jasonbirder

I'm using viacom so maybe there's a conflict! Thjough I CAN get Uzi to respond its Hammer I have trouble with... I'll see if leaving Voice Commands off rectifies it!

Because they're running CAS/BAI type missions in permissive environments with tightly controlled ROE as opposed to deep penetration strike missions in bad weather against a peer level adversary?

I'll record a track later and post!

The A10C was released in a pretty much complete state...but it has been updated recently with a redone cockpit and changes to the cannon accuracy

No, I don't have easy comms enabled in the game options (I guess it would kind of spoil the whole point of this training evolution lol) - I'm using the appropriate radios & frequencies as per instructions & briefing I've stayed on stable 2.5.5 as people have been having so many problems with 2.5.6 Can't work out the problem with Hammer...Uzi releases me and the FE instructs me to check in with Hammer (who is on AM 31.0) but I can get no response from him even with multiple attempts. I can't procede furtherr with the mission until I check in with Hammer and prosecute his targets...

I do only use stable - and whilst I have purchased a number of EA modules to qualify for discount...they're all "parked" with minutes on the flight hours! My point is that updates to the STABLE build repeatedly break functionality & DLC/User Campaigns and Missions...as essentially "stable" is little more thana slightly older Open Beta Version. I'm saying its "bad business practice" as on multiple occasions EDs own stable updates breaks paid-for & supported ED content, you can colour that however you like...but to me thats the very definition of "bad business practice" - selling something, then rendering it unusable after the fact. My point is that drip-feeding constant tiny updates and features gives multiple opportunities to "break" functionality, less time and motivation for it to be fixed quickly (its only going to break again soon) and that it would be better to have occasional wide-ranging complete, tested and working updates to the core game and for modules to be released WHEN they're finished (like the A10C was)...rather than when they're 40% complete...then add another 5% on in a month...and another 5% ad in-finitum with all the additional error pints that introduces.

That's probably true (though its not a confirmed ED statistic and is conjecture based around the number of PUBLIC servers only) Obviously MP itself is only a small minority of the ED userbase anyway (less than half the number of Single Player Users according to ED)

:) :thumbup:

According to EDs own statistics more than twice as many Players are on Stable as on Open Beta (>60% Stable, 30% OB, <10% legacy versions)

Stable user here too...there's plenty that's broken! How many DLC campaign missions (paid for and ostensibly sold & supported by ED) don't work as new versions break pathfinding, AI, comms & triggers?

Anyone have any tips for contacting the Hammer JTAC in this PO - he seems to be either AWOL or very reluctant to give me any trade in this mission... Axeman is easy to contact (on FM 30.0) after destroying his targets my FE instructs me to contact Uzi (he answers on the tactical freq AM 124.0) he's not so eager...and very rarely responds to my first radio check-in...but that obviously wakes him as he usually offers some trade at my second time of asking! Hammer is a different kettle of fish - I know he's on AM 31.0 (but I have tried him on the Tac freq as well AM 124.0 just to make sure) but he doesn't respond at the first, second or third time of asking...that's after dealing with Uzi's targets and getting the appropriate instruction to check in with Hammer from my FE. Any thoughts on rousing him?

But that also seems to give them licence to break everything as they go along...and deliver unfinished (and possibly never to be finished if the whole Hornet Early Access debacle plays out as I suspect it will) modules at full price. I can't help but feel that if they'd stop incrementally updating everything as they go along and had simply released the 2.5 Causacus Map as a Paid for Map (like PG and NTTR) and completed modules like the A10C we might be better off... Half the updates in each incremental patch are to fix something they've previously broken...the rest it is incremental updates to unfinished modules... They wouldn't need to continually update if they sold significant updates (like the new causacus map) as completed paid for add-on and finished modules...

Wow! You Open Beta users sure are impatient...no updates to the Hornet for a fortnight I hear you saying!!!! How do you live like that!

During COIN campaigns in desert/dry atmosphere areas with Hi-Hi-Hi Mission profiles and no opposition... One suspects that in a conflict againsta peer level adversary, undertaking STRIKE (not CAS/BAI) Missions in bad weather in a degraded GPS environment...might prove somewhat different!

If its possible to put in place a suggested release date (May) for the next Open Beta Update...would it be possible to put in place a suggested release date (even if its only to the nearest month) for the next Update to the Stable Version - as that is obviously information of interest to a far greater number of DCS players (given the overwhelming majority of DCS players are on the stable version)

Deleted...wrong thread!

Depending on your platform...you can create a markpoint (easy done in the US jets Av8/A10/FA18/F16) at your current position and then reference your position in relation to that markpoint

So a third party developer could work on updates/additional functionality/bug fixes for a paid for module customers have purchased and release it to them? Or do they have to pass it onto ED who'll release it to a tiny minority of Beta testers...but sit on it with regards to the vast majority of their customer base who CAN"T GET ACCESS to this his even though the 3rd party have (in your own words) "made their stuff work" ?

When was the last update to the release version of the game?

ED has no responsibility for maintaining 3rd party modules CURRENTLY being sold actively via the ED website? And that ED has an active commercial relationship with? It's quite literally caveat emptor and whatever 3rd party Plane, Terrain, Campaign you've just paid out your heard earned wages for could INSTANTLY stop working with any update or change to DCS World and you'd have ZERO comeback? I can't help that ought to be displayed VERY prominently on the shop page of all Third Party modules...that $80 bucks for whatevver plane you're thinking of buying startsto look like a terrible investment if it could stop working tomorrow with no recompense!

Really? I keep being told this but, are you really suggesting that say, M2000C Red Flag by Baltic Dragon Mission 5: removed a truck that refused to move and blocked Chevy 12 (Added Jan '20) is continually tested & updated as part of everyday development as the 2.5.6.xxx openbeta evolves? Or was it a simple change to a .miz file dumped into the OB update back in January after being handed ED by a 3rd party dev? If its the latter...what's the game-breaking reason ED can't bundle up all the other similar updates/fixes and release them across onto stable? IF it IS being continually tested and updated...why is it not mentioned in the changelogs where it has been updated?

Which was EXACTLY my point...software updates/fixes created for a January release into Open Beta can't possibly be "ONLY COMPATIBLE" with the current Open Beta release in April can they? If they're compatable with January 2020 code AND April 2020 Code (written AFTER they were released - so impossible to have been tested against) why is so difficult to imagine they might be compatible with December 2019 code as well?

Hypothetically speaking...IF the current iteration of Open beta takes a significant length of time to resolve lighting/VR/FPS issues...taking us later and later into 2020 Will ED at SOME POINT consider an update to stable including use of purchased 3rd party modules (IE JF17) updates from 3rd Party developers (module updates and DLC fixes) etc Or is EDs final word that Stable is frozen in time for AS LONG AS IT TAKES (be it 6 months, 9 months, a year, more) to work on the current Beta Version. Also if rolling Open Beta 2.5.6.xxx into a stable release is ED'd priority...why does every Open Beta new version contain additional functionality and code, new features, new additions etc etc...why isn't ED making 2.5.6.xxx work sufficiently well to release to stable first BEFORE layering additional complexity and changes on top?

I was refering to it specifically in the context of Third-Party "fixes" bundled with a particular open beta build...not more broadly the development of modules wholistically.

I'm DEEPLY confused by this...IF the previous third party updates were built to work with a specific open beta version and couldn't POSSIBLY work with anything else... How is it that for example, DCS Campaigns Enemy Within 3.0 campaign by Baltic Dragon: M07: helipad and insurgent camp is no longer covered by the trees. M09: minor changes to AI wingman target reporting. Released to Open Beta on the 14/1 can ONLY be compatible with the current Open Beta Update (released 16/4) - Did the Third Party developers get sent som code back in a Time Machine for them to work on? Or are they not quite so narrowly "version compatible" as you seem to insist?