Mars Exulte

@SkateZilla Very concise and informative! Thank you!

More money very literally does not mean more things getting done quicker. Diminishing returns is a thing. 10 coders working on a physics engine is not inherently inferior to 500 coders working on a physics engine because all those different people still have to coordinate. When you're building a house, you don't get to ''speed up'' or bypass laying a concrete foundation. You don't get to build the roof at the same time as you run the plumbing. Things happen in a logical progressive order for a reason. Ultimately, the people running this know a lot more about what they need and would benefit from then any of us, and these ''every two weeks'' threads where people propose ''alternative business models'' are ridiculous.

GJS is a fighter pilot, ala Mover etc

That's correct. The original timeframe for stuff like the Caucasus map was the 2008 Russo-Georgian War (which features prominently in most the campaigns), so infrastructure would've been pre-war late 90s/early millenium. Xilon's basically looking at Google maps not realising a lot of things have changed in the last twenty years.

Yes. However, you shouldn't expect a particularly warm welcome on well trod topics. Again, nothing wrong with discussion, but not all ideas/posts are equally meritorious. ED's business model is their business, not ours, persay, they know their income/outflow, we don't nor is it anything we need to know. In particular they don't need us brainstorming on new ways to take our money (they presumably have several people on salary for that who know a helluva lot more about ''the market'' than we do) Welcome to the internet. Also, if you want an echo chamber/safespace where every idea you present will be well received... tbh read only is the only way that's going to happen. I could say the sky is blue and at least three people will attack me one of which will insult my mother. Ditto for people who think their old shoe ideas are new and exciting. Nobody has to explain their point of view. Especially since most anyone active on these forums participated in the last 2-3 of these identical ''business model suggestion'' threads. Search should be in the top right, looks like a magnifying glass. You can see all the back and forth through several dozen pages if you want, and most of these people commented in them, too (including me).

I see they've kept the traditional teal interior

If it can't fly for *at least* two more years, than it is almost definitely one of the very first prototypes. The first few in any given series are usually non-flying testbeds. If it was close enough to the finished product that that SPECIFIC AIRFRAME would fly, then it wouldn't be two years away. Aircraft are like DCS modules : until it's wheels up everything is subject to change. If it can't fly, it is the literal opposite of an aircraft. IE ''does not exist yet''. We know. It's always funny watching the nationalists rush out to defend the long list of paper projects proposed by the RF @@ Eh, there's always that one tryhard who wants to be different I think you mean the X-32, right? It's a bit odd looking from certain angles with the nose scoop which is fairly uncommon on US designs these days, but otherwise it's a pretty straightforward blended delta like most other modern presentations.

Even ED said they didn't want or intend to do a subscription. If you want to support them, buy another module/campaign. If you have them all, donate to a friend. If you have no friends, donate to a rando on the forums. There, problem solved.

Su-75... Su-57. I just noticed they swapped the numbers. ''Privyet, tovarish! No like glorious S U 5 7? Is no problem! We have new special friend deal for you, more better plane we call S U 7 5! Chto? No, it just coincidence number flipped. Is all new and more better, I swear by Stalin's kidney stones!''

Aerodynamics is a finite science = there is a ''best'' way to design your aircraft dependent on its targeted mission profile (subsonic, high alpha, etc etc). The 1950s/60s era of experimentation and ''learning'' is long over. Aircraft are looking more and more similar because all the guesswork is gone and people choose a design which is beat suited for whatever they're needing the plane to do, which is often some variation of a ''blend'' to minimise disadvantages and maximise advantages. Likewise, radar emissions are a finite science : it works a certain way that is well understood. Virtually all military aircraft, even if not stealth persay, take design cues from it because there is no good reason to make your aircraft ridiculously visible and MANY reasons to minimise its signature. Waste time, money, and limited weight allowance on ''being stylish'' @@ Aircraft look sleek and fast not to be ''stylish'' but because it's actively conducive to being a high performance aircraft. Their ''style'' is an incidental byproduct of their design NOT a deliberate focal point, even in one off civilian designs practical considerations come first.

To be fair, every new generation of aircraft since the beginning ran over budget and had various teething issues, including most of the widely acclaimed ''classics''. That aside, I've said it before and I'll say it again : the STOVL F-35B was a stupid thing to do and is almost definitely responsible for the bulk of its development issues. Last thing I saw was some mockups/renders of a possible 6th gen hybrid ''optionally manned'' aircraft, but that's been a while.

China, too. They say some regions got a years worth of rain in three days, a lot of which fell in about an hour. Absolutely nothing, because I've invested my whole identity into denying there might be a problem and admitting there is a problem now would mean I was wrong.

Straight to the top AND bottom!

Yep, when it's in the shop for $59.95 THEN you can take it serious Anything before that is subject to change

They can do as they like, but if they start poking around Mars, we need a global intervention. Yeah, they do that a lot, see: their supercarrier, nuclear powered super cavitating torpedo, infantry powered armor, etc. I never had any idea wooden mockups and scale models were so lethal on the modern battlefield!

There's news articles about it. Google ''Russian stealth jet'' and it's literally the first thing that pops up. It's supposed to be revealed momentarily. Well, I don't work for Sukhoi or the Russian MoD (and presumably neither do you) so I'm going to go on a limb and say we're both ''reading stuff somewhere''. Yes? And? There are 10-12 of them at present, roughly half of which are non-flying testbeds or otherwise early development models. Four of them are capable of flight, afaik, and two have been deployed to combat to Syria (presumably the two serial production planes). These are facts, allowing for my count to be slightly off. India was originally a major partner in the development. They departed for two primary reasons : the Russians trying to stick them with the bill, and the plane not satisfying their requirements. This is also factual. After originally saying they were going to replace the MiGs and Sus outright, the Russians started chopping the order, eventually saying ''Oh, well, our fighters are so 1337 nobody can challenge them anyway, so what we have is good enough'' which is a publicly acceptable way of saying ''Goddammit, we're broke and nobody wants to buy this PoS''. There were supposed to be at least a few dozen of them by now, even with the order cuts... afaik no additional aircraft have been built yet, although some few dozen are on order. This is also all factual, although I'm prepared to be corrected if production has indeed actually resumed, I do not expect more than a handful to have been built even if so. It's a largely dead project. Unless there's something uniquely appealing about this new light fighter, it's likely to also end up a dead project. Current numbers: F-35 = 500ish, another 1000-1500 likely plus lots of foreign interest F-22 = 150ish J-20 = 150ish, another couple hundred likely . . . . . . . . . Unicorns = never seen . . Su-57 = 10-12 (but really only 2 because the testbeds don't count) with ??? ''ordered'' and no foreign interest whatsoever.

Which is not that long, especially considering the age of the game and the amount of effort it likely took to code. It can now likely be used to produce similar effects elsewhere, but that core technology is a relatively recent addition to the game (such things are not easy to do, nor will they be frequent additions).

I was referring more to the part where the Su-57 exists in the form of 10 protoypes (only part of which are flight capable) and 2 serial planes, rejected by India and generally struggling for funding and/or relevance in the world. I suppose they might be able to make a smaller, cheaper, ''lessons learned'' design palatable, but with everyone else of note making their own native stealth jets, they're likely to enter a crowded market and end up flopping around again.

I think they are planning on redoing some of the AAR mechanics, like collision model, bow wave, etc. It was only fairly recently we got wake/wash on the aircraft themselves

Ah, yes, what's even better than *one* dead end design? TWO dead end designs!

I don't think it's the universe that's out of balance =D

I noticed their AI is pretty good (as far as not being wonky, and they mentioned doing some stuff in the comments specifically to keep it from behaving retarded). I really wish ED would devote some real time to the AI, like REAL time, as it is one of the prime shortcomings in this software... or AT LEAST fix the UFO fms on stuff like the MiG-15 and F-5. It only takes tweaking a few lines in the lua to tone them down and they've been that way for *years*.

They think that because it's a dumb question. ED is a European compamy that, unsurprisingly, aligns their business hours accordingly. You cared so little you made an entire thread devoted to complaining about something with a painfully obvious answer. I believe this is called ''negging'', like, ''Oh well you won't answer my 47 calls, but screw you I went with another girl instead you aren't worth it''. A hallmark of ''nice guys'' and reasonable debate the world over. Or you could like... not wait to the last minute? Or like... understand it's nobody's responsibility to cater to you personally? If it was ''8pm'' instead of ''midday'', you'd be complaining ''why couldn't you wait till midnight, it was only four more hours!'' or ''why did you end it midweek I get paid on Friday!'' Or ''why did you end it mid month, I get paid on 20th just a few days later''. People make these ridiculous posts every sale. It was a complaint, not a question. Thus the ''this is foolish'' remark. If only they would hire you to do their marketing for them, By Grabthor's Hammer think of the savings! There's literally always a ''last minute'' and people like you will always complain when their tardiness or inattention results in them missing something. Irrelevant *families. Also, irrelevant. Nobody cares. Waiting to the last minute is a sign of procrastination and poor judgment, nothing else. Everybody is busy. You're not special. See above. No, people don't necessarily jump onboard with every senseless complaint. You're more than welcome to participate in the community. But this isn't exactly a productive way to go about it, and nobdoy think's you deserve special consideration, nor does your country deserve special consideration.

Splitting the low-fi stuff off from the main game IS the whole point. DCS would be a study sim with relatively small population, and MAC would end up being a much larger, more casual oriented community. They're only part of the same game NOW because it was an easy way to flesh out the number of aircract back when FC3 accounted for 90% of them. Nowadays the library is extensive enough there's no need to mix the low and hi fi modules like that. It's not that simple now. It's a $60-80 purchase, not ''game modes'' ala War Thunder's drop down menu. That's the whole point once again, they weren't ever really INTENDED to be one game as it is, FC3 is the leftover bits of DCS predecessor. MAC is reusing assets from hi-fi modules (thereby saving a lot of time and development expense) to make a more publicly appealing ''flight sim'' more akin to the older games of our youth (with enhanced graphics and expanded features, obviously). MAC effectively allows them to double dip into two different communities of gamers, while spending comparatively little on the dev cycle.

Our aircraft have little to no commonality with BoB era planes besides vague silhouette. Using the 109 as my primary example : different engine, different weapons in different locations, far heavier, different radios, completely different airframe and aerodynamics (the K is MUCH sleeker and more refined than the E), if it's an E-3 than it doesn't even have a prop governor. I don't know a *whole* lot about the differences between the Spitfires, but I'm sure it's more than superficial.