Thump

So you're saying AAA companies who have hundreds of people could simply do it with 3 and a hamster? Might want to let UBIsoft in on this, they are struggling.

Both sentences have nothing to do with each other. And I never said he couldn't be happy...so THAT statement is simply not true.

The distraction eats resources better spent elsewhere. It is costing the community, just not in money.

At that point, it's no better than a random mod maker. Will be equally accurate.

It exists for the sole purpose of distraction. Jingle the keys.

The sheer amount of BS magic dust they are going to have to douse this module in will be meme worthy.

2052 And beyond* We're still waiting for 2016's dynamic weather and a decade's worth of other promises. Why can you not set realistic expectations?

Wow

This should have never been an issue to begin with when it was submitted for initial approval.a. As a customer, I saw the overlap IMMEDIATELY. They all (ED & ORT) should have seen this issue comming from a mile away and never released it with that content. They also can't just take away what was sold at time of purchase. That would be the equivalent of chevy taking your tires back from your truck because Ford had them first a year after you bought your vehicle. To top it off, they either tried to hide/ignore the move or they are incompetent in communication. Any way you slice it, ORT, ED, And now Urgas are ALL in the wrong.

Everyone's asking why now and in good DCS fashion both ED and Third parties are not being transparent. The fact that they were allowed to implement it at all is a clear sign of a systems failure on ED's end as the corporation leading these sales. This is especially a problem if ED is going to absolve itself from 3rd Party actions after initial approval. What we are seeing is a symptom of a greater problem that has existed in DCS's ecosystem for years (decades?) now. It's still there and that was the main point. Overlapping terrain. And who knows...maybe there are plans to expand into that area (if we're going that route)

Please don't defend an exceedingly poor move by the dev.

Didn't appear so, but if you're walking the original statement back, then ok.

You said it was to not step on toes...how is this a surprise & that you don't have info on this decision?

It is not a bug and can VERY loosely be defined as a "problem" if you're looking to stretch the meaning of the term. Putting it well behind the sections takes the issue out of the view of any potential customers as they are less than likely to go there than those who currently own the product. If their intent was only to consolidate, then that thread should have been pushed forward to the forefront, mine merged into it, and pinned. And you are right, this isn't ED's first time.

I'm not in your discord. Also, I'm not talking about THIS thread specifically but the one I made which was apparently too much in public view to remain where it was. Thanks