KorovaMB

I'm sorry you're insulted, but your quote of me leaves out the important part that adds context, specifically, publishers leaving a product they are selling in "early access/beta" stage indefinitely. The OP mentions the Hawk as a plane that has been in this status for "years". I'm new to the community, so I don't know the history, but no one has refuted his statement, so I'm assuming it to be true. If it is the case, that doesn't seem right to me. But maybe its not the case. I certainly didn't see any mention of the product not being a release version in the DCS shop. My point, however, remains regarding the use of terms such as alpha, beta, or early access. In 30 years of computer gaming in various genres, I've gotten used to how those terms are typically used in the industry. Alpha is typically a closed access framework in early development stages. It is recognizable as many core systems are not installed in the game yet. Once all core systems are in game, it moves to beta status, where systems are finished and tweaked, and polish is put on. After that is done to a satisfactory level, then the developer closes out beta and releases to the product for sale. DCS has chosen to go a different route, as is their right. But when they use terms that are typically used in different ways, they should not be surprised by confusion. Once one starts paying money, how long should they be told that any concerns or criticisms are unjustified because "its only in beta"? What is the criteria for something to become full release version? Don't get me wrong. I've been enjoying DCS and am happy with the purchases I have made (the four WWII planes, Normandy and the WWII asset pack). The planes are great. And Normandy seems well done, albeit not yet finished. But hey, its still early access. But if someone tells me two years from now that I can't complain about something because Normandy is still in "early access", I have no doubt I will have a strong reaction to that lunacy.

I can only relate to my experiences with flying the WWII planes, but I haven't found any issues with the trees. I haven't used all the airfields, but I have yet to have one where the trees past the runways have posed problems. I can't speak to problems the helo pilots might find, since I don't fly them, but at least for the planes it seems to me if the tree hit box is an issue, I'm already in a pretty fubar situation.

Will we be getting a proper night fighter to go with that Lancaster? Either working radar on the 262 to make a B version, or a Me 410 or 110 G? Not much point to a night bomber without a night fighter to defend against it.

Not enough money in the world. Just sayin...

My thoughts exactly. This would allow scenarios that include non-carrier aircraft as well. If the island is generic, costs to implement should remain small.

The OP does bring up some good points. Particularly the point about "early access". While most of us know that beta/alpha products will come with bugs and issues, there is an expectation that the product will be finished. This is particularly the case when a customer has to purchase the product. Implicit in that purchase arrangement is that while they will get access earlier than waiting for the finished product, the product will be completed. But if the publisher never finishes the product (which is what they are signaling by leaving it in "early access/beta/alpha" status for long term or indefinitely), then they are not fulfilling their end of the bargain. Hopefully ED takes note of 3rd party publishers that are doing this and factors that in to their decision to support additional products from that publisher. Otherwise, "early access", etc. is just a semantics way for publishers to avoid accountability for their inability to come through with their product commitments.

IMHO, I'd like to see a Bf-110 or a Me-410. They could serve a dual purpose, as either fighter bombers to fulfil the GA role or as bomber interceptors, shooting down B-17's etc. Of course, that's my opinion of what's best, not my thoughts about what I really want. What I'd really like to see is a Spit I and a 109 emil. Perhaps a Hurricane as well. BoB is my favorite time period, but since the other planes are all late war planes, fleshing that out more probably makes more sense.

While I can appreciate the sentiment, I can't see waiting a year for any fixes or updates. The proposed December update would have the best fixes they have at that time. But that doesn't mean there wouldn't be residual issues and bugs. Any remaining bugs then would not get addressed for a full year? Even if ED has a fix in January for one, they should hold it off till the next December? And there would be no new content for a year? Seems to me the cure is worse than the disease.

Thanks for the well welcome. I'm definitely looking forward to getting used to playing this. Thus far my biggest hurdle has been me. After playing a lot of games with more "forgiving" flight models, I am now working on avoiding the instinct of yanking hard on the stick. Way too much energy bleed whenever I do.

I thought I'd take a minute to say hello to the community. I'm new to DCS and just getting used to everything. Other than some World of Warplanes arcade fun, I haven't played a flightsim since back in the CFS/CFS2/CFS3 days. I prefer WWII to modern jets, so that's what I'm focusing on. I bought the four planes, Normandy, and the assets pack during the bundle sale, and I've decided to start with the 109K. I've gotten takeoffs down, getting better with landings, and am working on gunnery. Once I've gotten used to flying this thing, I look forward to seeing some peeps online and shooting them down. :D Anyways, been learning a lot perusing the forums, so thanks to everyone for their contributions. It's helped me get going with this complicated sim.