npole

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).

They will be refunded, however some of them have the bad habit of a adopting a very dirt technique: they inject "fake" money into the project (their own money), to reach the target to collect the baker's money. I've seen projects missing thousand dollars, but then suddenly receiving all of them the last hour (you'll notice because suddenly some apparent rich ppl starts to buy those thousand dollars pledges for no reason, when they totally ignored em the previous weeks). NOTE: i'm NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS KS! I am talking in general, why you don't see many KS project not reaching the target!

Nessun aggiornamento oggi, ieri hanno fatto un revert della patch per questioni di compatibilita', quindi piu' che 2 patch, si trattava di 1 patch poi tolta (revert) con la seconda patch (siamo tornati indietro in pratica).

Yup, he pushed the whole thing a way too much, without giving detailed information of why this module had the potential to succeed. When you see someone trying to advertise a product in that way, you start to smell something wrong. At least that was my first reaction... Pretty wrong decision.. "trying to make their virtual" ... ? This is DCS world, we will have it (probably not, looking at the funds) into "our" world. We don't need ppl experimenting things without knowing if they will end with something good or with crap. Honestly I would have given my money for an aircraft that has been around by a while, with a good chance of seeing it completed (a F18, a F14, a F16...), but not for a F35, the chance of end with guessing how things works into that airplane (transforming a simulator into a random buttons game) are too high, in my opinion there's no way they could collect enough detailed info to end with a simulation at A10C level (that is the minimum acceptable, for me, that deserves to be implemented as a DCS module). I could imagine a detailed F35 simulator in three years, but not today. Maybe they will fail with the F35 thing and they will eventually opt for something that makes more sense. They probably have imagined all the kids attracted by the futuristic overpowered machine that the F35 represent (more chances to collect money), but they forgot that the DCS user-base (and especially those ppl that have enough money to "invest") aren't all kids, but ppl that are interested into a serious simulation, this chaps are generally attracted more by a super-hornet than the USS Enterprise.

I could tell you the difference: in the A10C I can take be in the air in a min of 4 minutes (optimizing the whole thing) that is already a risible amount of time; in FC3 I can take off in seconds (fromt he taxiway eventually..); in A10C I have to setup the whole armament profiles to suits the mission, in FC3 it's basically a click and shot.. to not talking about the flight model (luckily the said they are going to adjust it in the future..). And this is about aircrafts that have been around by a while, so you have more chances to collect info, to replicate them with a certain fidelity. Now think about the F35.. are we going to have an aircraft based on the youtube videos and a simulator session? Honestly I hope the project doesn't reach the min amount, nor because I want to see that company failing, but because it could open the doors to any sort of flying sausages into DCS: we need ppl to develop something GOOD *before* and then being accepted into DCS World.. nor the opposite.

People that are critic against this module are scared that if we keep this route of "approximation" we will end with more "gaming" and less "simulation". Many of us have known DCS because of the BS and the A10C, the passion behind the product, the level of hi fidelity simulation. After a while we started to see those "less simulative" things flying around (I mean Flaming Cliffs). Now we see third parties starting to invest time into new planes without specifying exactly how they will end, we will then eventually have this "flying things" into the servers. That's why ppl are critic: everyone is entitled to work at the USS Enterprise if he wants to do, and if he find enough ppl to give him money, but DCS should be a brand name that means: QUALITY .. not approximation or guessing. Do you want do develop a new DCS module? Great, do it, prove it to be at the standards required, and ONLY THEN apply to be a "official DCS module"; while here we're experiencing the opposite: they announced a new DCS module of a aircraft that isn't even finished in the real world, BEFORE they even collected the money to work at it? No, thanks.

Ah ok.. got it.. I tought it were going to be at A10C level at least. I'll wait for the module to be finished and released then, then i'll decide. Thank you!

What i'm saying is so easy to understand (language barrier?) .. so I make an example: when they (ED) did the A10-C, they compared the simulation with the real aircraft, so you're almost sure that anything reproduced into the simulation is accurate (with the limits given by the technology). With the F-35 how you know if "pushing that button" does exactly the same thing of the real aircraft is you don't have a complete F-35 flight manual available? I mean it's two big touch screen we have there.. do they have access to a simulator.. do they know a pilot.. whatever.. ? I'm asking because I love to have the aircraft fully reproduced, so if there's that menu named "XXX" and the submenu named "YYY" .. I want to have those in the simulation, I don't want them to "guess" how that thing is supposed to work. I didn't found this information on the website or anywhere.. someone claiming: we have access to all the F35 schematics; or we have a flight manual; we know a F35 pilot; we have an agreement with LM... and stuff like this. Everyone could say: "the simulation will be accurate" ... but when asking for money, it's legit to know: "it is accurate... based on what?".

I didn't mean that... I wanted to know if they are designing a 3D model (in that case the pictures could be enough), of if they are developing a module *at DCS level* .. in this case the 3D model is nothing, we still miss the flight model and especially the fully avionics and controls. So I wanted to ask where they are going to get all these details. In other words i'm not sure if they are just designing the model and then guessing the whole rest (basically inventing the avionic working on speculation), or if they really working at contact with lockheed martin. /confused

I went on the kinney website and I didn't found it much communicative, I won't judge the design (I bet the prefer to spend their money on the development instead of websites) .. but the "under construction" sections aren't (generally) a good signal when you need to "trust" someone (because pledging is trusting or believing into the professional of someone that you don't know). Then I've heard the project has started, but I didn't found a link on the website above, so I tried to search this thread but I must have missed the link, so I've searched on KS but found only a F-35 MMO game. Before continuing... is there any new information about this module? I mean they have explained where it's supposed their collecting all the required information to make an accurate sim? Or it's just: "please gimme your money, then we'll think at the rest..." .. because I didn't understood (yet) if this is just a "let's dream" thing, or a serious DCS module development. EDIT: I've finally found the KS link on the website... but the above questions remains.

You don't complaints on the graphic simply because there's no other flight sim that could compete? This doesn't make sense, we're criticizing the gfx (mainly the scenery) because it's bad (it's like 10 years behind to today's standard), not because someone else (flight sim) is doing better. It's 2013, we can't live with what we have today.. in fact they are (fortunately) working at it.

That's a common error (i did the same the first days...) when you didn't figured (yet) that the weapons are selected by profiles, in fact into the DSMS you're not really editing the single weapon, but the profile associated to it. Normally when you load a set of weapon a profile with the same name of those weapons is created (you can even create profiles yourself, for example having 2 GBU's operating CCIP and 2 operating CCRP). To select a profile you can use TDM left-right to cycle them, or you can go to the DSMS page on the left MFD, go to the profile page, scroll to the selected profile and press ACT PRO (activate profile). You will notice on the HUD (lower left) the weapon name, that's not really the weapon name, that's the profile name.

The whole thing (when optimized) keeps 4 minutes and some seconds: battery, inverter, apu (seconds) (9 seconds to spoil up / you can do "something" else, usually I ask for rearming and refueling) apu gen, both AC gen, CDU, EGI (seconds) From now on you'll wait 4 minutes for the alignment (while you complete the rest of the procedure). If you're fast enough you'll end up to have about 1 min of waiting doing "nothing", you can use this time to plan your flight, setup your weapons etc., if need absolutely to move (ie: someone bombing your airport), you can switch then to a INFLT alignment and wait more for it (T=5.5.0.8), while starting taxing (remember you cannot switch to EGI and turn EAC on until it's complete.. but you normally do not need them immediately).