Sephyrius

Sadly alot of the ED's core game focus seems to be developed on a reactionary basis, especially so if it affects their own modules. So we can only hope that once people buy the Mi-24P and get shot down over and over again because they can no longer play the pure sniping game with Vikhrs they'll get frustrated by the super AI and it gets looked at.

It's a shame that they're the ones doing Syria, it's one of the most interesting maps ever in terms of multi-faction dynamics, modern-day and past conflict re-enactments and terrain (and been visting Beirut recently) , but damn if I will touch it with a ten-foot pole after the Normandy "quality". Apparently "we will fix it after the next module" is the norm now. Not a fan.

The "!!! UPDATES !!!" thread being just a few more model shots with no actual news was kind of a bummer. Still waiting on any word on if there's any time frame and who this mystery 3rd party dev collaborator is. The rest is pretty much just fluff.

Was always interested in flying night missions with NVGs + VR because the reduced FOV might actually transfer well to real life NVG use. Really hope they'll add the partial NVG coverage to allow for "looking under", flipping them on or off to actually be able to see instruments or monitors is terrible. The monocle mode that was (accidentally) added was really cool - only worked for VR users - but I'm guessing it's not used like that in real life? Some company did an NVG lighting upgrade (amongst other things) of SA342L's for the Moroccan military, so at least it's definitely possible rather than requiring something along the lines of entirely new airframes to accomodate it.

Nice to hear that another heli is en route and that the Gazelle FM is going to be updated Personally I'm not going to buy it until after Early Access is over + if it gets really good reviews, because without a good Gaz FM (how long has it been "released" now?) there's no reason to expect it to be good, and hence there's a reason to expect the new module to be mediocre. Coupled with no multicrew and no expectation of functional or even basic FFB, there's little reason to be excited no matter what airframe we get.

Fancy! Oh if only it had FLIR as well, and that asymmetric or wingtip iglas are possible. Anti-Air + Anti-Armour + Long Range + High maneuverability + MLWS + Laser Warning Receiver + IR jammers + FLIR. The only thing possibly missing then is an RWR. :gun_smilie:

We have Harriers with 12 x GBU-12 (or even mixed in GBU-16's too) loadouts. We have AJS37 Viggens with 4 x BK-90 loadouts. I'm sure there are examples from other airframes too. The threshold for "can't" vs "would" is already breached. Night Vision lighting seems like more of a case of practicality (not needed enough to add it) than incompatible. Id give it a soft yes but not the end of the world.

North Africa. Libya + Egypt. - Sparsely populated and indistinct terrain features (if it doesn't extend all the way into, say, Cairo and Benghazi, depends on size). - WWII North African campaign, modern-day Libyan campaign. - Desert landscape + Ocean = High performance. Assets and textures can already be pulled from existing maps. - "Equal" MP layout of consistent terrain features for each side, without an ocean separating the two. - North Africa is more distinctly a "new part of the world" in terms of expanding to a new continent. - Close enough to tie in with the "connected maps" eventually.

Sure, maybe eventually they'll announce otherwise, but until then a team that doesn't bother with updating is not a team I'd trust with implementing.

In that case you'd better start praying that they bother with implementing SpeedTrees (and VR terrain fixes) this time around, because the coverage area their going for is densely forested (Jordan Valley, the Lebanon mountain range, and the southeastern Taurus mountains of Turkey. Without this, it's gonna be dead on arrival.

Well at least the F/A-18 is well underway and getting fairly regular updates, which is completely different from Normandy being all-but-abandoned and claims that they'll "fix it once Syria is done". If all updates would've stopped on the F/A-18 "until the F16 is done" people would be rioting in the streets.

Then reflect that in the store page system requirements instead of just copy-pasting the same thing on every module when that's simply not the case. As we can all see clearly. It's dishonest. If that is also "up to the 3rd party", then goddamn call them out on it. And how come Ugra-Media gets to develop another map for DCS when this is the response?

Or they just claim that so that their sales don't suffer - until it's too late to do anything about it. Vote with your wallets. Don't buy the Syria map!

Very disappointing. The map that needs it the most. I already felt like buying maps was mediocre because hardly any were used in multiplayer, but now that we get ones that are terrible in singleplayer as well there's really no reason left. Only map I'd consider at this point is Heatblur's Baltic map, because they - unlike Ugh-ra Media - have standards.

Just FYI, I picked up a used MSFFB2 for about €15 - as a spare for one I got got for €25 - , and seen several more listed.

FFB is broken, to the extent that even enabling it at all screws up flying entirely. They also announced that theyd stop developing it - just fix the basic functionality - but not even that fix is in yet. Even if it did work, the module practically demands that you run reduced cyclic axis saturation, which again breaks FFB, and the FFB curve options are, well, curves, so not good either. I just fly with SimFFB running in the background, full friction and dampening, 25% centering (to keep it non-centering but also not slack, using an extension)

And as a twist for non-'Nam era pilots, they could very easily include the South China Sea islands as a modern-day hotspot area.

Yeah I'd be fine with that too, but so far most of the retorts against that is having clients seeing different things, game assets reacting differently depending on permissions and so on. So it'd be a way to nullify that issue if it's all done outside of the virtual world.

Based on TomVR's suggestion, adjusted. No physics/entity based existence that messes with the synchronization/experience. Instead. - No SP availability at all. - MP : No communication with the carrier at all (No ATC. No guidance from the deck crew. No re-arming). Literally the only thing you can use it for is to land. That basically makes it the same as a base game carrier with a texture/model update but also greatly reduced functionality, and if you want the full carrier experience you simply purchase it. How is that possibly problematic to implement?

Exactly. The ED business model is surprisingly simplistic/linear. For example, the WWII choices has led to a minimum $100+ price tag (even as a discounted bundle) for any WWII enthusiast who wants nothing more than to fly a WWII aircraft in a WWII map with WWII units. With simplistic AI that repeats the same move over and over, "cheats" the aerodynamics, a near-dead MP scene, poorest-performing map and only recently a decent damage model. Is it any wonder why people pass it up? Instead of flying a single plane, getting suckered in, buying more planes and populating servers, they look elsewhere. Why does jet content thrive? Because you can get in for $15 bucks, get hooked, play MP, buy more modules, get invested, thrive. Carrier DLC is a firm step towards the WWII situation of barrier-to-entry and sub-par experience. What's next, land ATC DLC? Helipad/FARP DLC? I thought developers of a military simulator would understand the concept of force multiplication quite well.

So be it then. Already stopped finding ways to justify map purchases when almost all of them are extinct in MP (85% Caucasus, 10% PG, 5% Normandy or so would be my guess). Nevada and Normandy are both uninstalled, waste of disk space, wasted purchase, we all make mistakes. Maybe PG soon enough, SSD space is precious. Good to know that I don't have to bother with my WWII modules either since I didnt buy the asset pack to access those (very rare) servers. Now I just have a reason not to buy these modules either. I'd rather have my "complete experience" actually be complete, not a good carrier experience in a drab underdeveloped SP environment, nor a simplistic carrier experience in a living and breathing MP environment. Thanks for letting us know and saving us money.

Would you mind linking the announcement? Mustve missed it if its on here.

Then again, implementing it to them would go a bit towards "sorry for multicrew being 5+ years late". If its not too big of a task.

Also finding the Gazelle easy to fly. But assuming that the FM actually is accurate, the AP/SAS system and its light weight apparently makes it so simple to fly and unaffected by phenomena (and practically cant be disabled to see if the FM and AP counteract things or just pretends that it doesn't exist because of lack of data) that it feels just like flying in the likes of low fidelity sims such as Arma 3 or War Thunder. Which would then mean that its simply a wholly uninteresting module both in terms of flight characteristics and (lack of) systems.

I'm gonna buy the BO-105 despite owning the Gazelle if the FM is done by a credible dev and/or good reviews. Light attack/scout helis are great fun, but the Gaz still feels as if it has questionable aspects.