npole

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).

The core of DCS is .. (was?) the simulation of real aircraft, and when I say simulation I mean a full simulation (with obvious limits). Examples: A10C, BS, BS2, P52, UH1 .. these are proper DCS modules; Flaming Cliffs (and the upcoming modules based on its aircraft) are already sliding towards a series of compromises to please the "mass market" and especially to make more money with less effort (for the developer). No, I don't. I didn't accused anyone, i'm saying that I do not have any tangible prove that it will be accurate as a proper DCS module. We will ha DCS module only and IF the module will be completed and accurate enough to be included into DCS, today we have only words. If you think like this then we could have a Start Trek ship into DCS... doesn't make much sense. Words... ...and more words. So far I've seen (and this thread does makes no exception) a "copy & paste" of google images and youtube videos by searching "F35", and a claim about building the whole thing "together" ... the idea already scares me, you're going to simulate a military fighter based on the forum users opinions? I think I've said everything.. so good wind. ;)

Some clarification: when I say "we", I mean DCS seen from a simulation point of view (simmers), it then started to slide to a "bad arcadish" route, understandable for Flaming Cliffs, because ED needed some cash to have enough fund to support the real core of DCS (A10C/BS level...). But keeping the same route, even for third parties, would means to encourage this behavior even more.. now I can ignore what they are trying to do, but im realist and I can't live in my own world, my experience must rely on other players (online), so if we ignore what's going on, one day we will have flying ships all around us. Neither i'm against someone trying to raise found for an "experiment".. but they shouldn't promise a DCS module from the start. It looks like that they have already decided that this WILL BE a DCS module.. it's like: "hey, gimme 75k and you'll be see a official F35 module". With all my respect, but if you did NOT started to develop the thing, and knowing that it will be extremely hard to collect info for this aircraft, how do you know that this will be good enough to be a DCS module? What "scares" me is that someone have decided already that this will be a official module, no matter if it will turn to be crap, it will be sold (when completed) as a official module. So anyone may thinks from tomorrow that a bunch of money will be enough to release a official DCS module... and the quality? DCS doesn't deserves this future (money or not).

That's what I've said, but proven that you have to skill to maintain the sim quality. This is what i'm talking about: there's tons of "jets" out there, with public available information, trying to "simulate" something that isn't even out in "real life" means only: proceeding by guessing. I suspect that the intentions are exactly those: since there's so little few information available, you don't need to be accurate because none will ever know what you're doing. This is what we DON'T need in DCS: invest your time into a F18... an F16... F14.. whatever.. and leave the F35 for when the times will come and for when we will have more information to work on (to not count the fact that a F35 really doesn't match the current scenario.. unless you're going to have "F35 only" servers...).

I'm not sure how old are you, and why it's needed to offend a user (myself) that have posted an opinion, you could agree or not, but label someone or someone's else opinion as "stupid" is not required and against the forum rules. Keep it civil, i'm not here to fight with kids.

I hope in the opposite: that they WON'T make it. Nor because I hate KI (considering the general slowness of ED, we can only hope into third parties), or because I particular hate this aircraft (more variation = better, no matter what), but because I do not approve the method. I hope they won't succeed because if they do, it would invite other ppl in search of "easy money" to do the same in the future, and honestly I wouldn't like this type of "approximation" and guessing approach flooding into DCS, it's more an amateur thing that should be confined into a unofficial mod rather than a official module (I mean: prove it works good enough as a mod.. then ask to be included as DCS module).

Sono capaci, almeno a livello di espierienza, e il problema non e' manco il budget, qui il problema e' proprio la reperibilita' di informazioni. Avrebbero fatto bene a dedicare il loro tempo ad un aereo piu' vecchiotto ma le cui informazioni era pubblicamente (piu' o meno) disponibili, e non sprecare tempo su un aereo troppo moderno, che manco e' stato definitivamente completato. Non ha alcun senso.

Yes, it's possible but by editing the controller lua file (you can't do it by using the GUI from within the game). You can assign the "pressed" position and the "up" position to any control, i'm using a random one as an example with invented names (you may find the ones you need in your lua file): {combos = {{key = "JOY_BTN9"}, }, down = iCommand_ExtendtLights, up = iCommand_StopLights, name = "Lights", category = "Lights"}, {combos = {{key = "JOY_BTN10"}, }, down = iCommand_RetractLights, up = iCommand_StopLights, name = "Lights", category = "Lights"}, The above activate the command "iCommand_ExtendtLights" when the boat switch is fwd, and "iCommand_RetractLights" when it's back, while it will stop the light when it's in the center. Again: iCommand_RetractLights etc. are invented, find the correct ones. ;)

I'm not sure if you understand what's KS is for.. mixing the project expenses with the profit is completely wrong! KS is not there to maximize the profits, those money should be only used to develop the product, while the profits are accounted by the production costs that is something completely different! I know that many people believes that Kickstarter is a way to earn money.. but IT IS NOT! Kickstarter is not linked to the profit, it's there only to help you to "do something" when you do not have a initial capital. Launch a product on Kickstarter in the hope of collect an easy profit is the worst way to use that platform, that's not a damn e-commerce platform, for that type of things there's a sale method, it's called: pre-sale (pre-ordering for the customer).

That's quite wrong, when you ask for others money you're not maximize the profits, you're reducing the risks, because you're using other ppl money for your own project. With kickstarter it's even worse, since these person will not receive a slice of the profits, so basically you want to risk ZERO. It is cool for those persons that doesn't have a capital to invest, but having a great idea; but in the moment you prove to have your own money to invest (injecting "fake" money because you're not going to hit the target) they you're telling me: "there's a concrete risk that this is going to fail, so instead of my money i'm going to risk YOURS!". This is not about capitalism, this is scam my friend.

It's not. If you have money to invest, you should be THE FIRST to invest into your own project, if you are asking for other ppl money, but then using your own money only if forced, means that you don't believe into your own project, but you pretend to ask others money? It's legit if you put your money into the project at the start, but if you fake the pledges the last hours only to reach the target and collect those others money then you're playing smart and I already see what's your real intention (trying to earn easy money).