Hook47

This plane is AWESOME! What a Christmas present!

Honestly I find it awkward that Wags even suggested it may be released on Christmas, as I expected they would all be taking the holiday... Not that I would OPPOSE a Christmas release. Hopefully if it is delayed something would have been posted by now- therefore no news is good news? 9:00 AM Moscow time, baby! The next 8 hours will be torture.

Just looking at the two fighters in general tells me what I need to know! That 104 had some GOOFY little wings! Was a crazy lookin bird...

What makes you think we will have a Viggen in 2016??? :lol::lol::lol:

LOL Hummingbird, ol' pal, you just can't get enough of these MiG 21 vs _________ threads can ya?! Anyway that being said my money would be on the MiG 21 vs the flying coffin... Ahem... I mean the F-104. Sure it may have a better STR according to the books anyway, but the Fishbed, particularly the Bis model has too many advantages. IIRC this was proved in actual combat. The F-104G, to my knowledge, was really intended to be more of a fighter bomber. It had 7 hard points but only provisions for 4 AIM 9s, a load out easily matched by by the 21Bis, and with the 21Bis having a front aspect advantage with the R3R, and the 104G having no radar, I see a pretty big advantage tipping towards the MiG 21. The MiG could also control the engagement with superior TWW, particularly with the use of the emergency after burner. That being said why exactly are we discussing the 104G? Did I miss something? As in a 104G announcement?! I haven't been around a few days but I didn't see any such thread... I think I heard Aviodev was supposedly planning one but that is assuming the C-101 gets finished one day :/ Coming up next: F4U Corsair VS MiG 21

Yea but the C-101 is already a cut above the Hawk in a lot of areas, and thankfully Aviodev hasn't announced 40 other aircraft like VEAO, so I think the C-101 is in much better focus. The L-39 is way ahead of both though. Anyway the latest response from Peyvolt is still a bit vague but thanks for the info about the manual, we certainly look forward to that and appreciate the hard work.

+1 All excellent points.

This hits the nail on the head. There is a point where it is no longer reasonable to expect ample patience and cheerful attitudes, and the lack of actual information from the devs other than "We are workin' compounds the situation. NeilWillis, I do not care if you do not share our opinions, but please desist trying to silence anyone who disagrees with you. The fact that there are so many frustrated customers speaks to the reality that there is an issue here, regardless of what you or I think "Beta" does or does not mean. You make it sound like we forced AvioDev to release an unfinished product because we were so desperate to part with our money, but I am quite sure AvioDev was motivated to start selling the C-101 as soon as they could, because they wanted that money. Beta is not a catch all label to alleviate the dev from any and all responsibility to their consumer. It still exists, whether the project went on sale before it was finished or not, and in consideration of that responsibility I think more/better information would be appropriate. I am afraid the last few dev "updates" have really told us absolutely nothing. I am afraid you are indeed missing the point here, NeilWillis, there has been plenty of patience, but at this point I and I think many others want some actual explanation as to what is being done on the module.

Do yourself a favor this holiday and grab a rudder. I cannot imagine doing BCM/ACM without rudder input as I use it constantly.

I see you often come around to echo that we just need to "grow a little patience" but I have two major issues with your points. First, we didn't "sign up for a beta" as you phrased it, we purchased a product, with a black and white statement that it would be finished within a reasonable time frame after release. This isn't a mod or unsold product, it has been sold and Aviodev has entered into an agreement with every single customer to deliver. Cancellation is not on the table for Aviodev, unless they want to end up in a very bad situation with their customers. Secondly you say that it would be in our interest not "to get pitchforks and torches" out, but I assure you based on simple real world experience that things are more likely to get done or changed when there is pressure versus when there is not. Thirdly we are actually entitled to some things, such as a finished product, and along with that I think the customers deserve an improved flow of information. There has been more than enough patience to go around, that isn't the issue here. If you think that we should all just keep silent and twiddle our thumps, please notice that the prior posts expressing concern and slight frustration merited a response from the Dev. I do not think that would have happened if the thread sat silent. The squeaky wheel gets the oil, as it were.

I am thankful to hear from the devs, but as a C-101 customer I cannot say that statement (from Peyvolt) satisfies me at all really. Could we get some information about what exactly remains to be done for release? What systems remain to be finished? What are the blocking bugs? Is there an adjusted time from for release available? And anyone who decries me for impatience must remember exactly how long it has been since the 101CC and EFM were expected, vs were we are now. I am not demanding immediate release or anything since that just isn't possible, but certainly would like more information about what is going on or what is still being developed other than "we are workin on it" which basically just lets us know we aren't forgotten- not that doing so is a bad thing! I just think it's not enough info to be honest. Again, this isn't meant to be offensive, just honest input. I think all 3rd party devs need to take a moment to look at how Razbam has handled communication during the development of the M2000C. They have set an awesome example when it comes to communication with customers, and I bet if this was applied to some of our other devs a lot of the issues with the community would vanish. One thing I have heard said is is just takes too much time to regularly update the forums when developing a module, but I think a paragraph or so every once in a while is reasonable. Anyway we certainly hope to see this module/EFM soon, good luck to the team in the mean time.

Perfect! Thanks a ton for taking our input

I think if we could get a "Special Menu" check box for the automatic option, and a key binding we could use either way, that would be the best situation all around. That way there can be some options for both preferences.

All this back and forth about Razbam hinting as this day and whether or not this or that was official won't matter in a few days :)

Awesome stuff Zeus! Really excited to hear you guys are pushing the manual with the aircraft. Other devs could learn from you guys!!! :thumbup: Oh, is there an OFF setting for that limiter? For those feeling dangerous!!! Lol :)

So we know now from Zeus it won't be tomorrow.... Maybe Wednesday? Lol

Last we heard it will not be in open beta, but is still being considered for final release (PLEASE) lol

Considering the roller coaster been through, a few words on the update status would be much appreciated, AvioDev. Really would like to know the status on the 101CC

It's an impressive plane to be sure, but based on the latest video my money is still soundly on the SU-27 in a fair merge. It out climbed the M2000, turned with it, and that HMD is a pretty massive advantage in a turning fight.

Done! Now as for this M2000C.... I'm free on the 15th Razbam, if you want to release it then :smilewink:

I agree, I think the External lighting is far too dim and it does detract from the realism to a degree. I would love to see it improved. Thanks

I think the external lighting effects are still WIP In 1.5 and 2.0, as they are pretty dim. Hopefully ED will work on that. I would be curious to know if the lighting is automatically dynamic in the new engine or if its developer dependent, if the former hopefully the M2000 will have dynamic lighting anyway.

Yea I see people are sweating the optic a bit but I do not think it will be very hard for them to do.

Heck ya! Fingers still crossed....

Agreed on the flanker. It is a real beast in visual range, which it why I have been flying it so much lately online! Although I should think the M2000 may have a ITR advantage I don't think it will be able to capatalize on it. Interesting. The loading for the MiG 21 with that data is stated as "optimal" which I assume would be similar. Where did you find .91 to 1.05? The only couple places I've found have ranged from .79-.88 but I am not saying that is reliable. Is there an English manual floating around for this bird?