tkid
-
Posts
107 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by tkid
-
-
CCRP Release of GBU 12 No Guidance
-
Yeh thanks I arrived at that disappointing conclusion lol
I wonder if anyone on the VEAO Team is going to show us some sort of progress soon and not another update on archaic warbirds (No offense of course). People have $$$ and an excessive amount of appreciation for the Tiffy, I understand these things take time but when your official forum page is mentioning 2016 as the expected alpha release and its 2017 with very little word on the Tiffy...lol it looks bad , it looks like development is rlly slow...
We just want to see 'something' | Again these things take time but its 2017 now lol-We're already halfway though January now
-
Thanks dude I will try that
let you know if it works out for me
-
I need help here, I dl and tried opening the magazine but maybe because its a .rar file it wont open for me. I really want to get some sort of update on the Tiffy considering VEAO's Q & A official forum says expected early release version in 2016.....its 2017......js
-
Patiently awaiting the second iteration of this lol
"I'll be right back!"
Just saying lol
-
No offense but even though RAZBAM hired a company to make an exciting but unconfirmed MIG- 23 at first, but now since it's been rolled back..
I would rather them wait a little bit for the team to evaluate the community on what aircraft to build then spend close to a year developing an aircraft that won't be used a lot by like the Pucara when they could be making progress on an aircraft that will be used a lot.
-
I'm sure it's a cool and interesting aircraft but come on Razbam grow some Cojones and take up a more challenging newer aircraft that has not been done before/ upgrade to current aircraft in DCS.
I respect you guys I really do, trust me it's not because I "like you," but because you all are not afraid or intimated by projects other's will leave behind because it seems too difficult to simulate in DCS or it might take too much time.
Save those projects for another developer, I know RAZBAM does a mighty fine job with their projects and constantly delivers on time; look at their team and the M-2000C! So once again my answer is NO, use those VALUABLE QUALITY RESOURCES and make a "newer" aircraft, not enough developers are making them. You guys will relentlessly deliver a quality product as always, so why not do it with a more modern jet, be it a fighter, ground, support... attacker? Sure time will be a factor, but imagine all the HYPE! Case and point LN''s F-14A&B or ED''S FA-18 to name a couple.
I want RAZBAM to make a more up to date jet because I know they will do it right and continue to support it like the M-2KC. Rather then let it dwindle off and seem dead like some other products from specific developers and/or ED (trying not to point anyone out, it's not classy lol)......................
-
My Vote is no, a SOLID NO for a couple of reasons:
We already have many options for light ground attack aircraft, we don't need to devote valuable resources to making another.
I'm sure it's a cool and interesting aircraft but come on Razbam grow some Cojones and take up a more challenging newer aircraft. I respect you guys I really do, trust me it's not because I "like you," but because you all are not afraid or intimated by projects other's will leave behind because it seems too difficult to simulate in DCS or it might take too much time.
Save those projects for another developer, I know RAZBAM does a mighty fine job with their projects and constantly delivers on time; look at their team and the M-2000C! So once again my answer is NO, use those VALUABLE QUALITY RESOURCES and make a "newer" aircraft, not enough developers are making them. You guys will relentlessly deliver a quality product as always, so why not do it with a more modern jet, be it a fighter, ground, support... attacker? Sure time will be a factor, but imagine all the HYPE! Case and point LN''s F-14A&B or ED''S FA-18 to name a couple.
I want RAZBAM to make a more up to date jet because I know they will do it right and continue to support it like the M-2KC. Rather then let it dwindle off and seem dead like some other products from specific developers and/or ED (trying not to point anyone out, it's not classy lol)......................
-
I'm getting a bunch of other hooks when I googe it..link please lol
-
When is the replay going to be up?
Would love to watch the match sometime.
Can someone post a link to it.
-
LOVE THE TRANSPARENCY HERE; CANT GET ENOUGH OF IT!!!
Nice to put a name with the face now, when we fly its much more personal. This is doing so much good to the community its benefits are becoming Exponential!
When I admire over the hard work and sweat involved in creating the M-2000C so well and proficient, i'll know who to appreciate it for!
-
[i]+1 to Scaflight's comment above,[/i]
I agree that there should be friendly competition amongst 3rd party developers & sharing of resources of possible road maps of future aircraft.
Most importunately they should reliably inform the end stage stakeholders (us) about these things when it happens.
Not a couple months before or after the decision has been made already to do or not do it and then blame it on "unforeseen challenges."
Because lets be honest, while we do need as many developers/ DCS modules to create/have awesome things for us at the highest quality possible- (which most developers are doing now, not all but most; you know who you are..)
-at the end on the day we (the applicable stakeholder-customers, dollars out of your wallet/ purse) hold the power regardless of whatever the can or cannot do or whomever they have or have not talked with.
Because they are performing a service (A pleasantly decent one). Dont get me wrong it could have easily been a lot worse, (Both ED & a lot of the 3rd Party Developers dont seem to be intimidated by taking a "stab" at modern aircraft for which I am greatly appreciative of) DCS could have died off back in 1.2! So we as a Community + ED +3rd Party Developers have to make DCS the best it can be.
Its probably the reason why I feel so strongly about it, so when we all see promised features not simulated on modules that have or have not come out of early access because of "unforeseen challenges", it kind of makes you wonder when you see a popular more advanced project is being pursued pursued. Is the project going to end up like the last???
IDK
What I do know is that to prevent this upsetting situation from occurring while still getting the the project in a timely matter and upholding promised capabilities I personally think that effective communication & friendly competition amongst 3rd Party Developers is a positive thing, it aids substantially in the end product to continue keeping DCS to such a high Quality level.
It will keep DCS alive and kicking way into the future, there is a lot of potential here lets not go and squander it unknowingly by letting quality, promising projects, us investing in quality projects and again the general appreciation towards ED and the 3rd Party Developers unanimously diminish.
So lets get some more effective communication across the board with a daily dosage of friendly competition and continue to deliver projects to DCS; I think we can do it dont you?
-
1
-
-
I deserve the flight pack because its time for a new beast of a flight controller lol.
-
Yeh I cant contact tower for repairs
-
I could be wrong, but I thought sunday was the start of a new week....so LNS where is tht update you talked about last week???
-
what is auto rotation?
-
fix the rudder so its less off-on like. Vital to attain hover after takeoff and using weapons.
-
Listen the rudder functions more like off & on, and seeing how we have to establish a good hover to fire a missile (Yes I know you can fire on the move-but its more economical to shoot from hover alot of times) it makes it really difficult to establish this, Im not saying reduce the torque from the left but fix the rudder input.
The off-on feeling is crap and really is vital for hover. The very tiny threshold needed to counteract the left torque needs to be optized and fixed for better rudder contol. Again torque is fine fix rudder authority.
Good module its awesome to fly whenever your not trying to hover which is often, you guys and Razbam are my favorite Devs.
-
will it work with current versions???
-
Can you please update this??!!! I love this mod!!!
-
yeh is this over?
-
Finnaly someone telling it like it is, truth hurts but it's okay as long as it is acknowledged. Yes they have continuously been the last 10 minutes guys and yes they are hella late on pt 2 but maybe they can turn it around. While these updates might not mean too much to them (based on the lateness) they are gold to us, so LNS if your reading I think you can do alot better concerning community updates if you really wanted to.
-
It's great that people are excited about our products! Nothing makes us happier.
The rest of your post is fiction though, especially in 2016.
Neither the NYE update nor the one we're posting in now were delayed. Thus- I'm not sure why this discussion is progressing as if they were.
I'm the first one to submit to valid critiscism; but in this case I'll stick with polite disagreement.
EDIT: In hindsight, this is a bit of a silly discussion in general. We're all focused on getting the previously planned Part II out the door ASAP-- but we'll have some great progress to show this week. Stay tuned!
Alright you all read it, they said they have great progress to show THIS week...hopefully it's a little more in depth then a 7 second gify. I bet you its going to be released on the last hour of Saturday lol
-
Damn that is cool!
Complete introduction to CCRP and CCIP bombing
in M-2000
Posted
And this is a 27000 feet CCRP release of a GBU 12 with guidance