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.

I can surmise it has nothing to do with military aviation. If it does prove me wrong.

Well I am a real military pilot who works just down the road from and often on the base that's getting these, and who works with the pilots who are going to be flying these. I'm aware of the security precautions that surround it, so I'm certainly more qualified than you. You've also heard from an actual crew chief who worked on them and wasn't even given full access, and another military pilot who worked in an adjacent squadron who wasn't even allowed even the most basic information. What more do you need to be convinced?

This is the point. It's not anymore (never really was, but it was close, and just took a big step down). Those of us who know how classified this aircraft truly is know it cannot be modelled to any level of detail that would constitute a full fidelity game, let alone a sim. I'm not sure the general population truly understands this. I think it's cool, I just think it's out of place (and out of character) for DCS. Maybe we're looking at another tier of fidelity - call it FC4 (low-fi), full fidelity (certain standards for documentation, etc), but in the middle drop a new one - high fidelity. Clickable cockpits, as accurate as possible but with the understanding that multiple assumptions and educated guesses have been made. Don't advertise it as full fidelity, give it it's own in between tier. FC4 -> high fidelity -> full fidelity. Might alleviate much of our concerns about DCS lowering the standards for full fidelity, and open the door for others in the same high fidelity tier that can't quite be made to full fidelity standards.

Sadly you are probably correct. I suspect the hardcore crowd isn't enough to remain economically viable, and this probably wasn't they way the wanted to go, but had little choice to remain competitive against other games.

But those modules are marketed as such. FC4 modules are both branded as not being full fidelity, and are much cheaper.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm saying it is a monumental, tectonic shift in ED's business model. DCS will never be the same - we are now going to be looking at a significant mix of ultra high fidelity models mixed with pseudo, knida sorta high fidelity. This is groundbreaking....

I feel Pandora's box has been opened...

Oh make no mistake, it will sell like hotcakes. Just look at the popularity of mods for 4+ and 5th gen jets. It will probably also bring in new crowds, both of which are good for ED's budget. My prediction is this will result in a bit of a split. Hardcore / traditional fans, the longer standing playerbase, will play on servers that likely won't even include this module. The same servers that already don't allow mods. Life will go on as if it doesn't even exist. A separate, newer playerbase will coalesce around this module to play in less realistic, less "traditional DCS" servers, probably with heavy inclusion of mods to give it a contemporary environment in which to fly. There's no way the "traditional" DCS playerbase is going to accept this module, much as they already don't accept mods. But it will definitely grow the playerbase in a different demographic.

I'm afraid I have to somewhat agree, though I'll do so with less cynicism. I do fear this may "cheapen the brand." There's no way this can be anything close to full fidelity. Released as an FC4, I'd understand. But I agree this could impact the credibility of ED's other, true FF modules that are based on actual tangible documentation.

Just flew Mission 3 a couple of times, so maybe I can help: Issue 1 - I think you need to refuel on the right hand hose. As soon as Smoke hooked up on the left side, I went through the comms and tanked off the right hand hose no issues. Issue 2 - You're the flight lead, hog all the action for yourself But seriously, there is an issue where Smoke will bugger off to the tanker. I strafed the truck, but *only* damaged it 57% before going winchester so it kept driving. Tried to order Smoke to attack but he was gone to the tanker. This is why I flew it twice Issue 3 - Can't help, didn't use the skip.