Sandman1330

Hope you’re right. But as I read the text, even before I got to that point, I started to wonder if this would work with heavily scripted missions. It does sound more like a persistence save for units, etc - there wasn’t a mention of saving script states. Maybe it’s implied

If I read this right, the save function will not work with payware campaigns? Bummer…

Thanks, I tried 0, but not 1. Either way it has no effect - they leave the hesco towers and run around. I’ve made them immortal for the purposes of prolonging the fight against a superior enemy force, but the mission flow won’t work with them running around outside the FOB.

Is this still being investigated? I’m trying to build a mission that has infantry in the HESCO towers, but they disperse and leave the tower as soon as they come under fire, even with disperse turned off.

I don't think it's fair to refer to those who disagree with the development of this module as "complainers." It's more akin to shareholders of a company who may disagree with the direction the company board or CEO are taking the company. Many of us have spent significant amounts (thousands) over the years on ED modules - I have almost every single module and map. That's a significant investment in the DCS World ecosystem. If I feel the direction the company is going could jeopardize my enjoyment of the product that I have invested significant funds into, I have the right to speak up. That's not complaining, that's voicing my concerns to protect my investment. Calling those of us complainers who disagree with what we believe to be a shift in the company's focus, what we see as a reduction in the standard of documentation required to make an accurate module, is unfairly belittling. You don't have to agree with us, but you should respect our right to disagree (respectfully) with the decision.

Well said, and beautiful picture

It’s actually me you are quoting, not Oban, so I’ll address. The difference is FC4 are advertised as simplified / low fidelity (and priced accordingly). This one is advertised as high fidelity, a bar it can’t reasonably achieve in comparison to modules with thousands of pages of documentation that describe how they work. Much will have to be interpolated through educated guesses with this new module, something ED has refused to do with other full fidelity modules. I have no doubt it will be fun, detailed and immersive, but it just can’t be accurate. This is why I’ve advocated a third “high fidelity” tier for this one (and those that come after it). Detailed, clickable, but not able to be substantiated to the same level as full fidelity. Those customers who are interested in being as close as possible to the real thing can then, in an informed way, decide whether it works for them or not. It shouldn’t be advertised as the same level of fidelity as A10C, F18, etc, because it simply can’t be. If it is, then I for one have greatly overestimated how accurate the others actually are - and there lies the other concern in people’s minds. If this is truly to be to the same level as A10C, Hornet, et al - then this can only mean those modules are not as true to life as they were thought (and advertised) to be. Now, I’ve said my piece - my voice has been heard (I hope), and I’m going to stop responding to pings and responses as I’m just cluttering up the thread with the same argument again and again. If you buy it, great, it was free (my argument, not the module). If you don’t, carry on as if you were normal (little military humour there, no one take this seriously pls).

You feel this is disrespectful? Seriously? Nothing disrespectful to anyone here. I am literally saying here that it's OK to disagree, but to do so respectfully.

Who did so though? Disagreement doesn't equate to disloyalty. The vast majority of those disagreeing on this thread have done so respectfully. In fact, I think more disrespect and toxicity was just thrown by the "agreeing" side in the last page than has been thrown by the "disagreeing" side.

Actually I think for the most part this thread has been fairly civil. If you think this is toxic, you haven't been around long enough Different people play DCS for different reasons. Some play it for the level of realism it provides, while to others that's less important. To those for whom realism matters, this signals a shift away from the reason they play in the first place. This explains the passion, and they (we) have a right to express our concerns. Some may think it's whiny, and others may think those who don't value realism are just fanboys, air quakers, whatever. But in the end we have to remember that we have to respect the reasons others play, even if it doesn't align with our own. Let's not devolve to calling each other whiny (wasn't you) and/or toxic. Respect our right to voice disagreement with the direction the company is taking the game, and we will respect your right to play differently than us.

I do actually support and commend the effort. But it's the branding that's off, they can't call it full fidelity. It'll be awesome - I'll probably even buy it. It will be fun to mess around in. But it won't be to the level of current full fidelity modules, that's an impossible task. I don't need to wait to see what's presented to know it will be heavily based on educated guesses and assumptions, and will not represent the true capability of the aircraft to a reasonably high standard. Yes there are no FF modules that can 100% do this either, but they can get a lot closer. Wait - they merged this thread with the "this is amazing" thread? I don't really think the two threads were on the same topic... Edit - Ah ok, topic name also changed, fair.

Right - But the F35 will not, cannot be anything close to a realistic representation. That's the core of my argument.

I think I have to disagree on this point. DCS is, was, and has always marketed itself to that playerbase. That's their core playerbase, those of us who have been here since the A10C and Huey were brand new, who came to get the most realistic representation possible. The fun crowd has other options in the market to be frank. I'm not against opening it up to a wider audience - indeed it's probably necessary to ensure the long term sustainability of the product. But please don't alienate those who came here for what they advertised, and still advertise - top tier high fidelity modules. Again it just comes down to how they market it. I'm not against it, just market it for what it will be - high fidelity, not full fidelity. And it probably should...

I'll just re-iterate what I think is my main point, since it may have gotten buried in the personal back and forth. There's a pretty simple solution to the question of "cheapening" the full fidelity brand. Give this (and others like it) a new tier, new branding. Call it "high fidelity." So you'd have FC4 -> high fidelity -> full fidelity. Each with their own standards of documentation, etc. FC4 - As it currently is, simplified systems, non-clickable cockpits. High fidelity - Clickable cockpits, deep systems simulation, but understanding many reasonable assumptions / educated guesses were made to fill in gaps in documentation. May not represent the full and true capabilities of the modelled aircraft. Full fidelity - As it currently is. High bar for available documentation, top tier standard of realism. Opening up this new "high fidelity" brand would open the door to a whole new ecosystem of possibilities that we haven't had access to before. It could be very good for DCS, bring in new players, new revenue streams.

Again, more to my point, I'm not against them making this. As I said above, I think it could be cool. But advertising it as full fidelity calls into question the fidelity of the rest of their full fidelity modules, based on actual documentation. And yes, I do believe their other full fidelity modules are very accurate. Not 100%, maybe 80%. But the F35A can be no better than 20%, it's a big step down.