StandingCow

I was thinking, instead of doing what most of us do and just hiding the pilot body... would it be possible for ED to implement the pilot arms fading out when we look at them to reach switches? Might add a bit to immersion, not that our body parts fade in real life but it would be better than not seeing the pilot body at all imo.

The tanker appears if you zoom in, sorta like contrails, etc. :/

Still an issue. Is this a DCS bug or an F14 bug?

Mover did a video on this:

IIRC there had to be 5 or more players for the issue to show? I may be wrong.

Or a tick mark in the server browser that is unchecked by default.. and when you click on it you get a warning... yea something like that would be a good reminder to folks.

This imo is absolutely it. There are few of them and they do work hard and are good at what they do. You simply cannot find the amount of issues that 100s or 1000s of different open beta are able to find due to hardware differences, load put on servers, and simply more eyes/combinations of different ways they implement weapons, etc.

It's really a double edged sword for ED as well as the community. Because the open beta is so popular in MP (more popular than the release version I would argue) a lot of the bugs are found and reported to ED. The other side of that is.... there are a lot of bugs because it is an open beta. You aren't going to find the amount of bugs that are currently found by the community if the open beta were to be blocked or if it became much less popular... and that means those bugs have a much higher chance of making it to the release version.... then we are right back where we started, but this time the open beta "excuse" (for lack of a better term, I don't mean to suggest ED uses it an as excuse, but you know what I mean) isn't available. In the end I think what we have now isn't a bad solution, people just sometimes need to be reminded that they are playing an open beta - plus it gives ED the loosely named "excuse" I mentioned above for those bugs to be present. Will we sometimes get a very broken release? Yes, but I argue a lot of that is found because of the popularity of open beta.

Sounds to me like the dampeners are catching a bit... try backing them all the way off?

I think his point is you should still be able to use the center boom as well.

See thread here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=263368

There is no other game I (and my friends) play every weekend, almost without a miss. Even with all the challenges there is no better game out there.

I won't keep this going and this will be my last comment on the matter as I don't wanna beat a dead horse (or cow in my case) but this is fine for those of us that have been here a while, we know how stuff works in ED... but what about the new folks just coming in? DCS has had a very large influx and will probably have another when Topgun 2 comes out. I just picture a new person getting the F14 at it's early access release state and saying to themselves, "Hey, this is pretty great! Sure some stuff is missing but it feels pretty complete!" The F14 didn't cause any negative learning. Now say that new guy goes and gets the F16 at it's early access release thinking the quality will be the same.... oh boy is he in for a surprise and negative learning. We all (for the most part) want what's best for ED since they create the game we love to play... we aren't here just to make a fuss for no reason.

I think a lot of these early access issues and confusion are a learning opportunity for both us as customers and ED as the developer. Calling something "early access" is fine and we should expect a module to be unfinished and have some bugs, but I think we all need a definition of how unfinished and how buggy is acceptable for an early access release. The F16 vs F14 is a good example of this, a lot of us were pretty disappointed (I am pretty forgiving of ED early access modules and even I was disappointed) with the state is was released in. I wonder if this was ED testing the waters of just what the community will find acceptable... or was it a case of the community finding out what is acceptable? In my mind if a module could cause "negative learning" it is too early to release. The term early access just doesn't define clearly enough the state a module is in anymore. The F14 for example was released in early access, and in my mind is an acceptable state for an early access module. The F16 on the other hand was barely finished and much too early (in my opinion at least). How does one term like "early access" clearly communicate to the community how far along something is? Just imagine a new person coming into DCS, grabbing the F14 in early access and thinking that is a benchmark for EA, then grabbing the F16 when it was first released. I think they would be pretty confused? There must be a better way to define how complete something is at the start of the early access period (early access alpha vs early access beta maybe?). A clearer definition would benefit both the community and ED in my opinion.

Moo

Which is ok for those of us on standalone. Steam users don't get a choice. It's stable or very broken OB. I suggested ED implement what some other games do where you get to choose the version you want to run.

Poor Phantoms. :(

Cows will be early access. They will not be able to do the following on initial release: Moo, be milked, no additional skins, no bell. They hope to add grazing but aren't sure yet if grazing is accurate. :D

Would love to see ED focus on vietnam era aircraft. It was such a cool time for aviation.

I'd say there is a 50/50 chance. We will know 100% tomorrow after there is or is not an update.

Glad you guys took some time off, often times consumers and sadly some companies expect devs to be some sort of superhumans that work almost 24/7 with no time off so they can get their new toy. Crunch and overworking is a very bad thing that nobody should wish on others. Looking forward to what comes from HB in 2020, you guys are amazing!

Hopefully future videos showing off modules will only feature things that are 100% sure to be compatible. Having shown a Tomcat in the trailer then saying you aren't sure if it will be able to use the carrier is a bad look.

IIRC in reading about it... a lot depends on how well it is implemented. So, we really have no idea until it happens.

Not true. The Vulcan API uses multi-core much better than other APIs, it also results in less calls to the CPU. From wikipedia: "Compared to OpenGL and Direct3D 11, and like Direct3D 12 and Metal, Vulkan is intended to offer higher performance and more balanced CPU/GPU usage. Other major differences from Direct3D 11 (and prior) and OpenGL are Vulkan being a considerably lower-level API and offering parallel tasking. Vulkan also has the ability to render 2D graphics applications.[11] In addition to its lower CPU usage, Vulkan is also able to better distribute work among multiple CPU cores.[12]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulkan_(API)

OP stands for "overpowered", it's been used in tons of different games for ages.