MiG21bisFishbedL

Now that's odd. That shouldn't take long to change, you'd assume.

Oh boy, an warbly voice being emitted by a program unable to discern context giving me a briefing with the incorrect vocal inflections if any at all. Thrilling.

This would be rad. Fictional 1980s air war over Hokkaido, let's gooooo.

Not to my knowledge. They probably want to update the most popular in missions and campaigns first.

Yes, not being supported would be a limitation, I'd imagine. So, this tech has absolutely nothing to do with microstutters, but rather input. In fact, even there, this seems like another nVidia branded nothing-burger. Why do I need to meter and monitor my input times when they're already difficult to discern unless the software runs into a processing bottleneck of some form? These are questions and points that aren't going to be raised by a post in ChatGPT or its inapplicable nature to DCS' own performance woes.

Or are investors wondering why they've pumped so much money into the tech only to see little, if any, ROI. And then for the people running the firms developing AI to beg for even more money.

My self correcting scripts which are highly susceptible to errors and will churn out garbage are telling me that it'll churn out garbage? Wow!

Don't judge a man for frolicking.

It was what they have access to and can make.

Understatement of the century. They truly are hideous.

This sounds like the request is for more responsibility in EA release scheduling. I mean, as far as ideas go, it ain't a bad one. After all, we all remember the Viper's launch. It was MVP in the most generalized sense. As in, you could use it.

Also, how is this leading it out of a niche? The niche is detailed flight simming, not features that are absent.

I'm getting it over all, might be an issue. The F-5 and Chinook need a LOT of optimization. Apache needs some, itself. But, I'm going to continue playing and clearing shader caches to see if that sorts it out.

Oh that goes hard, thanks for the explanation and thanks to ED for that gesture. Kind of rocks, if true.

LET'S GO

There really is and it has been explained numerous times. Literally any thread clamoring for more RedFor will go into detail. This is the variant ED found usable resources on. Anything else could land them in legal troubles.

Assuming they can use it. There's a lot of stuff out there in the public that still can't be used. It doesn't make a lick of sense, but we're not the lawmakers.

My goodness!

Guess what a subscription model would not guarantee, though? That ship sailed over a decade ago.

I get that, but again, We'd still be paying a mark-up for an existing kit. That's a huge leap and, again, add value for those of us who have been here and made purchases.

The licensing is but one step. They kind of need a means to make them. Setting up a 3D printing facility in office, sourcing the right plastics, etc. finding a way to effectively store inventory, etc. There's no way they'd be able to even come close to matching the $35 I can spend on a Viggen kit from a dedicated manufacturer with that production infrastructure already in place. And, the moment us nerds find out which company is the manufacturer, we'll just go buy that kit and not pay the mark up, you know? Of course, this is assuming the usual scales of 1/72 to 1/32. Going smaller might be more feasible? Still, despite being fraught with obstacles, it's a better idea than a subscription.

It's not the worst idea, but where's my incentive to buy them as opposed to buying from Tamiya, Hasegawa, Trumpeter, Meng, or some other maker? We'd be looking at a low run of products and kind of an eclectic variety. Still, sure does beat the subscription since you get *SOMETHING* in return. iRacing is on Steam, you can charge a subscription fee there.

Forget beating it, let's atomize that dead horse. I've still yet anyone present me with any argument as to how this would deliver value to long time customers, such as myself, or how this method would even offer a major change in the rate of output. No, I'm not paying more on top of what I already have in order to slightly speed things along, if change anything at all. No, I'm not altruistic, this is a transactional relationship between myself and a company whose product I enjoy. No, I would not like the inconvenience of having to ensure I've paid up or force myself to get value out of a month's fee should I have the absolute audacity to take a break. No, I'm not paying for liveries unless it's directly to an artist who is taking commissions to make them. Yes, I would quit. It would be one of the most anti-consumer moves imaginable and could very well open them up to a civil suit. For a company that has been in a very dynamic and even volatile industry since '91, this would be a devastating move. If DCS were to have a subscription, it needed it back in 2012, not 2024.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend. It's pretty much unacceptable and I have no answers.

As I understand it, the AI improvements are really only for the post WWII offerings. The WWII AI are still waiting for work. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, of course.