Jump to content

nessuno0505

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2814

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by nessuno0505

  1. nessuno0505
    Don't let me break the forum rules...
  2. nessuno0505
    Credo che sia molto difficile fidarsi e acquistare qualcosa oggi, con tutto il casino di Razbam; a maggior ragione dagli stessi del Gazelle. Non vorrei essere complottista, ma se veramente hanno affrettato un rilascio in queste condizioni temo che i motivi siano due: rassicurare le altre terze parti che con DCS qualche soldino lo si guadagna e fare un po' di cassa in previsione della pletora di rimborsi che saranno costretti a fare quando la faccenda di Razbam sarà conclusa...
  3. nessuno0505
    This should be written in stone. I started to think everyone here has short memory, fortunately it is not so.
  4. nessuno0505
    Not exactly: in xplane or msfs you have free access to the development kit, so basically everyone is an "official" party, but you can sell your modules on your own site and you are the only one responsible for your modules: if PMDG or A2A go bankrupt, microsoft or xbox games can't care a less and you can't claim anything from them. Here you have to sign some sort of official agreement to obtain the development kit and you can sell your modules only through the official ED channels (this site or steam); on the other side ED is called upon to act as guarantor for the 3rd party.
  5. nessuno0505
    I'm not a legal expert, but this is how I see all this stuff: - if I want a refund, be it another similar module in sostitution, free ED miles to spend or cash, I need to deal with ED, since I've bought on their site. - if I want to complain about four modules left unfinished / bugs or broken things not fixed, I have to complain with RB and RB only, since RB suddently decided and publicly declared, 2 months ago, to stop the development and maintenance of all of their modules. In summary: I ask ED for the money, but I blame RB. Whatever the post-Veao politics is about, it's unlikely ED can take care / continue to develop or even just maintain / fix four more modules in addition to their own. If RB leaves, those 4 modules are doomed to die. I do not believe this would be the end of DCS. Maybe it could be the end of 3rd party collaboration, but today DCS has enough modules made by ED on its own to live even without 3rd parts. DCS healths is mainly linked to how the matter will be handled if RB leaves: refunds (even in the form of free modules or free ED miles) for all the RB customers would be positive; leaving people in uncertainty for months or reneging on promises made after Veao events would probably be the beginning of the end.
  6. nessuno0505
    In fact the real issue with RB leaving DCS is not the f-15e (as an early access product not guaranteed to be completed by definition) but the m2k and av8b (and mig-19 too), three almost finished products doomed to become buggier and buggier and eventually stop working at all as time goes by.
  7. nessuno0505
    Given DCS times to do things, I bet this topic will become the longest of the whole forum.
  8. nessuno0505
    RB once said ED does not have their core files. But even if they had access to the files, ED already has a long queue of half-finished modules, it's unrealistic they can take the burden of m2k, av-8b, mig-19 and f-15e. Maybe they could pass them to another 3rd party (a completely new one since all the existing already have their work), but I don't believe this is possible; it's more likely RB keeps its projects and port them to another simulator, even a civil one.
  9. nessuno0505
    Different scenario IMHO: ED takes the files if the 3rd party bankrupts or fails. A 3rd party actively deciding to leave is a completely different case.
  10. nessuno0505
    I'm all-in for a graphic and systems payware overhaul like A-10C II or BS III. I'm a big fan of this kind of upgrades: developing a completely new module is a lot of work for small development groups and DCS dev times are huuuuuge (look at the f-4u). A cheap pay upgrade is less work for the development and a lot of fun for the owners of the module. A quick(er) way to have easy money and happy customers. I'd buy instantly.
  11. nessuno0505
    Is there already a plan in case negotiations fail? That would be interesting to know.
  12. nessuno0505
    Purtroppo il rischio è quello: grafica ultrapompata ottimizzata zero, tanto poi la gente mette il DLSS. Magari sostenendo pure che a casa loro (probabilmente ubicata in un altro universo, dove vigono differenti leggi della fisica) col DLSS si veda anche meglio che con la risoluzione nativa. Quando poi, magari, giocano su una TV 32 pollici in "4K" (upscalato e DLSSato) sul divano a 5 metri di distanza. Quanto alla VR, ormai il grosso dei giocatori stanno in standalone (basta vedere i canali youtube dedicati all'argomento: in pratica il visore VR sta diventando un particolare tipo di console), mentre alla PCVR guardano ormai solo coloro che fanno titoli "di nicchia" (leggi simulatori di volo, di guida, tutt'al più spaziali - quei pochi che ci sono e sempre ammesso che li si possa chiamare simulatori - che poi in realtà sono i titoli che rendono in assoluto di più in VR - quelli "da cockpit", che sono stati rivoluzionati da quel tipo di esperienza - ma che alla fine purtroppo li facciamo in 4 gatti). Io stesso ho un Quest 3 (che uso pochissimo in standalone e quasi solo in PCVR, ma il cui marketing è abbastanza evidente punti a sviluppare il suo ecosistema e a considerare la PCVR solo una modalità accessoria).
  13. nessuno0505
    Has anyone said yak-52 yet? No? I'll handle that.
  14. nessuno0505
    Oh, finalmente qualcuno che lo dice! E poi si leggono fior fior di recensori (cosidetti esperti) sostenere che dalle specifiche trapelate la 5090 è troppo potente, non servirà a niente. Certo, come no? Sia chiaro: gran cosa il DLSS, nel senso che quando non se ne può fare a meno meglio giocare col DLSS che vedere 15 fps, però avere potenza per poterne fare a meno la differenza la fa eccome, poche balle! P.S. Io ho una 3080ti e il DLSS quando serve lo uso, sia chiaro.
  15. nessuno0505
    The difference between this and yak-52 or combined arms is that the f-15 is a new module still on the hype train and not an old project almost abandoned / in undefined pause. Moreover, if a core update should introduce a blocking bug for some of these old projects, that would be sorted; with the f-15 you can't say the same since RB have decided to halt development and publicly stated that. The reason why RB went public is quite obvious IMHO: they had to justify the halt on a new freshly released product. In addition, the real issue of all this situation is not the f-15 (still a early access module) but the m2000c and for some extent the av-8b: technically finished modules that will degrade over time without none to maintain.
  16. nessuno0505
    You really need an answer? The answer is, obviously, no. The modules will degrade over time and eventually stop working until (if ever?) the issue is sorted. This is sure as the sun raise up in the morning.
  17. nessuno0505
    ED shouldn't have accepted RB as a third party, that was the mistake.
  18. nessuno0505
    Finalmente!!! Non so se l'hanno fatto "già che c'erano", visto che hanno lavorato su flaming cliffs, ma era ora! Finalmente, io che non amo per nulla le mod, potrò eliminare la mod che corregge il bug del RWR.
  19. nessuno0505
    It's not just the F-15E: RB has got a half-cooked mig-19 declared out of early access, a less than half cooked av-8b (it lacks even a manual) declared out of early access, maybe their only acceptable module being the m2000c, but it tooks years to refine. All this F-15 situation is nothing more than what could evidently be expected given the "illustrious" precedents. DCS environment is all but bugs free and finished, but here we are at the sum of everything that should not be, the apotheosis of a certain "savoir faire" that really makes the gonads fall from their usual anatomical seat. And this is just the cherry on the cake. A very indigestible cake...
  20. nessuno0505
    If tomorrow Zambrano were to say, "We have resolved the dispute, the development of our modules will resume", would you buy the F-15 if you were interested in doing so but stopped because of the recent dispute? And what about another future product by Razbam? Did you buy the f-4 and the kola map?
  21. nessuno0505
    Just one consideration: after the first stages of the affair, in which ED moderators closed all the posts in which it was enough to mention this matter, now they are intervening in a very soft way in a topic in which every possible and imaginable rule has been broken: there has been talk of other simulators, inferences have been made about the commercial and legal implications of the matter, there have been flames among users and so on. I think they're probing the mood of the community, so they can predict how we'll react when the end of this story (whatever it is, but I fear not a good one) will be told.
  22. nessuno0505
    At the end someone said this. If RB quits DCS maybe we will loose some airplanes, and I'm sincerely sorry for those who bought them (fortunately I do not have RB modules, nevertheless I am really sad for the av-8b, to which I have always looked with interest - if only it had a manual), but I'm sure it wouldn't be a big loss and someone better - sooner or later - will do a f-15 or a harrier/av-8b, at least with more love and respect for the users.
  23. nessuno0505
    Razbam's one is a different situation IMHO: they are not "no longer able to support", they actively decided to halt the support as the result of a dispute with ED. Moreover, even without considering the technical difficulties in taking over someone else's work, ED does not have F-15E core files (RB stated that) and I doubt they have any chance to obtain them. Should RB decide to withdraw from DCS, I have good reason to believe all of its modules are doomed to the same fate of the hawk.
  24. nessuno0505
    BMS is a f-16 (almost) only simulator, so it can't do some things that dcs does. But bms can do dynamic campaign, proper simulated atc and other stuff dcs can't do (yet?). We can play and enjoy both of course, but the hypothetical dcs death (in which I do not believe, just to be clear) wouldn't be the end of modern mil sim.
  25. nessuno0505
    I agree with you, dcs is a game and it's fun to try different modules even if you do not master them as irl pilots do. But I already have enough modules to try, study and get better at flying them, so I can enjoy myself even if I wait and see where the whole dcs thing goes before putting other money, no need to hurry, moreover in these moonlights. I hope things will get sorted and I can go back to throw my money as soon as possible.
×
×
  • Create New...