Jump to content

nessuno0505

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2814

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by nessuno0505

  1. nessuno0505
    I will buy it even if zero new features. All the old modules need some upgrade, and people can't work for free. Better a huey 2 or a f-86 2 for 10 bucks, even without new systems, than a brand new mig-29 while you let the older modules rot in decay. I will buy f-5 2 and every other pay upgrade of older modules, provided that it's not just a new shiny look: the bugs must be carefully watched and corrected, both for the upgrade buyers and for people who will not upgrade.
  2. nessuno0505
    Questi 10 € ce li metterò come li ho messi per FC4. Vuoi mai che le continue lamentele in merito all'abbandono dei moduli più vecchi non abbiano sortito un qualche effetto. In ogni caso, per la serie votare col portafoglio, questo lo compero all'istante. Ancora ce n'è di strada da fare e se per vedere lo stesso trattamento per lo huey o l'l-39 ci vorranno altri 5 anni siamo da capo, ma la strada mi sembra quella giusta per cui avanti così. Mi pare dicano "col prossimo update", per cui presumo alla fine della corrente tornata di sconti.
  3. nessuno0505
    Maybe they're someone's favourite bugs because they are still there after 10 years? If developers are different, what does the "different developer" doing in these 10 years? I believe you're not far from truth.
  4. nessuno0505
    Just to be clear: I am aware that a piece of software 100% bug free does not exist in life. But there is a distinct feeling that something is wrong here, and @Art-J example is perfect in this regard. Maybe a few people still fly the P-51, but it is not a deprecated software and is sold in the same showcase of the Apache. If you can't keep it up to date, for whatever reason, create a separate older version of DCS to be used with the older modules. It would be better than it is now.
  5. nessuno0505
    Have you ever tried an old module wanting to go into detail? There is always some bug that pops up, even a gross one, and 90% of the time you find that it has been already reported... for at least a couple of years! This fact is driving me crazy. In the past I have also reported some bugs, or followed some bugs-related discussions, but after 2 years every hope is lost... That's just my opinion, or maybe just my immagination, or maybe I fixate on minor insignificant things, but there are bugs even in the most unexpected modules, see the airport divert page bug in the A-10c, which is still there despite the A-10c II being released. It may be a minor bug, but it's there since DCS 2.0: around 2017-2018. It's 2024! (nearly 2025). If the developers haven't found free time to fix this in over 7 years, it means they'll never find it! And it's an "already reported" bug... since 2018!
  6. nessuno0505
    Exactly this. I don't demand that the f-86 has the same graphics as the apache, but that once it reaches the peak of its development it keeps it that way over time, and that it does not progressively lose value not because newer things came out, with better graphics, additional features or whatever, but because the features that were there have gradually been lost and it takes years (and sometimes it never happens) to get them back as they were before.
  7. nessuno0505
    I will certainly continue to have fun with DCS, and I don't see what the EULA has to do with it since I am not asking for a refund: I have no right to it and to be honest it would be completely unjustified. I understand that the priorities of the developers may not coincide with those of everyone; what I can say is that, at this point, they no longer coincide with mine. I will continue to enjoy the a-10, the ka-50, the korea jets, the huey and the mi-8 and all the other older modules I own, which remain absolutely enjoyable, but I will not buy the ch-47, the apache or the mig-29, at least until I'll see the older modules bugs managed; I'm not asking for a graphical upgrade, I've already said that graphics are the least important thing to me, and I'd be willing to pay the same price of the a-10c II for each of the older modules just to have a bug fix upgrade that puts them back on track (I understand that noone can work for free). These are my priorities, I don't find there is anything wrong with exposing them in a forum where you can dialogue with the developers. If the developers priorities are different from mine I can understand and I'll resign myself to it.
  8. nessuno0505
    You are not alone. As nice as it would be to see an f-86 updated in graphics, the aircraft would still be very enjoyable even as it is, provided, however, that the countless bugs that have come out over time are fixed. First of all the bugs, and I'll stop complaining. Then, if there is time left over and it is economically advantageous, maybe even the upgrade as for the a-10 and ka-50.
  9. nessuno0505
    Why should a person under contract with Razbam be upset with ED if he is not paid? This still needs to be explained to me, from the beginning of the whole thing. I understand your concern, but leaving an incomplete product in the store would set a dangerous precedent, and personally I wouldn't want that either.
  10. nessuno0505
    I think you're right. In fact, as much as I share @Mizzy 's hopes, more realistically I believe that we will keep RB's modules forever frozen in their current state, with the only doubt being the 15, that could be removed from the store and refunded (but I think it will be frozen too, with the refund as an optional).
  11. nessuno0505
    Because she has none. However, knowing the previous history of Razbam and seeing how long this story drags on, it is quite reasonable to believe that Razbam will not come back and it is equally reasonable to hope that the individual people who wrote the code of the razbam modules, often contractors, can continue their work under another flag, so as not to lose DCS modules or have "frozen" ones. That is an opinion that I would share. If Razbam will be able to surprise me, so much better. But I doubt it.
  12. nessuno0505
    Being too ambitious ends up like Star Citizen. But to be honest I do not really think you can compare DCS with SC, at least here there's a game to play, and what a game! I've spent countless hours myself enjoying DCS and I still continue to use it, I can't deny the truth nor it's my intention. Nevertheless, the more you go deep in the sim and the more you see the huge amount of bigger and smaller bugs affecting ANY module, being it in EA or already released since years. And I'm not talking of the countless features we are waiting for in the core game. As it is now DCS, with reference to single player experience, is a cockpit simulator, and I'm fine with it. But I would demand at least a full working one, not something that as soon as you go a little deeper into the procedures, the bugs come out left and right, and when you report them you find that they have "already reported"... since decades! I do not know if this behaviour is due to the growing list of active modules, but this is undeniable and often very frustrating. Just an example: the a-10c airport divert page. It shoud give you the ATC frequency of the selected airport, but there's a bug for which you have **** instead of the frequency. This is a bug reported since DCS 2.0 came out, they have reviewed the a-10c with the version II, adding a lot of new stuff, but those bug is still there, and has been reported dozens of times, since years ago. It may seem a minor annoyance (and really it is), but ALL modules none excluded are full of stuff like this. What do I do with the mig-29 if all this stuff instead of being fixed continue to increase from update to update? I may have written "we" in some of my previous posts: I apologize. I'm no one to speak for the community and I don't even intend to: this is just how I see it. But tell me it's not true...
  13. nessuno0505
    Bello! Sono proprio curioso di vedere come verrà fuori un aereo di questo tipo nell'ambiente DCS...
  14. nessuno0505
    You must admit some of the criticism have their own reason: now you have a lot of 3rd parties and a lot of new airplanes are made by them. Nevertheless your own modules list seems a bit too ambitious: a-10c, f/a-18, f-16, (very complex airframes); f-5, l-39, mig-15, f-86, (they all would need an overhaul); yak-52 (an easy prop plane almost abandoned for years); and now the mig-29 (I'm really glad to see at last a 4th gen redfor, but it's yet another module!). Then the helicopters: ah-64 (very complex), ka-50 and mi-24 (quite complex too), uh-1 and mi-8 (they also need an overhaul), and now the ch-47 (interesting machine, but again another new one!). Then all the ww2 and all the maps (always new ones); plus all the work on the main game (as far as I know the hardest, most time consuming and in need of human resources of all your works). Doesn't that sound a bit too much? If we criticized Razbam's list because it seemed a bit too ambitious for them, what is this in comparison? It is almost natural to think that you could leave the new projects to third parties and focus for a while on finishing or updating the existing ones (even for a fee, as with the a-10c II), in order to bring them all to the same level, fix the many bugs, put a point and only then, if anything, start from there with new modules. It does not seem so absurd to me such a thought, because the impression is that you cannot keep up with it as it is now, despite all the undoubted, tireless, undeniable efforts.
  15. nessuno0505
    There's also a 4th camp, who does not care less who's wrong and who's right, lawyers, contracts and such, and just thinks the whole stuff is a very bad happening for DCS as a whole, has simply lost the desire to spend money on it as his game has been ruined.
  16. nessuno0505
    Keep HB out of this mess. They clearly said they do not want to be involved, either they didn't even confirm that they were not paid. It's just speculation made by RB to discredit ED.
  17. nessuno0505
    Se correggeranno questo bug con la stessa velocità con cui correggono tutti gli altri che ogni giorno gli segnaliamo, campa cavallo.
  18. nessuno0505
    That's not a new, it was clearly stated before: that's the reason for the store credit refunds: if the SE is abandoned, the best outcome possible is that it will remain forever "as is". Being a highly incomplete module, you can refund. The other RB's modules are "finished": if abandoned, you won't loose them: they'll stay forever locked in their current state: no further updates, no improvements, no "m2000c 2" in a few years. Who will manage the bugs raising with the development of the DCS platform is unclear: maybe ED, but if it will be the same as for the bombs fuse, expect a lot of bugs and eons for them to be fixed. But we all hope in a good outcome for the dispute, just I'm not sure the best outcome being RB back to work here.
  19. nessuno0505
    If all the story is true, it is absurd that a dispute over a presumed and yet unexistent future module falls on the paying customers of an existing product. If this is true, the blame must be shared between RB and ED, and that says a lot about the trustworthiness of both companies.
  20. nessuno0505
    The Hind is in early access, not a so called "complete" module. I have never bought early access modules, considering that label a protection in favor of the buyer. If we start declaring complete products that are not, the whole sales model collapses and the impression that the users get is that you just want to squeeze money out of them.
  21. nessuno0505
    Infatti purtroppo l'impressione è proprio quella: di corsa a mettere in vendita che i polli son lì col portafoglio aperto e c'è già il prossimo aereo da mettere in cantiere. Magari non è così ed è solo un problema di pessimo marketing, ma l'impressione è quella. E si comincia a leggere di gente che non vuole acquistare più nulla finché il modulo x o y, che già ha comperato, non sarà finito. In questo senso la vicenda Razbam non aiuta, perché a questi utenti si aggiungono quelli che non comperano più in attesa di sapere come la faccenda si risolverà. Infine, se fino a ieri bastava aspettare che un modulo uscisse dall'early access per essere sicuri di acquistare roba finita, oggi comincia a non valere più nemmeno questo accorgimento, ulteriore elemento che rinforza l'impressione che si voglia solo accumulare quanta più grana possibile spennando il pollo di turno. Poi magari è vero anche questo, e allora a maggior ragione è meglio non comperare in questo periodo, vuoi mai che capiscano che il pubblico si aspetta ben altro. P.S. poi anch'io ho messo 10 euro in flaming cliffs 4 nella speranza che esca un f-5 2 o un uh-1h 2, e se uscissero li comprerei comunque, così come comprerei il g-91 o un f-104 o un mig-21 2 (che tanto non uscirà), ma sarebbero casi selezionati che nulla tolgono al senso generale del discorso.
  22. nessuno0505
    I do not want to blame BD or any other external contractor hired to write the manual (by the way, why would RB need to hire someone to write the manual for something they are developing themself?); moreover, if the airplane is incomplete, how can the manual be complete? Nevertheless, neither the plane nor the manual should be incomplete if a product is declared complete and out of early access.
  23. nessuno0505
    So finally it does not have a full manual, but only a part of it. Half a manual is not enough for a so called out of early access module (a presumed study level module, not a flaming cliff one. If there's no manual, where am I supposed to study?). If you give me half the manual, I pay half the airplane. But since there's the Razbam strike, I pay nothing and you keep your half manual.
  24. nessuno0505
    The av-8b has been without a manual for a long time. If today it has a complete one I'm glad that it is finally there, however given the current situation with Razbam I would be just a fool if I decided right now to buy one of their modules.
  25. nessuno0505
    Il miglior sistema di tracciamento della testa, nonchè la periferica che in assoluto rivoluziona di più l'esperienza della simulazione di volo, è a mio avviso un caschetto per la realtà virtuale. Anche un relativamente economico quest 3s, sebbene non specificamente ideato per la simulazione di volo, può offrire un modo di volare completamente nuovo e dal quale è difficile se non impossibile tornare indietro una volta provato.
×
×
  • Create New...