + they will find alternate method of investment.

I'm shocked on how you turned an incredible easy to understand argument, into a 3 pages discussion with a bunch of unnecessary complex explanations. Yes, technical explanations are always welcome and entertaining, but if someone that have just started comes here to read.. he will run away shocked and with more confusion than before. So if you are read this messages and you're going to scream: "wDAf!??!?!". Forget the previous 3 pages and remember only this phrases: "When I PRESS (forward) the right pedal I go to the right" "When I PRESS (forward) the left pedal I go to the left" (and this is true for the nose wheel and the differential brakes of the A10C as well)

...reading the latest news, it looks like that this aircraft (at least in the current form) wouldn't see the light in the end. They made public their own (USA) report, and it's laughable.. give a look at the section 3.1 especially: http://pogoarchives.org/straus/ote-info-memo-20130215.pdf Nor that it would mean anything for a simulation: used or not used in real life, wouldn't change its usage into DCS, so this consideration is NOT directly linked to the development of the module.

The inclusion into DCS World as official module, means that the model (exteriors) will be included into DCS World, so anyone (so even who didn't purchased that specific module) can see that vehicle inworld (exactly like the UH1). Are they going to do this? A simple "yes" or "not" will make it clear without much thinking, chit chatting, and guessing. (I thought it was clear from the start [that it was a official DCS World module]... but reading the latest post, i'm not that sure now...)

Do you mean that after all this, we'll discover that it won't interact with other official modules, while in fact it's only a mod (like many others..)? I don't think so.. they would make it clear from the start, they talked about a official DCS module, and so (if it will be completed and accepted by ED) it will be sold on the official website (exactly like the UH1...)... otherwise this whole hundred pages wouldn't make any sense. :D

I care about the future of DCS. Yes, one day we will have the F-35 and many other aircrafts (I hope) added to DCS World. More relaxed than this... i will fall asleep! ;)

If you cannot change it, you may eventually issue a new campaign with a revised total (unless there's limitation to do this...).

I said that the only reason of doing so (unless you're "stupid") would be to undercover something else.. hence the "illegality". Legit: you find the goal too high for your expectations, you'll reduce it, and the bakers will evaluate the new situation, deciding to stay or bail out (EDIT: according to Maverick message, they cannot change the goal; but the means won't change: you can issue a new campaign with a revised total and the pledgers can evaluate the new budget and deciding); Not Legit: you find the goal too high, but you like to have those money raised so far keeping it quite > let's inject money with dummy/nominee accounts (in example by using a $3000 pledges), users won't smell anything bad, they believes that more ppl are pledging, while in fact none is pledging, it's you "faking" the total, and none will leave the ship.

It's 5% to KS only + another certain percentage for each pledge (depending of the payment method), 2% is even optimistic, and for country where applicable (not in US then) there's even the VAT. So it's around 7-8% for the USA, and more for the Europe. If they cheat they won't lose the bakers, unless someone reports you and KS decides that it is not "legal". But the question is: why you want to inject your own money and pay fees on it, when you have a "legal" way to do so (reducing the goal)? What "risk"? Apparently KI said that the project will be completed no matter what? They have opted for KS for a matter of visibility I believe, but they have used it in the wrong way IMO.

Kickstart project fail = you "loose" the bakers. You can eventually asking them to apply somewhere else, but you still "loosing" them for the current project. I don't think so, you have also to pay 5% (plus the transfer fees) on it.. so do it intentionally (instead of adjusting the goals and giving the opportunity to the bakers to evaluate again the proposal) smells so bad. Who's that stupid to loose (around) 7% of your own money for nothing... if there's nothing to earn? :)

But then, they will "loose" all the backers.. that have fund again the project with that such alternate method. If their intention were known from the start, why the hell they opted for KickStarter? Why they didn't go for IndieGoGo in example, that is more suitable for their project: in fact they offer a flexible funding campaign, rather than exact goals (ie: you won't risk that the campaign would be cancelled if you do not reach the target).

It wouldn't be possible, it's against the terms of service I believe... it's a trick that someone have used in the past, but if proven I think they'll be banned (going to read the regulation). The purpose of Kickstarter is define "targets", it's the equivalent of saying: "I need this money, to do this thing"; if you don't reach that target it means that you CAN'T do that thing (and none will be charged); on the other side if you can do it anyway, then that target doesn't exists at all. So i'm giving my money to you, with the assurance that there would be other real pledger for a total of $75k (security financing). Injecting your own money, because you figure that you cannot reach the target, is not exactly "legal" and should be reported to Kickstarter, because it completely defeats the purpose of having a target. If you believe that the target is not realistic, you should adjust it and not "cheating" by inject your money. Kickstarter is for crowdfunding, while KI is acting like they are asking for "donations" (because they said that even without money from the customers, they will complete the project), they are similar but different... and they have mixed (wrongly in my opinion) the two things. To not count the fact that list a target by a feature but then promise that feature even without reaching the target is wrong as well. To resume: - if the target is not reached, and the backer (KI) believes that the current target is not realistic, KI should adjust the pledge and not inject "fake money" into the Kickstarter project. - KI should not promise certain features with certain pledges, if the same features are "targets", because if that target wouldn't be reached they wouldn't be obligated to develop that feature (yes they can eventually, with more time, but here we are talking about "rules" not promises).