Flying Penguin

GTX 870M 6GB

:thumbup: :pilotfly:

That's a good outcome, a big thumbs up to ED. I await the July update with interest.

Chugachugchugchugachugchug........ Woo wooo! :D

Which is fine, we're all (mostly?) reasonable people, but there needs to be something for both sides for this not to go sour, what the sweet spot is exactly, is for ED to figure out. So until then, we wait. I think I'll just go play Train Simulator 2014 for a while.....:pilotfly:

+1 :drink: anyone?

See my edit. They want their ROI, barring act of god or threat of bankruptcy we just want (some of) ours. This project would have happened with or without the KS, it was stated as much, our ROI isn't "the module is available to purchase", that's ED's.

Nor is it an assumption to say that there is a significant goodwill (and probably therefore financial) cost associated with washing their hands of the Kickstarter obligations, given they must have funded it at least to the tune of at least 750k**. No doubt it is costly for ED, but as I said above, a refund or fulfillment would be fine, given their involvement, I doubt they will be let completely off the hook by the community. I don't care that ED could make more money selling (up to) 2500 more copies of each module. I care that they act responsibly with respect to a project that they gave significant backing to. They want their ROI too, which is presumable why they stepped in. But as you said, let's wait and see. **(using your figures, which I suspect are low compared to reality, 4x150k for aircraft, 150k KS for the 5th aircraft, one aircrafts worth for landscape and P-51 exists already)

Exactly. So how about we all stop assuming we are about to bankrupt ED?

I'm assuming (based on past record) ED is made up of competent and responsible professionals who do their due diligence when funding a project for which $150k is a drop in the ocean. No more of an assumption than the widespread assumption that ED couldn't possibly afford to honor the KS commitments. In the absence of official word, I'm going to continue to treat them as competent and responsible professionals rather than assume all is lost on the good ship E.D. Titanic.

Which would be one of the perfectly acceptable solutions. Fulfill the pledges as best* you can or refund. Straight washing of hands isn't, given the level of involvement ED seem to have had in the rest of the project, even if they didn't approve every KS reward. *i.e. fulfilling whatever they physically can, not just those that represent good value/business sense for ED.

Just to add to that: That's not minimal involvement in the project, I doubt the KS rewards (which included P-51) were not discussed with ED

+1 Without ED being in the picture I'm sure there are many people that wouldn't have backed. It would be a very risky move to simply throw their hands up and go "wasn't me gov...". But they have said they will try honor it, so let's wait and see.

that link is disabled according to dropbox.

But remember, like the A10, it was originally designed to operate in a 1970s/80s FEBA environment. The casualties would have been horrific (both for the Grach and the Warthog), but that was the point of the plane, completely eliminating radar missiles from missions would be as unrealistic as always placing them perfectly in the flight path. Ideally, the target itself shouldn't be perfectly guarded by a full missile battery (unless you are simulating a coordinated strike/SEAD mission with lots of other aircraft involved), but thinking about what other high value targets in the area might be defended in that way and position missiles to defend them, that way you don't throw yourself at a brick wall, but equally you don't end up with a turkey shoot in a sterile mission environment.

That's a difficult one to answer, if there is an answer at all, but bear in mind that most of the systems in DCS were introduced around the same time (or thereabouts) as the SU25 (the exception that comes to mind is the ancient SA-3), so are not in themselves "too modern", even if they would have been high end at the time the SU25 entered service, but it's more a question of using them more sparingly as they would have been assigned to defend high value targets, with rear areas being guarded by substantially less capable systems. If we are talking about western SAMs, you could argue that Patriot is on the difficult side, and given that in the late 70's/early 80's NATO SAM capability was somewhat lacking, it is unrealistic to expect that every target an SU25 could have possibly hit would have had a top tier SAM site close enough for an attacker to "just happen" to pass through effective range, at least for anything short of WW3....

Which is exactly why game A2G tactics are often very far removed from real world ones, every mission seems to be set up to be an assault into the perfect storm of AA defences. It can be difficult to separate tactics driven by 'spectacle based' mission design from those that are doctrinally sound and likely to occur in a real world conflict. The best RL indicator remains the combat record...

There is no reason it can't be used like any other strike plane (stand off, multiple passes), as long as you are aware that it (even more so than the A-10C) can be a massive turkey if used in a heavily contested environment, due to the lack of modern stand off weapons, although like the A10A, it was designed as a front line strike aircraft for a cold war gone hot scenario. The SU25 Wikipedia page gives it's main engagements, but in summary, it did well in the Iran-Iraq war as a conventional strike aircraft, and in countless low intensity/insurgency conflicts (Afghanistan, Chechnya etc), but did less well in Georgia in 2008 against modern air defence. So what that means for scenario design is that it's only really going to work in situations where the opponent isn't packing high end SAMs, so insurgency or 1980s style scenarios.... In terms of targets, it's got a perfectly functional laser designator, so there's no reason it can't be loaded up with KH-25Ls and used for precision strike in a similar way to the A-10, especially if you are attacking softer targets like artillery or convoys. The "one pass, pour out ammo and run for the hills" approach is perfectly valid for high threat environments and these seem to be quite common in DCS missions, due to the temptation to liberally scatter high end SAMs and MANPADS around the target area in concentrations at the high end of what a RL deployment would be. So yeah, in summary, it's a pretty versatile bird, as long as you remember that the base SU25 hasn't really changed all that much since the early 80's and putting it unsupported against a modern IADS is going to get you killed.

QFT

You sir, are clearly an optimist! :)

Sadly the head would probably go flat in the post before it crossed the Atlantic....

Exactly. Virtual beer anyone?

No, I stated that the money was still coming from ED, as per Wags' post. If ED put their hands up and say 'the money's run out, we genuinely can't afford to meet the commitment made by RRG because the money we invested in them was mismanaged', that's fine. I respect ED's professional judgement and that's ok, I know all too well about train wreck projects in my professional life, having been involved in fixing a few. But in the absence of a statement that indicates financial difficulty, I'm not going to go round assuming 'poor ED' and making bland pleasantries about how it's only the modules that matter. That's not a criticism of anyone nor am I getting at anyone, but really, we're going round in ever smaller circles based on pure speculation.

+1 If they say they really can't honour part of it then we have something to discuss, until then, they say they will honour the KS, let's just hope they can.

Exactly.