Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Nice job but this is actually a hack for the game. I hope ED fix their integrity check before we get all sort of unrealistic modifications in MP sessions... for the shake of realism.
  2. Well, if: 1.) system was never fitted to the M2000C AND 2.) system details are classified and nobody knows how coverage angles/cockpit display presentations are The obvious decision should have been not to simulate it... but well.... yeah.... RAZBAM....
  3. If you refer to the "radar using" option, that is only available for aircraft, not for ground groups. AFAIK the only way to control ground groups is through the 'alarm state' option, but that's an overkill with several undesired side effects. Hopefully ED will provide some additional scripting functions in future versions.
  4. As a big fan of weaseling, I also started a script project to improve the IADS. The scripting support in DCS opens a lot of possibilities to customize the behavior of the AI on a case per case basis. However, I never finished the project as the scripting system provides a very limited set of functions to interact with the ground groups. Currently only limited stuff can be done through changing "alert state". A function to toggle on/off specific radars (sensors) within the group ('alert state' affects all sensors, including visual), for example, is something that the scripting system really needs.
  5. Okay, this is like talking to a wall. Good bye. I'll come back on the final release to congratulate RAZBAM on meeting and/or exceeding my expectations (if it ever happens). EDIT: as a last ditch. I reiterate my request to ED to strengthen the QA requirements for early-access releases to make sure modules meet especially similar feature completion levels as past early access releases. This is in order to protect the investment of their customers an ensure DCS quality final release content.
  6. Yes, exactly. As someone who doesn't follow every single post on social media, I assumed that beta meant the same than it does for the whole rest of the software development industry (that spans further away than "a couple of vague lines in wiki"). And don't take me wrong, I don't have any problem with the current state of the plane itself. What I do have a problem with is the fact that this product is publicly released in a far from finished state and now, as end-user, I have no guarantee that this will get finished at a decent standard in the future, other than trusting on the good faith of the developers. I don't think these kind of releases bring any good to the flight sim community, and only time will tell if those products released in incomplete alpha states make it to a quality final release, or we start seeing more and more modules being sold in incomplete states with no truly unfinished work. I do think that ED should have a stricter QA control in place for release of early-access content.
  7. Well, to be honest I didn't follow that marketing campaign too closely, so I may have missed all those details. I just assumed that beta meant beta. And in any case, ED opening the door for third party products to be made publicly available with this many unfinished features under the DCS brand name opens a dangerous door... I don't think this is the first case it happens but it is the first time it happens to something I purchased. This kind of policy allows the developers to shift resources to different projects potentially slowing down the delivery of a final full-feature version, while getting money in the pocket out of far-from-finished alpha content. I hope there is some control of this from ED's side and we do get a high quality final product.
  8. Of course it did have bugs. It was a beta release... I personally remember reporting two big ones in the flight model. That's what beta releases are for. No dude, in this particular case beta means alpha. Those are the kids who need a new toy. However, I don't blame them, as RAZBAM threw a huge marketing campaign during the last few weeks suggesting that their product was almost complete. It is not. You cannot advertise a DCS brand product and deliver a FC3 product... beta or whatever. I just hope that this lesson is learned by ED and all 3rd party developers.
  9. ^^^^^ This :thumbup: EDIT: But again, semantics and mistakes aside. As long as the final release does meet the features/quality advertised, and is not delayed by further "Betaware" early-access products, I don't have any problem with parking this one until it is fully complete.
  10. syn

    Flight model

    Transonic flight is possible level at medium altitudes with external stores, including fuel tank, at military power. Unlikely in real life.
  11. I don't have a problem with parking the Mirage until the final version, as long as the final release meets the DCS standards. But the fact that this is called beta when it is not (2.0 alpha has way more of beta than the Mirage...), and the fact that the developers are already announcing half a dozen new products while this one has been "beta" released in this state, don't really reassure me that it will reach the DCS standard. I and my $50 really hope it does though. I think less emphasis should be put in meeting a release date and more in delivering a solid product on public release. Whatever beta or final.
  12. Probably not implemented yet as 90% of the other stuff. I really wonder how ED let a "DCS" brand product be publicly released in this state (that is definitely not beta yet). It only harms the reputation of the DCS brand, and I hope this doesn't set a precedent for future releases.
  13. From Wikipedia: Definitely not this case. I am also not very happy with the flight model, both with or without FBW. Nothing to compare to the A-10C or Mig-21. Well, lesson learnt. Next time I wait for a post-release sale.
  • Create New...