Kang

Just wondered, do you already have plans in regards to what liveries and skins shall be available for the C-130J, either at launch or eventually? Classic USAF Grey I'd consider pretty much a given, but curious about any other decisions.

While it is obviously correct that any such ideas can't be worked into previously signed contracts, I tend to agree that the way it was published - in the light of what we now seem to experience - has been quite misleading to the community. At which point does the whole Hawk Prevention Clause™ actually start working? Any of the 3rd party modules that are currently available? Any of the ones that are currently announced? Quite frankly, the whole 'well, this was not announced, but the contract had been signed long before that' line of argumentation - even if factually correct - makes the whole thing nothing but smoke and mirrors, as the supposed guarantee may or may not be applicable to anything with nobody knowing.

While it offers an interesting perspective, I'm fairly sure that good business planning generally assumes that the market to compete in remains to be alive tomorrow.

You got your forums here at last. Well done! And quite the bombshell to announce the module isn't far away. Congratulations! I can perfectly understand being a bit wary about buying DCS modules right now, really. But it'd be a lie to say I wasn't interested in the C-130. Exciting news indeed.

Right, lets get back into some serious speculating here. I think it takes so long because the agreement includes a joint venture of a new module and the whole thing can't be resolved until that is finally ready for early access. I mean, look at the evidence: thing has been going on for more than 2 weeks. Can it be any more obvious? Don't know about you fine folks, but I for one am really excited for the English Electric Canberra (or B-57 if you insist for some reason) coming to DCS in 2027.

This is just a joke I would like to make it perfectly clear that this was a joke.

You indeed don't, as Raven said. Think less pinpoint attack (which is what we pretty much always need in DCS) and more area suppression. Another thing to keep in mind here is that these kinds of attacks are not one-off missions, usually. Many of the unknowns and necessary corrections are done between the runs. Basically, you do this according to the table and then wait for the radio call on how your rockets landed and the next formation gets told: «Fire about 200m after passing that tree!»

It is, to be fair, one of the more amusing questions to repeat.

You are probably right with that, but I find it amusing how it seems to create discussion volume like nothing else, for something that is mostly a sideshow.

Perhaps you are right and I am really misjudging the timelines there. No idea how far away a DCS 3.0 really is.

I am fairly sure nobody does. In all fairness, I don't envy the stalwart community managers who kind of have to read it - most of it is neither overly interesting nor entertaining. If any actual new or pressing points get communicated on in a short summary, perhaps with a general statement about how restless, exactly, the natives are getting, we should consider ourselves lucky.

I doubt that's going to happen, as it might cause more trouble. It would force the previous modules into deprecation, thus only speeding up their decay status of 'continue to work as-is'. That would make me at least not so happy about paying full price to get them back again. Any sort of discount for previous owners would eat a lot into the profit margin, seeing how, say, the Harrier enthusiasts most likely are previous owners in a vast majority of the DCS community. But one can dream, I reckon.

It isn't your file that is unsafe, mate. It is the fact that your solution is to just include a modified file with your mission, which most users will neither want to nor be able to question. Your autoexec file might be good, but will one I include be?

Somewhat relatedly it would be good to have means of triggering a reloading sequence.

Guess not.

It's true that this is reasonably independent of any complex issues that ED and Razbam might have between them. Perhaps it warrants its own thread, then. I find the question is very worth asking and the answer so far has been, at best, dodging the question. As much as a lot of people are rightfully interested in how ED is going to go ahead with the enormous legacy that Razbam has within DCS I am somewhat surprised that very few people seem to take interest in how ED is proceeding in their relationship to the Steam store about it. As @alejandr0 has repeatedly pointed out, all that is needed for their refund is ED's approval. To me at least the reply so far reads as a press-friendly "we got your money and that's that. Screw Steam users!" But then, I see how the majority of the community, myself included, stick to ED's own store about DCS.

News! Actual news! That's insane.

A decidedly more practical and useful idea than the monthly 'all automatic AAR wish' thread.

I'm sure the need to develop meaningful electronic warfare all around into the core of DCS makes the Growler prohibitively elaborate. That and its silly name.

Yes, but hasn't that been @cfrag's entire point, quite exactly?

As far as Steam is concerned, ED is the developer. They don't have a special system in place for the unique shenanigans that is DCS.

Are they? When I start the DCS launcher I can decide not to update but then I can't launch the game either.

I imagine it must have been rough for the man to see what the country he fought for turned into in his final years.

I see that tensions are high with the overall accusations and the heated triple posts, but can we all please focus a little bit? A lot of you seem to get bogged down in the tedious minutiae and your respective interpretations of such and I feel that it is not doing the project any favour at all. I firmly believe that the first act should play out in the same manner as a DCS reveal trailer. Hazy, teasing, with a hint of mystery that ends up unwarranted. Dark and gritty, going into the explosion of senses that establishes a former status quo, if you catch my drift. Any opinions on that?

In the end, I believe, it should be less of a drab court drama and more of a rousing musical number. A little West Side Story, I reckon. That is not in any way precluding either of the actors to work in a satisfying Nicholson, I just think it would do us good to put it in an overall livelier setting is all.