Jump to content

Thump

Members
  • Posts

    284
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. 1) That point that you quoted doesn't apply to you. 2) When ya tease Afghanistan by giving Bagram coordinates and then don't include Bagram....They could have done themselves a solid and did...I don't know, a part of the map on release? Kandahar is a moderately known location/base. 3) You can look forward to it all day long. Me voicing my astonishment as to their prioritization after 20 years of U.S. conflict in the area where the lion's share was in the East on the Pak border shouldn't change that. You're free to buy it, enjoy it, and play with the toys that they give you. I would put money on far more people being familiar with Bagram, Kabul, Jalalabad, Mazar E Sharif, FOB Shank, & the Khost bowl to include the borders along Pakistan than what is in the West, hence my comment. Not gunna buy it in this state....pretty simple.
  2. Once again, you missed the point. Thanks.
  3. There's literally one chance to stick the landing and it was East by about 200 miles....
  4. We are quickly approaching end of Q1 2024....any form of communication/update would be appreciated.
  5. Lmao. This is both sides pointing the finger at one another saying, "it's THEIR fault.!!" Bignewy pointed the finger at OnRetech and now it's ED's fault. It honestly sounds like a project abandoned and still being sold.
  6. Can we get a progress update? This map has been languishing for quite a while.
  7. I appreciate the out reach but it has to do with MP being heavily affected by the 2.9 update and was looking to see where the devs were on finding a solution to it.
  8. Can we get an update as to where we're at? This has been a R O U G H release....
  9. #1 Not my thread #2 Removing the EA title for the Hornet before they actually delivered on the product is exactly ED tried to do before the community (to include myself) rejected that as acceptable. I'd have to dig through the great annuls of ED forum histories to find it, and frankly don't care that much to spend the time but it should still be there. They literally posted it on their on forums that the Viper (unexpectedly) impacted the Hornet. I'd have to do some digging as it is YEARS in the past, but ED were the ones who said that the Hornet was put on the backburner while they got the Viper caught up (paraphrasing, but it's close enough for government work). The timeframe being "absolutely fine as is" is your *subective* opinion as much as it is the OP's (again, not my thread) *subjective* opinion that is it not.
  10. That wasn't my point and I did not say that you were dragging your feet. My point was that 5 years is nothing to scoff at as it relates to those responding to the OP. And, while you personally may not be telling me what I "should think" (again, not my thread) about the timespan, Shimmergloom very much did and I was directly addressing his question. He is the one who brought up the lack of competitors (that which shall not be named not withstanding), so you might want to address that aspect with Shimmer. The only thing that I pointed out as one (1) reason for the slower than initially planned development of the Hornet, as addressed by ED about a couple of years ago, was the Viper's release and the reprioritization of assets to make that module playable. Thanks
  11. Which isn't the point. Simply because there isn't another competitor doesn't mean it's a reasonable amount of time. With that logic, you could say 100 years is OK for a single module because the nearest competitor is BMS. It also doesn't help that they released the Viper saying it wouldn't negatively impact the Hornet, and it did. So, logically, it would have taken less time and possibly have been released by now. The basis for "my" complaint, is based on the fact that they didn't give an expected timespan and so I get to decide what is too long.
×
×
  • Create New...