SoW Reddog

Thanks for the reply @@Grimes, given your background and involvement over the years you're far more likely to understand the nuance better than I. I'm not sure what your distinction between PvE vs PvP vs neckbeard PvP is but I'm intrigued - Slightly off topic though. Personally I'd favour a way of masking who and what the enemy team were. For PvE/Coop it isn't necessary of course, but a UI/UX design that could accommodate the former shouldn't negatively impact the latter. I think we're both on the same lines, join a server, pick a "side" (and be able via scripting to prevent someone switching if you wanted to), see the spawn base options, click a base and pick a plane. That would work but I see your point about the slot blocking etc. My experience is in Cliffs of Dover, which worked much that way, but once the aircraft was spawned you could punt the player back to the spectators/plane selection if you didn't want them there. The DCS slot blocker is slightly less work for the server as it never creates the plane in the first place but it's essentially the same. In Cliffs I was able to create restricted aircraft numbers and types so there could be between 0 and >0 aircraft of a type at a spawn location, and each aircraft was tracked so when it landed it went into that spawn locations inventory. It worked well, and for our campaign gave some interesting facets such as the requesting of replacement aircraft (and justifying why YOU needed the limited supply rather than another unit ) and made players value not only their life or "career", but also the airframe. The reason I'm asking is I'm trying to understand whether there was a definite reason why ED went the route they went, other than some poor developer was asked "we need a MP lobby system" and went off and did what they thought was best at the time. BTW, as much as in an ideal world I'd tear it up and start again I'm absolutely not expecting any change in this regard, I don't think ED have the capacity for making changes like this to the core product that only a third of their playerbase actually uses apparently and I'd prefer they spent the time fixing the bugs/mistakes in modules (Sabre guns, dora engine bug etc etc). I suspect they also don't really understand the needs of the niche communities like ours.

Hi, just wondering if you could share what the rationale was behind the current MP set up is, specifically; 1) the way the slot selection screen is visible to both sides, with the aircraft available and taken, who's flying what from where completely unobfuscated. 2) the way that slots are created and assigned, rather than a more generic setup which may have someone say I want x plane from Y place, and be spawned in the first available position. (I get that the current way is very nice for mission makers to ensure that flights spawn together, or that specific areas of the field are used/not used) I'm asking as they're not the immediate solution to the problem I would have reached for (with my obviously low understanding of the code and experience in creating successful niche software) so very interested in the thinking behind the scenes if you can help.

Ah, shoot. Such a massive shame as AAA in vietnam era settings is so necessary.

Hi, just downloaded this as I want to use the firecan and KS19. Do you only need to have these two units in the same group? Any waypoint actions at all? I just tried 4 of them in a group with a firecan, and two additional S60's, and only the S60's seemed to engage the plane I sent to at 12k ft?

@NineLine I don't know what your version of "soon" is, but it's been quite a while... I don't think we've seen ONE person say on this thread that this change is OP, or ahistorical, or incorrect, and given it's a simple lua change, can ED just pull their finger out and make it while I'm still alive so I can use the product I've paid good money for correctly? This complete lack of support and explanation is exactly the reason why I will not pay another penny to ED regardless of whatever modules they deign to make. I've spent over 200 quid on this module alone, purchasing several copies for squadron mates. Its frustrating to say the least.

I'm guessing that the silence means you're working all hours God sends to fix this for us...?:megalol:

My grip on reality is fine thanks. Sure, caveat emptor applies. And for the record I won't be buying anything from ED until they fix the modules I've already paid for and which are either buggy or incomplete. So yeah, my self control is just fine too. At present my usage of the Normandy map and the Assets pack probably is around a max of 10 hrs. Not good value for money. Now I know others love it and thats great for them. I'm not advocating anyone else boycott or that they are wrong to enjoy it. What that they like or don't is entirely up to them. I believe however I'm entitled to an opinion, even if it differs from yours. And I'm allowed to state that opinion. A cliffs of dover - french point map is useful for one thing only, dogfighting. Which with the completely mismatched planeset we currently have is, well baffling. But if that's what floats your boat then have at it, personally I'm looking for something that is a bit more immersive and involved. YMMV and that's good. Um, no. Setting the date in the ME is not the same. For example, would you have accepted the Spit IX with a GPS receiver in it, because the aircraft has one in now? I doubt it. Most want the aircraft historically accurate. It's the same with the map for me. The ALG present on the map very clearly set the period that map exists in. Sure I can suspend my disbelief and fly over the map in a make believe D_Day scenario, ignoring the fact that there are whopping great airfields all over that shouldn't exist. But they do.

To be honest from the little I'm understanding and I very much doubt I have it right, it either feels like we're being conned to buying the same thing twice, or we were conned buying Normandy for essentially the same thing to be released free, or, it's so small it's going to be worthless. What time frame is this map supposed to be anyway? We already have the date anathema with the Normandy map and the planeset we have. It couldn't have been less incongruous at this point to have had a Nazi moon base map.

Any further news on this NineLine? Could you possibly detail what that information is and where it comes from because it seems like we're in some sort of impasse right now. We say its wrong as it is and providing why we think so (and I'm not seeing anyone saying it is perfectly fine) and ED are saying it's not OK but that's it.

I suspect Ugra media are likely going to be a bit busy selling the same poor output to the users of Battle of Normandy, rather than fixing the DCS map. Sad but likely realistic.

Hi Nineline, Appreciate you getting someone to look into this for us. I've just checked back through the thread from my initial "bump" as I wasn't expecting anything out of it to be honest. I see that there are still some concerns this isn't being taken seriously or actually considered properly. Would it possible for you to detail out what "all checks out apparently" actually relates to, based on source documents? There's clearly a disconnect between what you guys at ED and BST think this aircraft should be capable of gunnery wise and what the community thinks it should be. It honestly is the single reason why I don't fly the Sabre and the Korea theatre because it's so damn frustrating to be unable to hit a barn from the inside.

When was that posted? I must have missed it so sorry for that. However... Is it really appropriate to celebrate in the fact an update is "FREE!" when you've already fleeced us for an incomplete and inaccurate, poor performing and controversial (cough asset pack) module in the first place? And then to announce that this "FREE!" update has no release date as yet so frankly is worth as much as my intention to cure cancer, marry a supermodel and become a billionaire...:megalol: So basically the answer to my question is accurately summed up as "yes, you did throw your money away"

I don't know if this counts as a mission editor request or not but.... I'd like the MP interface changing so that it's not possible to see both side's slots and airfields as soon as you load in. Ideally I'd prefer a much more FOG OF WAR type system where you choose a side and then can only see the slots that are available. It makes little sense to me that you can log into a server, see exactly where a pilot has spawned in and fly there to kill him on the ground because he's gone AFK for a little while or is slower and less experienced in getting the aircraft started than you are. For a game which prides itself so highly on REALISM, I find it...odd to say the least.

Status of this module? Disheartening to see that the map has apparently no confirmed bugs or issues whatsoever. That suggests that the map is perfect and yet we know different. Is there actually going to be any updates to the map, bug fixes and issues resolved at any point in the distant future or did we all just throw our money away? I've played on the Normandy map precisely 2 times since I stupidly bought it.

Appreciate that.:thumbup: I hope it's not a massive list :megalol:

Precisely. I know NineLine et al will be now extremely busy with the F16 support (and after that the F15 or whatever the next hype train is) but taking a look in the bug channel for that aircraft is a bit galling when comparing to the F86 or other older modules. Each and every thread in the F16 bugs has been edited with [Confirmed] or [unable to reproduce] etc in the topic subject and is clearly being treated seriously. I do not understand why Belsimtek or ED cannot fix what appears to be a simple little issue and almost certainly a config setting somewhere. It's not like we're asking for them to redo the flight model or create extra content...

I've been having the same issue

Seems to work in Single Player (I just did my first cat launch) but not in MP (Or not reliably anyway). Which were you trying?

Well that patently is not correct, given I fired the guns AND the AIM9... Be really good if someone who knows what they're talking about could confirm. Last night I had no such issues at all, and the growl tone was there from the moment I flicked the pylon live.

In the light of all the attempted PR and Reddit posts by Big Newy, Nine Line and Nick Grey, it would be lovely if this, a 3 year old reported bug, could be looked at and maybe even just confirmed as being a bug if not actually addressed or indeed fixed.

Hi, I'm not sure if this is something I'm doing wrong or a known/unknown issue. I just took off in an A4 with aim9 on 2/4, rockets on 1/5 and a centreline tank on 3. I set my pylon switches to 2/4, master arm on, and weapon switch to bomb & GM Arm. I had no tone whatsoever, but when I pulled the trigger I obviously fired a missile (as well as my guns as they were armed - my bad! :)). As soon as I fired though I started getting tone from the other missile? I then unselected pylons etc as the threat actually was a parachute (don't ask!) and carried on my mission. Later I had a MiG tangle with me and went to A2A again, and again had no tone. I manouvered right behind the MiG and fired with no sound at all and the missile tracked and got a hit anyway. BUT, why am I getting this intermittent noise?

ED aren't palming anything off. Sadly, they appear to have developed a selective deafness for anything Normandy related. Personally I don't have VR so I couldn't care less about optimizations for VR but it indicates a complete lack of interest, support or customer care endemic from ED as far as I am concerned. I've said it before and will continue to say it even though I think I am the only one. ED will never see another penny from me again until they fix the modules I already own and deliver on their own promises.

Don't know why my post was deleted. If the fix hasn't been released, it isn't fixed. It's shit like this which means I'm not spending a penny on any more DCS content until they fix all the broken and incomplete modules I've already paid for.

Why isn't this fixed yet?? Almost two weeks in and still sweet **** all. Smh

It's disappointing that a change so fundamentally important to MP can be made without seemingly any requirement for it or explanation. Appreciate your efforts NineLine.