Horns
-
Posts
1309 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Horns
-
Ok, I'm not here to argue so I'll leave it. Either way, the mudhen's a/g radar certainly turns out a good clear image. Here's hoping it stays in the game.
-
Hornet manual (page 193) does state EXP3 mode is SAR, so not sure who's right on that...
-
The F-15E wasn't even out when the Hornet introduced ground mapping with SAR, so they can't claim that one. When you said "would have comming for RB modules that were in development" I didn't realize you were talking about features already implemented, but I do agree that it would be sad if we lost those features. The GCI link for the M2K would have been good, hopefully the MiG-29 brings a good implementation of GCI and perhaps it will open a door for other modules.
-
We do already have STOVL in the Harrier, although I will give Razbam credit for introducing that. TFR too, but isn't that in the F-15E? Re SAR and ground mapping, does the Hornet not already have that? Edit: When I first posted this I wrongly said that it was Heatblur (HB) who introduced the STOVL in the Harrier, I meant Razbam. I edited my post to make sure it didn't mislead anyone.
-
I've been reading the "F-15 WIP Update Discussion" thread from mid-22 onwards, and I think I understand a little more about the experience that customers who've been following since before pre-order have gone through. After getting signals saying mudhen EA was "imminent" or "soon" over an extended period of time I'm sure many of you had doubts, then there appeared to be a resurgance of hope when preorders became available. I could see a lot of dissatisfaction at the protracted time between pre-order and EA. I expect there was some relief when you did finally have a product in your hands, and the potential it showed must have led to some feeling that the experience might have been worth it. For that to be followed by less than a year of development before reaching a state of arrested development almost seems crueller than if the jet had never hit EA to begin with. While I've been pretty clear about my beliefs regarding where blame should go, I never meant to suggest I lacked empathy for customers or that somehow purchasers got what they deserved; if anything I said gave you that impression I'm sorry, and I will bear my modestly improved knowledge of customer context in mind when I post about emotive things here in future. Here's hoping there's some kind of positive outcome to all this.
-
Does the HB system carry over the aircraft state between missions? I thought that was just within the same mission, I could be wrong though.
-
Sorry dude, any opt-in features that add persistence are features I won't opt-in to and I don't think enough people would opt in to justify the amount of work it would take to implement this. There are strategy games where this idea might find a home, but I don't think MMO-like features would be welcomed by the DCS community.
-
Potential new or returning customers are going to look at the DCS page to work out if there's anything interesting in enough to draw them in. Many won't want to sign up for the newsletter, seeing it as just another email coming into their already crowded inbox that they will often have little interest in. I just wondered if it might be worth adding a "Coming Soon" section to the DCS page, so that potential customers can easily find the modules likely to become available soon. You could combine this with a "Recent Releases" section, so people who haven't looked in a few months can easily find modules that might have been announced and launched since they last looked (eg: Cold War: Germany map). ED will have the analytic data, so they may have an idea of how many people this might attract. To me creating a "Recent Releases" and/or "Coming Soon" section seems like a modest investment of effort for plenty of potential benefit, but of course that's not my call.
-
Or just sit on it until it goes numb first
-
ED have been clear they won't talk about their conduct of this dispute. It's also pretty evident that they aren't going to change their business, legal or communication strategy just because you repeat yourself. You've said the same thing over and over, any positive effect this might have had has already happened. If you have something new to say go ahead, but at this point all that repeating yourself does is annoy other users. Enough.
-
Our Incoming MiG-29A vs Non Warsaw Pact Variant
Horns replied to Horns's topic in DCS: MiG-29A Fulcrum
Apologies, I thought I had replied previously. Thank you for such a comprehensive answer. If IFF and its related switchology are the main difference, it seems that the forthcoming module will be a reasonable analog for the MiGs of any country who owned them, be they USSR, WP or non-aligned. Much appreciated. -
Clearly ED has to provide some answers, lest the cardinals cease support for the church…
-
I understand the idea - but ED have been clear that they won't comment on why they won't comment.
-
Can't and won't are often a matter of perspective. Employees of ED (and NG) are compelled to act in the best interests of the company. If their counsel has advised that making this a public debate would not be in the company's interests, it's reasonable for them to say they *can't* do so. Even if you forget the above, and even if BN and NL were convinced by your argument and permitted to speak of things differently, the only change would be that ED would say they *won't* comment rather than they *can't* comment. Would that really change anything? No one is going to start commenting publicly due to semantics.
-
Does ED expect a certain level when deciding whether something leaves EA (ie reaches 'release' state, whether or not there will be a product sustainment phase), or is that the third-party dev's call?
-
I saw a letter that said it was from Marshall and accused Colson of stealing his hairdryer. I asked Marshall if he’s seen the letter but he hasn’t talked about his beef with Colson and won’t start now. I asked Colson and he just said “Marshall’s accused me of that before”. I sat on a park bench to think and a big tree branch landed on my head. After that, I came to the obvious conclusion that since neither of them said it was fake the letter must be legit. Anyway, enough about my day, I’m off to sue the council.
-
Literally in the first post.
-
I wouldn't read too much into what was said about not sharing the source code at any point. All that statement does is what RZ has been trying to do throughout: present the outcome as a binary choice between getting Razbam back to developing as before or losing all of their modules forever to maximize leverage. The statement can easily be walked back and one could even play the hero with it: 'I never wanted to part with these, but I didn't want to take them away from our dear customers either'. I'm not saying he's lying or even that he won't follow through: I'm just pointing out that making that statement doesn't actually tell us what he will or won't ultimately do: it's just the smart play to maintain the best hand.
-
Razbam can go fund themselves.
-
Depending on where it would be heard, one can wait longer than a year just to get a court date.
-
I don't think the source code issue has anything to do with ownership transfer. I think the idea was that if ED was in possession of the source code they could continue to service modules for free, but they wouldn't be taking ownership in the process. It's moot for the mudhen, but hypothetically, if ED did have the source code and Razbam left, ED could then potentially maintain the module - but ownership would stay with Razbam. This is *very* vague even as a third person memory goes, so please take with a grain of salt, but I think I remember a conversation where it was suggested that ED requiring the source code would be part of the overall third-party agreement, not the agreement for a particular module. But Razbam and the other devs who were here before the Hawk incident were operating under an older agreement that didn't require the source code to be handed over. If that's true, to take your example, then Heatblur's modules' source code may not be available, but Deka's may be. Again, please take that at your own risk.
-
I agree with what you say about the employees, no matter where one comes down on the rest of the dispute, it's not cool that employees have wound up suffering because of it.
-
Complete = Finished its development cycle, not in EA or product sustainment. The fact that adjustments and bug squashing might happen later doesn't mean that the mature modules in the game are not complete, and there is no equivalence between a module part-way through EA, sold under the EA policy, and a mature module sold according to its product description which might get a later improvement. So you asked to name one module? The MiG-21. Would be great if they squashed the many bugs with that and improved - well name anything more or less - but if that happened, it wouldn't change the fact that its complete at this moment. On usability you could well be right about the mudhen; my main ride is the F-14, that module isn't complete either but it's perfectly usable and I'd happily take it as it is (having bought it for the -B).
-
Curious about the difference between the FF Warsaw Pact variant of the Fulcrum we’re getting and the variant provided to countries outside the Pact (eg India). Is it broadly similar or is the non Pact version significantly downgraded?
-
I was answering your original question, not defending the module. Yeah, you might wind up with "this half-finished module", or even no module at all. Or you might wind up with the module made by a team with more commitment to delivering than Razbam. That is the answer to your original question. I haven't flown the mudhen much and don't intend to, what I do know is that no one - including Razbam - would argue it's complete.
