fergrim

I just wanted to point out that this is a big deal and a huge disappointment for those of us who have bought the different modules of FC3 separately. I own every FC3 module except the A-10 since i have the big fancy A-10 module already. I've been excited about this J-11 since you announced it, the Su-27 and 33 were the first aircraft I purchased for DCS. I couldn't afford Flaming Cliffs in its entirety at the time and being able to buy things piece by piece was really convenient and something I sold DCS to friends and family on. Obviously spending 40 dollars for several aircraft I've already paid for isn't viable for me. When I asked about Su-27 owners receiving the J-11 on day one of your J-11 announcement, it was a matter of a brief wait. The Su-27 package has everything the J-11 package needs to function, I just don't understand why we're getting the second class treatment. It feels bad. I understand there's a tough luck perspective available to bludgeon us with, but customers hate being bludgeoned. I really hope a remedy is found so that we can enjoy the fruits of your work, I bet just as many people bought FC3 piece by piece as bought the whole package. After all, some people are only interested in Russian aircraft or only American etc. Or only have a 15 dollar a week gaming budget and are pleased to be able to grab a new 'lite' module at that frequency.

If I had an option now, I'd be asking which I should get it on, not just hoping it's released for steam. And honestly, ED would probably see much more money if they focused on steam as a primary release platform because the steam client gets more traffic than their website ever will. That said, I'd bounced back and forth between the two, but it comes down to slightly more frequent steam sales and the fact that literally every other game I own comes through steam. It's just more convenient. On top of that, I have a vive, which is integrated with steam. Even still, I'd switch it to direct, but I already have around six modules that I purchased all through steam. So now apparently i'm stuck forever. It makes no sense to me the way games are segregated based on original purchase platform. Interchangeable parts revolutionized manufacturing like what, two centuries ago? Yet software still doesn't have the concept down. I'm correct, though, right? I couldn't transfer my DCS/modules to the standalone version if I wanted to, right? I bought the viggen, harrier, A-10, Black Shark along with the FC odds and ends, oh yeah, and the Mirage too all through steam already. Maybe I'm still forgetting one in there, but given I already purchased all of those through steam, I think I'm stuck with steam now. It just seems to me if they are going to go through the effort of releasing on steam at all, no other company has a hard time keeping parity between their direct sales efforts and their steam ones. Just especially since regardless of the in principle superiority of direct, more customers will interact with them through steam than will happen across the site. And thanks, I guess I'll just wait and hope my small gaming budget is still available by the time they finish uploading the steam one. As my developer buddy has explained to me, uploading a new DLC option to a steam game's homepage takes as long as it takes to write the description and to upload it to steam; so I guess it's hard to understand what the delay could even consist of besides purposeful delay. And if the purpose of that delay is to drive people to this website then it makes no sense because there's a non-shrinking number of people who own it through steam already and have bought modules already, so that they will never be able to switch, regardless of how poorly we're treated. Since I can't sacrifice the purchases I've already made, I'm forced to accept worse treatment or just give up on pursuing more dcs modules, which i'd hate to do. But before the philosophy degree totally takes over and I'm lost completely to the realm of the hypothetical, I guess I'll just get to waiting and hoping it's not too long... Thanks again for the responses and excuse the gripe.

I bought the Su-27, F-15 and Su-33 all as separate packages and I've been waiting for the Mig-29 FM update to do the same for it also. As i'm sure you can tell, at this point in time buying the entire Flaming Cliff's pack would be a huge waste of money for me since you get no discount for content already owned, I'd be wasting a huge amount of money to buy FC in its entirety now so the Mig-29's availability is really key for me. I see the 29 standalone for sale here on DCS's website, but steam still has the same old list it's always had. Is there some standard amount of delay that I should expect or am I like the only one who doesn't know it'll never come to steam? My family usually gives me steam gift cards as a gift so I'm sitting on more than enough in my steam wallet just dying to finally be able to buy this damn thing.

I'm referring to the changes mentioned in the patch notes, and honestly, i'm not convinced they are short legged.. I know in the past the R-77 was simply not working as intended and the patch notes reference a number of changes to how they they are launched And I'd sooner believe that Wiki's fact checked information comes from the brochure for prospective missile buyers and that their figures assume the absolute most ideal confluence of circumstance imaginable

But the R-77 is now functioning how it should? That might be enough to get me into the mig. My only real issue is that since I already bought the SU-33, F15 and SU-27 separately - it's a tough pill to swallow to paid 25 for the migs and j-11 I also have the A-10c already so I mean, no harm, i'm a completionist but still I rarely have gaming money to spend so I'm trying to decide wisely

Yeah I have the Su-33, Su 27 and F15 standalones but I skipped the ones without an updated flight model despite being pretty interested in the migs. Reading the patch notes I know I saw them mentioned but I didn't have time to suss out what exactly was said. Is the R-77 now working properly? how about the Mig-29 flight model? Or maybe even both? Now if I need to own the pack to have access to the J-11a and if the Mig-29 is fixed, well I guess I might just finally have to buy it. At least it's on sale so I feel less like I bought things twice. Thanks a lot, fergrim And on a side note just wondering if the chinese assets pack is something separate, and if so is it available now? It's hard to trust steam but i didn't see it on there when I looked

I went ahead and bought all of the advanced flight model DCS standalones a bit ago - the Su-27, the Su-33, F-15. Should I have the J-11 also, or no? For those of you who would scold me, yes I saw someone asked before, but I felt as if the answer was unclear and it a little bit ago they asked and I was sure I saw that eventually the Su-27 standalone would be sufficient for access. So just to be absolutely clear, do we need to own the entirety of the Flaming Cliffs pack to have access to this J-11a or is the SU-27 standalone sufficient?

But I was just so curious about this since I read about it. Did you guys look into the Harrier specific cockpit voice input/control system? It just fascinates me that it was specifically built into these newer harriers in a purpose built way, and I'm curious what a pilot would use it for in practice and what its intended use was. Thanks

What do you mean, it bugs? "Bug" is a very specific word that references an unintentional mistake made by the programmer. If what you're talking about is the hardware requirements for 2.5 being too high, it'd help both players and devs understand. Like if it's a bug, I can help you fix it, but if it's just that you need new hardware or more RAM, I can't help at all. Also, it should run fine on the 1.5.8 release based on my google of past threads answering this question.

Unsurprisingly because they both use literally the same exact model pod. Oh hi Liteningg! Primary function: Navigation and infrared/electro-optical targeting Prime Contractor: Rafael Corporation/Northrop Grumman Length: 87 in (2.20 m) Diameter: 16 in (0.406 m) Weight: 455 lb (208 kg) Aircraft: A-10, B-52H, F-14A/B/D, F-15E/D, AV-8B, F/A-18, F-16 Block 25/30/40/50, F-4E AUP, Su-30MKI, Aero L-159 Alca, Tornado GR4, HAL Tejas, SEPECAT Jaguar of Indian airforce, Eurofighter Typhoon, JAS-39 Gripen, Brazilian airforce: A-1M AMX International AMX, F-5M Northrop F-5. Sensors: Infrared detector, CCD-TV camera, eye safe laser rangefinder and laser designator sensor's resoulotion (for Litening III): CCD (tv): 1K x 1K, FLIR: 640x480 Date Deployed: February 2000 I do appreciate the consistency, it'd feel silly if learning the systems in some aircraft didn't help accelerate our understanding of operating others.

Have you considered that perhaps your ECM is actually interfering with your ability to spot them over your own noise? That's my fwiw, all I can think of.

So maybe my reading comprehension is failing and I'm sorry if it has, but is this thread still relevant? I'm still so new to the harrier I can't tell if I'm missing anything yet on my own. Should I be following the first posts instructions also?

I live within 20 minutes of NYC, I know what cost of living rise looks like. This is something else. are you suggesting then, that when someone purchases a DCS module, that they should consider the existence of any campaigns, tutorial or training with that module to be a free gift? And that if such content doesn't exist or isn't planned to, that it's fair and good business for the customer to not be informed? Honestly you must be confused or you just got off of work as a professional constructor of straw men. It's standard practice for people to be informed when additional content is necessary. For example, see every single campaign mission for sale, they both indicate the map if an additional map is necessary and the vehicle module. It's not a stretch and certainly not a douchily mockable suggestion to put forth that for future modules if the campaign / training content is only accessible via a paid map then that be something potential customers are informed of. Suggesting otherwise is just sophistry for its own sake which I'm not paid enough to entertain. If Eagle does not want to set such a standard for quality then while I'd disagree with that decision from a business survival standpoint, what I would recommend then at the least is to require it be clearly stated whether or not the product does/will include such content. Just as it's always made clear to what degree of fidelity avionics will be modeled and whether the cockpit will be fully interactive. It's not exactly controversial and is already the most common practice amongst the majority of businesses including Eagle itself. It's just we're entering a new phase, with more maps releasing, where for the very first time it's become a possibility that a paid map will be required to have any campaign at all. For 50-70 dollars, it's just common courtesy for a purveyor of such modules to let the customer know. This is still in early release, so there's still time to become clear about that and it's no big deal, I'm loving the harrier and Zeus and his team have done great work. I'm just saying transparency and clarity is key. I'm sure the business' survival does not depend on misleading people and unless that's what you're suggesting, then what I'm suggesting is just common sense. And finally, as of now, every module that has been fully released has been fully usable via the included map, suggesting that at such a time (if ever such a time arrives) that one will no longer be able to access any mission, tutorial or campaign content with the standard software package, of course it'd only be wise to make that clear to a customer. People these days are vicious, i mean, did you see what Eagle's own customers did to the people who made the "Hawk" DLC? They practically single handedly bashed them out of business. Clear communication about expectations especially when large sums of money are involved is simply a survival strategy for smart business. I still have faith that we'll have base software campaign support for caucuses, as it only stands to reason, given more people run that map than any other map. I like Eagle and the Harrier so far seems fantastic, I just only want to see their continued success. Edit: And just to add, it's great BD will do campaigns so often, but I'd hope we weren't dependent upon someone who's pretty much a volunteer in order to have quality content for our new modules.

I have 5 of the study quality modules, but I only have caucuses because I enjoy that environment. At what point, exactly, should I expect to be made to spend another 50 on top of the 400 I've already spent in order to get ten minutes of instruction regarding how to operate this 70 dollar module? There has to be a better way to communicate these things to the consumer. I can easily read about any requirements for a campaign (requires such and such map) but the modules don't inform us that we should expect no tutorial content for a module that is 100x more complex than a normal game. I'm fine with having to try hard to learn, but getting told I haven't spent enough yet when I'm only here after having spent 70 dollars. That's just rough. The community would much more easily be able to enjoy these maps perhaps if the maps didn't incur the same charge as the game itself. I can't imagine that the benefit of removing the hurdle of high price maps would be outweighed by the harm of revenue lost. It's only the biggest spenders of the biggest spenders that go that far. Sorry i just am loving getting into this community and I constantly feel on the verge of becoming unwelcome if I don't fork over drug dealer quantities of cash. It's frustrating because I don't have any extra money left, I spent it all on DCS modules and I read this thread to find out that I'm silly to expect to find content for the map that comes with the game. I argue, debate and explain to people why each module should be the price of a full game, but perhaps throwing the customer one tiny bone in the form of maps would help DCS avoid the fate of the airlines who despite being a government subisidized necessity still loss business and garnered hatred from consumers for their insistence on charging them separately and repetitively for non-optional aspects of their service. And I'm sorry for venting here, I'm not angry with anyone in particular and Dragon I love your work and I know this time around you made it for both caucus and nttr and I REALLY appreciate that, I can't tell you how much, I really do, thank you. And it's because I love your work that I just saw your words and got so overwhelmed. I'm all tapped out but I don't want to miss out. Perhaps DCS should make it a requirement of their third party developers to include a functional tutorial in the caucuses, and a campaign if we want to be serious about quality and customer satisfaction, to avoid new people joining the community only to feel like there were large hidden fees. Outside of our little bubble of aerospace love it's really hard to explain to other gamers why all the expense is worth it, maybe there's a good way to start trading in some of the expense for increased volume of customers.

thanks so much guys. I've been agonizing over what module to get next and I'm torn between a few. All roles are relevant since I enjoy both pvp and making missions/campaigns to be played with my friends - and they tend to require all roles. Right now I'm most tempted by the harrier, viggen and mirage but dang what touch choices. (also CA to help me better manage those coop campaigns)

Mainly I want to use it as a means of enriching the co-op experience - especially in regards to missions/campaigns that I create and run for myself and friends. CA is still perfect for this, right?

In that case, then no, there is no ship that can do that - and the Kutznetov in particular has sort of short radar range. What I would recommend is actually flying an awacs for your mission, they have incredible range and have been known to fly along side a tanker. You should find that it's possible for your AWACS to overfly your carrier group in a manner consistent with the reality of its fuel total / burn rate. Just to give an exact number, the russian used A50 has a range of right around 4000 miles (6400 kilometers) and are capable of in air refueling.

I saw training missions added for Nellis and a red flag campaign.. And while I do want to buy this module, I simply can't afford it if all of its content is locked behind a 50 dollar map addition on top of the 60 dollars for the module itself. Are there official training missions and a full official campaign for caucases as well or no?

Just wanted to thank you guys for the responses. And yes, if the Mig 29 was available standalone I would have already purchased it for sure.

I think I can help, but why do you need the EWR function on a ship. I mean why, as in, what function are you hoping EWR will perform for the player in your mission?

A2A Capacity is something like 6 Aim-9? And does it come with a campaign?

Is this an advanced attacker like the Viggen, close air support? Or should I expect a fighter with multirole abilities? I'm just confused as to what I'd be getting if I got this

So as I've said before, I have the 27, 33 and F15. Which means afaik I still need the A10a, Su-25 and Mig 29 (a/s). I was wondering if also upon purchase I'd be gaining any additional campaigns, missions or perhaps other features I haven't considered. Either for the aircraft i don't own yet or for the ones I do, even.

I'm really excited for this also

so many responses seem to assume this War Thunder state of mind that the only aircraft worth having are the ones that pwnzor club sealnubs. But isn't the point of getting into the more engaging simulations to get into a variety of aircraft and be fully immersed in their strengths and weaknesses? I mean, the entire point of the game isn't to find the most relatively tech advanced and then go head to head in infinite respawn deathmatches. Seems to me just as many people play and enjoy single player campaigns, single missions, and multiplayer cooperative play. Not to mention the sheer thrill of variety. Each of these aircraft are for very different missions from one another. Like to say the A-10a is bad because it's not as good as the A-10c is asinine. In my opinion, the A-10a gives an excellent point of view that illustrates the advancements of the A10c, their logic, and their history. The same with the Su-25. Remember, most people aren't knowledgeable enough about the RL aircraft or good enough at using their simulations effectively in order to really comment on their effectiveness (The Mig-29 is designed to win WVR battles, it's primarily an interceptor, and frontline fighter - meant to launch and engage enemies quickly. Its smaller weapons loadout and fuel, its overall lightness suits it to the task - yes it's generally inferior to the Su-27 but with its upgrades in the S variant, it's a capable craft) and generally all you'll learn from what the masses are doing in PvP is what the easiest thing to do is for a new player (The path of absolute least resistance is trampled) and someone who's not trying to spend a lot of time engaged in the nuance of the thing to get the reward, not the one that will be most effective for you when you take into account the high reward associated with spending more time learning a system that is perhaps more difficult to begin with + dedication, practice and understanding systems roles, strengths and weaknesses. Seems to me the only thing holding back the mig is the SFM and I'm under the impression SFM isn't nearly as bad as many will say. In conclusion, just because something isn't the best version of an airframe, or the best in its class, that's no reason to shun it or avoid it. It's what makes aviation so interesting and it's what allows us to appreciate the features and capabilities of each and every aircraft. There's a lot more to the game than every vehicle going head to head against the others.