Thump

ATC and weather system updates were supposed to be here in 2016, just sayin' they've missed dates before. :D

Hi JRM, Since it got a bit buried, here's a link that should give you a picture of the current goalposts. Current State - Thump

Hi Mark, holding procedures 36 is your expected push time. Proceed inbound from the holding point 36 minutes after the hour (i.e. you enter holding at 2015 and will commence approach at 2036) Hope this helps Thump

How is it a suggestion? It either is the intent of the company or it is not. It's not for the customer to interpret how the release feels it is. Thanks.

.

Between the radar and the SA page, it'll be interesting to say the least.

Unless you're saying Deka stole their code and used it, I would call the first statement a fair assumption. If ED really didn't see a major change to the terrain/radar relationship not effecting third part dev's work, that makes them incompetent. You are also making a large assumption that they are shooting straight with you (which they proved to not be the case in the Hornet devs for Viper revs). I can see the problem you are talking about with that "policy" but it was also something ED brought upon themselves. If we do not address issues as see them, then you're 2021 problem will become a 2023 problem very quickly. Forest through the trees.

You do realize ED gave them the API and relevant code? It was also ED that changed the terrain most likely knowing what it would mean for third party devs without giving them time to adjust. The "nearly assured projection" (avoiding the word promise) of the radar/SLAM shouldn't have been made until it could be implemented without breaking the game (i.e. June 3rd apparently). Also by your logic, the Hornet should have never been release. Most of its systems have not been done right and therefor should not have been done at all.

Agreed, I would far rather they take the next 3 years getting it done right (we're on our way). My point was that he was saying that if it's not done right it's not done. Ed is effectively calling the Hornet "complete" by removing it from EA with 27 things missing/broken/inop. The rest of 2021 is "sustainment"...whatever that happens to mean to them at the time as meanings of words are relative to their current goalpost placement. It's the blatant double standard that is in question and lambasting of a third part dev for doing what they can with what they have.

1) If Deka (et al to an extent) waited for ED, their module(s) would never get released. Heaven forbid they try to do the best they can with what ED has given them and actually release as close to a full product as possible. 2) What would change from what we have now exactly? 3) ED threw a third party dev under the bus (again) 4) I'm interested in why you don't hold ED to the same level as a third party dev. P.S. No opinion on magnitude, and I'm not a fan of Raz. I do not own the Jeff, but I can respect a company that did their best to release as close to a full product as possible at launch.

And yet the Hornet is going to exit EA with 27 missing features. :music_whistling:

Just be aware that the Harpoon has limited effect on ships right now due to how they take damage.

It's interesting to see the "arguments" brought up by White Knights. Ride on my dude.

Solid retort, expected.

You completely missed the point of this thread.

Solid response. Last response to you as this has deteriorated to a simple name calling. Passive aggressive defined: Passive-aggressive behavior is characterized by a pattern of passive hostility and an avoidance of direct communication.[1]

#1 The goal of the thread was achieved with a direct, official response from Nineline and BigNewy. If you had taken the time to actually read and comprehend, you wouldn't have bothered with the first statement (I'll go with their word over yours). #2 You get an A for effort with that red herring.

Good job on being passive aggressive. Was it worth the clicks?

Solid Contribution :thumbup:

If what ED or the creators of the other maps/missions do makes the game as previously purchased makes the game unusable, then that would be a huge foul. For the same reason that today I can install a game from years/decades past and still be able to play it, they should ensure that previous purchases are still honored. From the sounds of it, there shouldn't be any issues per BigNewy and Nineline's posts and the fact that those creators could easily keep the previous versions playable and adapt new missions to the new A-10. I don't see it becoming unplayable unless they intentionally make it so.

Nor does it slow it down to ask.

I'd give them the weekend to get their ducks in a row Flankerjun. They just did a media blitz with their newest EA product. Odds are if you don't see a video of the other features by Tuesday, you're looking at another 2 weeks or so until their release.

By this logic and the reason given by BigNewy, you're looking at never updating the stable version. So again, why have it in the first place?

Has there been consideration of not adding things to 2.5.6 and cleaning up the bugs that exist on the open beta? If you're going to keep introducing new content that creates more bugs that delay the stable, then you might as well just get rid of it as you will be in a perpetual loop. This is coming from someone with no horse in the race as I only use open beta.

Advertisement is now considered transparency?