Jester2138

Striving for realism is good. But, speaking as a pilot in real life, I always find amusing the often completely arbitrary distinctions armchair pilots in this community make between what should be realistic and what they'll conveniently ignore. At the end of the day, the reality is we're all just playing our own particular game, no matter what you tell yourself.

I don't have the energy to read this entire thread. But to respond to you, specifically: Your position seems utterly nonsensical. Why should the pilot be able to give specific commands down to antenna position to Jester to operate the radar, but not the LANTIRN? Until you explain that, your entire argument is a complete illogical mess. Except they wouldn't have any of said resources, because almost nobody would have bought the Tomcat. Good job

I fail to see the difference between: 1) Using a keybind to tell Jester to change the antenna elevation 2) Using a keybind to tell Jester to pan the LANTIRN This seems like a pretty silly hill to die on for the anti-pilot-controlling-LANTIRN folks. Not to mention that the keybinds mod, as-is, is actually harder for the pilot than a proper Jester implementation would be. Right now, I have to manually go through the LANTIRN startup and operation procedures just as the RIO would. With a proper Jester AI function, I could give one command "Get the LANTIRN ready" and he'd do all that automatically.

None of the AI aircraft can be described as "accurate." (which pretty sad, on another note, given ED insists this is a SP-focused game)

Just adding my voice here as someone who's been highly critical of ED business approaches in the past (check my history) to say I'm really pleased with the direction taken on the Blackshark updates. In my opinion, this is markedly different from e.g. the Carrier DLC shenanigans and a great example of how it should be done. A new, paid, Blackshark variant doesn't take anything away from anybody in any scenario of gameplay and only provides more options, especially considering the old Blackshark modules will get the 3D and bug fixes, too. ^What he said.

I've been pressing the Sidewinder Cool and Missile Prep buttons as part of my startup since buying the place and never noticed any ill effects.

Vs. AI I always use the -54A Mk60 for the better kinetics. If I'm vs. players and there's a possibility of them seeing the trail, I'll use -54C and try to shoot in TWS whenever possible.

There's no need for clients to see different things. ED would just need to include client checks on airborne aircraft as they do for players that haven't spawned yet clicking on modules they don't own, and e.g. script a bolter any time a non-owner tries to trap. Hell, I would even be satisfied with a simpler and brute force method of exploding any non-owner that came within 200m of the center of the vessel. There are a million ways around the problem ED is touting as an excuse.

I would even say, no cats and traps. You can fly by it, collide with it, see it, but can't actually make use of it in any way unless you buy it. Accomplishes the same thing as far as making sure people who want to use it actually pay money to fund it and make it worthwhile, without a large technical hurdle or splitting communities. ED loses no sales, and potentially makes far more from people who see it in their friends' servers and decide it looks cool and want to use it themselves.

Fantastic idea, and one that has been exploited hugely successfully in other franchises. There's never an upside to massively limiting your potential market before selling a single module. I don't think ED's really thought this through. Hopefully the overwhelmingly negative reaction to the module's recent announcement will convince them to take a second look at how to handle it. We want to buy it. But we also want to be able to use it with our friends without having to be an extension of ED's marketing team and constantly convincing people to buy it even if they don't really want it, just so we can use it.

Well said.

Are you saying turning off all interactive functionality for non-owners, including cats and traps, not technically feasible for Eagle Dynamics?

Frankly, it sounds like you haven't read our comments if you think this structure is beneficial to the health of your company. I'm not sure how limiting your potential market and turning away potential buyers is better than not limiting it and enticing more buyers.

That's one way to do it. Another is to price things based on potential revenue at different price points (as most businesses do), one of those points being free. Android, for example, is free. Google is able to make it free because they're smart enough to realize that it being free creates value and massive sales in more lucrative areas, which allows more money to be made than if they charged users for Android. Now, that's just an example, and I don't think the Carrier DLC should be free. But by effectively locking it out of the MP community by restricting players from joining servers using it unless they own it, you are reducing it's value and ultimately losing sales. That's disappointing to me, as someone who wants ED to make money, and who would otherwise spend my money on this DLC in particular.

Unless you post data, I think your definition of "very well" is extremely loose. I know roughly 150 people who avidly play DCS, and 3 of them (three) own the WWII asset pack. I've heard similar numbers from many group admins, which is why if you browse the MP server list, there are virtually no servers running it (or Normandy). So we go back to my earlier statement. If MP is such a small portion and not relevant here, why not just make this free in MP? Would be fantastic advertising and sales generation for your apparently massive and completely silent and hidden SP community.

We will see who is right, soon enough. I have a challenge for you: One month after the Carrier DLC's release, publicly post data showing what percentage of Hornet owners bought the Carrier DLC. I think you will find it shockingly low.

If MP is as small and insignificant a portion of the community as ED and the resident forums apologists state, why not just make it free for use in MP? Put your money where your mouth is.

On the contrary - it's hard to find a reason to buy it now.

Don't worry - this won't be a problem. In the way you've set it up, nobody will use it in MP anyway, and few people will buy it at all. Especially given Heatblur's upcoming carrier will be free to everyone.

I want you to be around for a while, too. Which is why I'm so mystified by your decision on the Carrier DLC. You are losing long-term sales, not gaining them, by designing it this way. If you want more money (who doesn't?) then you as a company should listen to the critics here more understandingly. There are tons of people who wanted to buy it who now won't, myself included. And since I run the missions and server for my group of 10-20 DCS players, that means none of them will be either. What would be the point? We wouldn't be able to use it on our missions, because even one person not having it would mean none of us can use it. You've received multiple, highly-doable suggestions to make the carrier data available to everyone, but lock out any interactivity (including cats and traps) to those who didn't buy the module. I fail to see how that won't generate more sales in the long term. The condescending responses by you and others here are not exactly building goodwill with those who do the majority of your marketing for you (the high-profile MP community).

Well, that's disappointing. Did they say that it would never have an AI back-seater, or that it would not have an AI back-seater at launch?

I'm all for a subscription model but it'd have to be a much better value proposition than that!

I don't think ED or their spokespeople understand just how much the Carrier Modules sales will be destroyed by preventing you from joining servers that are running it if you don't have it. Even if it really is supposed to be a full-on module and not just a game feature (which doesn't make sense to me, but that's another issue), how do you justify that? If I don't own the Hornet, I can still join servers running the Hornet. I can even fly around and see them. I just can't use them myself. I can not adequately express my disappointment at the direction ED is taking with this. This was a development I was following closely and planning to buy on Day One. Now, I won't bother. Very, very few groups and servers will run this module because of how it will limit their playerbase. Controllers and airbase/carrier features are clearly part of the "World" in "DCS World" and should be incorporated in such a way that people who don't want to pay for it can still play with people who do want to pay for it, just like every aircraft module ever sold! As is, your potential market for the Carrier DLC is a fraction of what it could be. Few people are willing to pay for a module that they can only use by themselves unless they can convince every single one of their friends to buy it, too. Finally, if this is the beginning of a trend of what should be core game improvements being locked behind paywalls, I think I'm looking down the road at the end of my extensive time and enjoyment with DCS World. I have faith that this is not a trend and merely a poorly-handled one-time issue.

I can't offer anything specific here except to say that I've dropped GBU-12s on a JTAC's laser no problem from a Tomcat in CCIP.

In my opinion the medium of presentation doesn't really matter. Video, text, scale model, who cares? The real issue is how well it's made. There's a ton of crappy "tutorials" out there, in both video and text formats. As long as it's well-structured and sensible I don't care what format it's in; I'll take it.