Pizzicato

Amazing work, Chuck. Can't believe I'm only just discovering your guides. Massive thanks for taking the time to create them. :thumbup:

Thanks a lot, Blech. Much appreciated. :thumbup:

OK... I'm an idiot. Where do I find your guides, Charly?

Don't be silly. ED are hardly going to commit commercial suicide by releasing an engine and map that won't run smoothly on a 4.8Ghz CPU and Strix 980Ti.

I now have the Eagle Forums permanently open in a window on my right-hand monitor in work. It would be fair to say that my productivity is slipping a little just at the moment. :)

The new graphics engine and improved unit visibility.

That's also the most impressive I've seen the NTTR map looking. The low level flight over the suburbs followed by the high-speed blast up the tree-lined river ending with the vista on the climb out was really, really impressive. :thumbup:

Yep. The single most important thing to get your head around is trim usage. Unless you're using a force feedback stick, you almost certainly want to have the Trimmer Central Position option checked. Once you have that, you need to remember the following steps every time you want to move the cyclic: 1. Hold the trim button down 2. Maneuver the helicopter to the correct attitude 3. Release the trim button 4. Release the stick back to neutral The one thing you need to watch out for is that your cyclic will very occasionally become "locked" after this sequence. Just move the stick around its centre point slightly and it'll free up. It takes a bit of getting used to, but once you've got it you'll find that your movements become very fluid. Hope that helps.

You made an extremely good call. The Ka-50 is an absolute beauty once you get used to its quirks. :thumbup:

It's basically the first option from my perspective, i.e. "Which of the aircraft you own would you feel totally comfortable jumping into and completing missions or going onto an MP server with?" In terms of proficiency meaning you could pass a flight test with an RL instructor or qualify for a first world air force, erm... no. As wonderful, immersive and "realistic" as DCS truly is, it's just a very fancy and complex video game at the end of the day. I'm sure it can be helpful in some aspects as a training tool for RL pilots/trainees, but it's not going to get the rest of us to those standards - no matter how much our egos and fantasies try to tell us otherwise. :D That being the case, defining "proficiency" as something that only the forum's RL pilots could reasonably attain would be a bit limiting to the poll. I'd much prefer to keep it as "Which aircraft are your comfortable with?"

Who's making anyone feel like they don't want to do their job any more? I know there was some grief over at the VEAO sub-forum, but I don't really know what it was about. I haven't seen any posts on AvioDev forum that feel out of order, though. What have I missed?

You should probably take a deep breath and re-read the posts in this thread. No one is saying that delays shouldn't happen. No one is saying that AvioDev are unique in their situation. No one is claiming to be a majority. This appears to be a "hot button" topic for you, with the result that you seem to be randomly attacking people based on the prejudices and preconceptions that you're bringing to the table as opposed to what's actually being said. If people pay for something - pre-sale or not - they are invested in it. That means that there is an expectation of updates on the progress of that purchase. It's entirely up to the company in question to decide how communicative they wish to be, but for every action (or inaction) there's an equal and opposite reaction. AvioDev can choose to be silent and that's fine - that's their choice - but it would be naive and unreasonable to assume that paying customers aren't going to have opinions on that silence. People are quite naturally going to ask for progress updates, and there's zero harm in that if it's done politely. (Note, too, the exclusively reasonable, positive and supportive posts in response to the September Press Release update). It's not clear to me why this is so problematic for you and why you're taking such a needlessly patronising and passive-aggressive tone.

Appreciated. Thank you.

Excellent info, Isegrim. Really helpful and insightful. :thumbup:

Repairs and refuelling have no bearing on the success or failure of campaign missions. In terms of the snarky comments, they only occur if you try to take off before the completion of refueling/rearming or if you are still receiving ground electrical power.

No one ever claimed it would be done within 9 months of release. Not sure why you're trying to put words in people's mouths. That said, there's always going to be some measure of expectation. Would you expect it to take a year? Two years? Five? A quarter of a century? There has to be some kind of finite bound on the delivery date. In the absence of specific projections, everyone is going to have their own perspective and expectations. Any dev that's taken a long time to deliver has come under criticism (cf. Belsimtek and VEAO). It's not unique to AvioDev in the slightest. Whether or not it's unwarranted is totally subjective. I would totally accept this if were people were being hostile and abusive in this thread, but that's not what's happening here. You seem to be getting stressed about the idea that people simply want information. Yes... after 20 years of software development, I consider the creation of a complex piece of computer software to be 100% analogous to purchasing a curry. :doh: You know as well as I do that analogies are not intended to show that two things are the same. They're just a way of reframing a discussion point by using a well-understood concept to illustrate specific commonalities. Taking the analogy literally in order to make cheap "you must be an idiot if you think these two things are the same" attacks represents the exact same kind of negative internet behaviour you're claiming to stand against. My point, which I feel was perfectly clear, was simply that only a certain amount of time can reasonably be expected to pass between a purchase and the delivery of that purchase before people start asking questions. Once again, subjectivity is involved in the assessment of what constitutes a "reasonable amount of time". It's a question of equivalency. Did you order your chips a minute ago? Half an hour ago? Three hours ago? Which analogy is the most applicable? Once more, it's all very subjective. I'm not a Glaswegian. It's far worse than that. I'm a Scouser.

After you've launched a Vikhr, you'll see a countdown timer in the HUD. If I remember correctly, this is a Time To Impact timer, but it typically keeps running for several seconds after impact. Importantly, you won't get the C/LA authorization while this timer is showing. Additionally, you will need to "re-lock" any targets that you locked while the timer was still counting down. This is as simple as just pressing the "lock" button again once the timer has finished its countdown. You can get around this by switching to manual launch as opposed to automatic, but I don't typically do that. NOTE: Other people on the forum may be able to explain the functionality a little better and/or more accurately, but that should hopefully be enough info to solve your problem.

This seems like a bizarrely disproportionate response to Ramsey's post. I could imagine jumping to the developer's defence if there was profanity, abuse or anger in the original post, but that's not what was said at all. As far as I can tell, Ramsey's post basically just said "I'm a bit surprised and disappointed that this is taking so long. It'd be great to get a little more in the way of regular updates." That doesn't seem like an unreasonable request from a paying customer. It doesn't matter if you're a one-man outfit or a multinational corporation - if you're selling a product, there are certain obligations and expectations that come with that. The "It's still a Beta and therefore not finished" argument is somewhat valid (even though I take great issue with ED's definition of Beta), but it doesn't feel in any way unreasonable for a paying customer to expect a modest cadence of updates regarding the progress of their purchase towards its final form. In the absence of such communication, there's bound to be some measure of frustration. As long as its kept objective and civil, that's entirely reasonable. The assertion that requests for such info would result in a "Glasgow handshake" in real life is frankly ridiculous. If you went to a restaurant and ordered curry, rice and naan, but the rice didn't arrive, you'd want to know when... especially when minutes are stretching to hours. Vague comments to the effect of "We'll get it to you sometime" aren't particularly satisfying while you're watching the rest of the dish go cold. :D For what it's worth, I take issue with attacks on developers, too. I've been making video games for nearly 20 years and I know exactly how frustrating, deflating and unfair that can be. On the flip side, I also believe that paying customers have a right to the product they've paid for. If that hasn't been delivered, I also believe that those same paying customers have a right to expect a modest amount of communication on progress.

Map colouring looks way, way better now. Nice work, guys. Thanks for the update, Wags.

Agreed. The Kiowa is pretty much top of my list, too. In the meantime, the Gazelle and the Bo are shaping up fantastically well. Can't wait to get my hands on them.

Thanks for the excellent and informative post, Azrayen. Much appreciated.

While we're talking definitions, you should also define "realistic". The Su-25T has AFM not PFM and it's arguably the most realistic feeling aircraft in the sim. There's a degree of subjectivity in there, but unless you're a real life pilot of any of the modules, that's true of all of them. The only reason that people know the difference between AFM and PFM is because ED made up labels and applied them to different modules. I'd be willing to bet that 99% of people wouldn't have been able to tell the difference between the AFM Su-25T and the PFM A-10C in terms of fidelity of underlying flight modelling. The only way we know the difference is because we've been told.

Heh! Yeah. Didn't think of that. Sorry. :D

I'm going to have to assume that the 1 vote for "ALL OF THE MODULES!!!" belongs to Wags... :D

I'm the same in terms of wanting some more info about project status, but I haven't let it dampen my enthusiasm. My general take is that I'm giving each developer the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong. ED, Belsimtek and Leatherneck haven't missed a step so far, so I'm happy to keep pre-ordering things like the L-39 and Nevada. Razbam are new to DCS and I like what I've been seeing of the Mirage 2000, so I've pre-ordered that, too. On the flip side, I haven't pre-ordered the VEAO P-40 as I felt really disappointed by the Hawk. Unfortunately, I'd have to wait on anything from AvioDev, too. I still believe the C-101 has the seeds of something really good, though. Everything that's been put into it so far is really good, but it just doesn't feel finished yet without the EFM.