av8orDave

I honestly don’t believe they have anyone actively working on it. I think they tinker with it from time to time.

I just don’t think it is good business. There are no “boundaries” to ED’s early access model. Does the pace of development so far on the Chinook incline you to believe someone works on developing the module full time, or that someone tinkers with it here and there? Add to it the fact that with every module released, ED has a growing base of modules to constantly maintain with each update… an exponential amount of work that they effectively no longer collect revenue on, but must make sure continue to function. Unsustainable business model aside, the open-ended early access with glacial progress (if any meaningful progress at all) and no ability on behalf of ED to provide guidance on some kind of timeline to when the module will have some basic features has soured me on the whole thing. I’m spending more time with other sims and hobbies. It Is simply not much fun to wallow around the sky in a half-working Chinook that has barely changed since it’s undercooked launch day a year ago.

Hi Bignewy, Man, I respect the position you're in and the responsibility you have. Thanks for what you do to moderate these forums. Having said that, this module released bare-bones, and has seen very little development in the year it has been around, to the point that the CDU is barely functional. Heck, it kind of sort of has radios. I've been a loyal and avid customer since 2008, playing A-10C and KA-50, and I've been around for the whole journey. I'm going to be very honest and say I don't believe anyone is working on this module as a daily part of their job, a module that I spent money on, discounted or not. The direction things are heading, in my opinion with Eagle Dynamics and DCS, is not a positive one. I have never missed an early access module purchase in the 17 years I've been playing this game, and I have to say, the MiG-29 and C-130 I absolutely won't spend a dime on until I know that they will be developed in a focused way on a reasonable timeline. I am bothered that the tone of communications even seems to make it kind of sound to me like "hey, you got a discount, the development takes however long it takes." I hope there is a way to make the development of these modules more time-bound and focused. The way it is done today doesn't work. If there were competitors, and I have to think that eventually there will be, y'all would be in a world of hurt. Not trying to be a malcontent, just straight talk.

Is there any sort of "guidance" around how long early access is supposed to last for these modules? This was released over a year ago and still doesn't have a functional CDU. Seems kind of, I don't know, wild. Hard to believe someone is working every day on this. I don't mean to be negative, but it might be good to set expectations appropriately.

Only thing that has been a minor annoyance to me is that the JTAC ATHS (the system that transmits JTAC 9-lines to the CAS page) no longer functions (it once worked great).

As of the last CH-47 update, it seems like none of the user liveries I've downloaded from the user files section show any of the tail markings anymore... just an unmarked tail. Any ideas?

I've played DCS for probably 15 years and never knew this. Anyone know if there is some kind of reference doc or manual that outlines some of the "nuances" or "quirks" about the AI?

Try virtual desktop. The software is considerably better than the alternatives, and performance lately has been quite good.

This is the answer. Thanks buddy, greatly appreciated.

Maybe this is already known, but I went to use the QAG with the Marianas map yesterday, and the F4U isn't available with the WWII era setting. Also, when selecting the F4U with any setting, carrier start isn't an option. Will this be added?

Thanks for the reply, and I do trust and believe the team is working on it. The reason for my negativity is that this process has been what I would say is really, really long. The link below is from 2021, and estimated implementation of Q3 of that year.

Has there been some news that I've missed regarding Vulkan implementation? It has been discussed for probably five years or more without any actual evidence of the work, so I'm skeptical that we'll ever see it. I hate to be so negative and I'd be glad to be proven wrong.

Any Corsair nerds know why the preferred fuel tank selection for takeoff and landing is the reserve tank rather than the main?

Same as above... would love to know what this option does.

I suspect it maybe is somewhat map dependent. I was getting bad framerates on The Channel map, but good framerates on Nevada. I'm curious what effect the cockpit texture settings have in special options but haven't tried tinkering with them yet.

Works now... you can ignore.

The E-Shop link in the changelog just links back to the changelog page.

I love your optimism. It’s DCS. I’d bet on September.

Are you new here? This is the standard DCS launch process, has been for nearly 20 years.

Nope. They've already added an additional day.

Ha, I feel like I've been burnt by the DCS hype-train too many times to count. At this time last year, the release of the CH-47 was "imminent" and then was delayed for a few months seemingly out of nowhere. I've learned that no matter how much I like the subject matter (and I definitely like the Corsair), it is good to manage my own expectations until the product is actually released.

Sure looks like it. When was the most recent F6F news?

I've experienced the same, and I can't provide a fix or answer your question, however I can suggest a solution. If you use Oculus Debug Tool, setting ASW on, off, or auto still works.

They’ve not worked consistently for me for a while now. I’ve been using Oculus Debug Tool to turn off ASW before entering the sim.

Yeah, I think the CH-47 experience is the one that finally put me out of the pre-purchase world. I haven’t bought the MiG-29 and won’t until it is launched and shown to be in some basic functional state, and until we can see that the pace of updates / development is reasonable.