kazereal

Sounds very good :)

:lol:

It appears some wording was changed afterwards.. Hmm.. Oh well, there'll be new maps eventually, just a matter of time.. :cry:

Good point, except it is hard not to.

Well, we knew Nevada was coming, so likely this as well? Brilliant! :D

What is this sorcery?? :shocking: :thumbsup: :cheer3nc: :bounce:

I had same (before most recent patch) when changing settings for the new joystick. I have not tried with patched version yet. Steps to reproduce were something similar to this (sorry, did not make notes at the time): 1) enter options, change controls 2) load mission, fly and tryout controls 3) quit to main menu, enter options and open controls-tab Repeat quickly a few times. Seemed to be more likely when computer was under heavy load (lots of read/write going on). Added this just in case this helps tracking down the problem. Edit: default page in controls was usually P-51D Real controls for some reason. Also this had more options to "scan" for when entering so might have some effect as well. Edit2: after some attempts could not repeat with latest patched version (1.2.8.27915)

Simply outstanding! :shocking:

Superb news! Thanks for sharing. :thumbup:

Nothing solid. Just speculating for fun and putting some things together.. After all, it is quite essential since it also has new and improved map engine as well as graphics engine..

Well they do have random failures option already.. Change that so each airframe "remembers" (records) the punishment given and adjusts probability of certain failures by some factor? How hard could that be..? :music_whistling: *ahem* Maybe with option to turn it off as well or mechanics working at super-speed :D

My bad, sorry. Just what I recalled from last couple of releases. It does seem like releases ARE getting farther apart than what they were though. (Looking at release dates from here: http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/)

A lot has been said on this already but to gather some points a lot of the "grief" is that updates are released on six month periods which is a long time to wait? Or maybe I just misinterpreted.. Anyway, could it be considered that simpler, more obvious and critical bugs could be patched between those major releases? If we call the major releases "feature" releases and patches as "hotfix" releases would that be clearer? Of course there are very complex interactions and fixing/changing might have to wait until "feature" release to be fixed and properly tested not to cause regressions or to break something else. From what was said in this thread I gather that there are already development and release branches in the source control/version control system at ED since there are coming/in progress versions in bug tracker already? That would imply "out-of-band" hotfix/patch for a critical issue might not be maintenance nightmare regarding source code? And to repeat myself a bit: if the patch would need large changes or extensive testing it would have to wait for larger release for proper integration. Only those "game-breaking" obvious-to-fix patches would go through a "hotfix" release. So how does that sound? In 1.2.8 this kind of approach seems to have started in the open beta version anyway. This would achieve quicker fixes to most troublesome problems and community (customers) would get the feeling that their worries ARE being addressed?

If rumours are to be believed then they maybe in middle of EDGE integration and are focusing all energy on that. This might also mean that they can't really produce newer screenshots or video until integration is done and working properly again. So let's hope no news is good news. Right? ;)

Brilliant! :megalol:

It does have other kind of appeal to me anyway. So while ultra-modern planes have all the avionics and high-tech things, older early jets are interesting where you don't have all the extra components but more "direct" connection with how machine handles. Plus you are always "on the edge" where you over-push it beyond the envelope to limits of that era. It might not be much in combat against Su-27 for example, but flying that is interesting by itself already.

I'm throwing money at the screen already, why is it not working?? :smilewink:

:thumbup:

Looking back at various other promising projects the communications have often been the cornerstone of how long-lived a project is. Not just flight simulations but other software projects, especially in Linux-world, are easily forked/branched or redone when communication fails between developers anyway. Some examples are XFree86 -> X.org, OpenOffice.org -> LibreOffice and so on. Now, this is of course different than commercial software with obvious interest in keep the source code only between developers etc. But the root cause to start competing products is often the same that involved parties don't work together well. This is known to happen. Opening list of "known bugs" (maybe just public-reported and not internally discovered bugs?) would at least communicate the status a bit more that problems are known and being looked into instead of just ignored? Anyway, that's my view on this.

Unfortunately the step from SFM to PFM is pretty damn high.. Even upgrading Su-27 from SFM to AFM seems to take a lot of time. Belsimtek did do awesome job upgrading F-15C to PFM. I agree that more planes would be fun but there are plenty of "game-simulation" level aircraft in other software already and after tasting PFM I do want quality over quantity. This meaning that I do prefer to have small number of higher quality aircraft than huge amount of simplistic/boring "look-alike" planes. I assume many that are interested in DCS are here for the same reason as well.. :pilotfly:

I still think that there just weren't enough people.. Average funding amount comes to about $58, plus people who joined via Paypal etc. Amount needed for B-17 would have needed about 6700 people funding the Kickstarter with that average. The current 2500 backers is just nowhere near that amount. Let's hope once RRG has releases and solid reputation with planes to show the talent that more people would be interested in joining for further Kickstarters.

They have entirely different ways of simulating and DCS adds a whole lot of things that FSX simply does not support. With conversion a 3D model and textures might be reusable if source is good enough quality - usually they are not in FSX, most of them are just horribly low quality. Also animating flaps and so on would need to be redone entirely anyway so it's simpler to do it all from scratch in better quality and to actual specifications - polishing s**t won't change it into gold.

Not really hostility, more like sarcasm: everyone likes them and wants them but also realises the amount of work that needs (not just cockpit switches but the systems they are linked to).

Precisely this :) At least some of the developers are working for military contracts and that's where the main funding comes and where most work goes. So even if the consumer-products are not worked on full time there are talented and dedicated people working on these. Also I may be mistaken but RRG has also backing from TFC (in part?) or something like that and Kickstarter was only used to fund the extra testing/extra modules to be finished? (Need to check somewhere..) Edit: quote from Kickstarter-page: So the money raised with Kickstarter is just part of the whole thing. Take that into account when referring to that $150000

True, although I think 1.2.9 was mentioned somewhere on planned releases or something like that somewhere.. Don't quote me on that though :D