Snappy

Well , I thought it was clear that I meant "release" in a figurative sense, as in "being made available for use", not in the litteral "out of EA, now official release". Consider it not a rant, but a feedback regarding EDs apparently contineously reducing mininum bar for EA . And btw its not like the discount gets ever larger simulteanously. If you encountered a product in a store that you considered defective and/or fundamentally incomplete / unfit for purchase of course you can tell the store owner that. Its a called customer feedback. And please, before you now say, "you re not a customer, because you aren't buying it" , again "customer" in a more figurative sense. I was a previous customer in that store and I may come back in the future , so the store owner may or may not be interested in my feedback if he wants to keep me as a customer. But each to their own, I for sure won't buy it in the now announced feature-state.

No thanks, I think pre-order or EA discount or not , they should offer a product that clears a minimum bar of functionality and this is not it. Its simply a bad trend. I'm exaggerating now, but at some point they may offer just a blender 3d model , for 35% off. Huge savings, but the actual functioning flyable plane may come at an undefined point in the future. And lets be real here, given EDs track record, we know that EA is very very vaguely defined time-wise and many of their products are still lacking critical components years after being available for sale. They continue to give more or less the same amount of EA / preorder discount but for less and less basic features available at release in return.The opposite of what the 3rd party developers are doing lately , with F-4E and Kiowa shipping somwhere between feature-rich to almost complete.

No force trim for a helicopter, not even training missions. This has got to be a joke to put it into sale already, though I know its not a joke .

Wow according to the newsletter this launch is shaping up even worse than anticipated. I thought ED had learned from the F-16 release debacle. Apparently not. This looks to me like jED is simply rushing out the most bare-bone alpha/beta version possible into sale as quickly as possible. Very sceptical of this. No force trim (I mean its a helicopter after all ?!), not even training missions until later in EA ,no NVG. Its not even mentioned whether the damage model will definitely make it into release or come later in EA. Personally I don't think this is a good look, this trend to further eroding EA minimum feature standards.

Its not completely up-to-date (for example the cockpit art overhaul has already shipped into DCS and so has the F-4E module) , but simply for reference: https://trello.com/b/HsMiJggJ/heatblur-public-roadmap

Could it be a global issue based on core DCS environment? I.e. that the actual gunsight solution calculation is correct, but things like the air density profile in DCS atmosphere differ very slightly compared to real world air atmosphere, resulting in tiny additional bullet slowdown during flight. It would only need be a tiny bit off to cause this. Or muzzle velocity being slightly low. I don't know. But I also noticed it in other modules (Mirage F1 for example) . Its a small issue , but annoying. Would be nice to see this fixed. Many of the real-world photos taken during training combat, showing various aircraft in a gunsight with pipper on would result in misses if it was like it is in DCS.

Hm no.Its a benchmark, yes, but not so much in the skill of BFM flying. It just says you know how the AI works and how to reliably trick/exploit it . It’s not that difficult, since the AI in DCS is very dumb and predictable. That the Israelis had success in the low speed regime with their F-4s likely had a lot to do with the huge disparity in training&profiency compared to their opponents. It’s like the exchange ratio for the F-15.The hundred something to 0 sounds super impressive at first glance, but it completely ignores the opposition’s equipment and training . Had it have to fight against a near-peer or peer adversary also equipped with F-15s or something similar that exchange ratio would look a lot different. That is not to say the Israelis aren’t high quality pilots or the F-15 is not a very capable air to air fighter. But it’s useful to look at things in context. Regardless of that I agree that it’s good to strive to be able to fly the aircraft well in all regimes , not just the most favourable ones.

There are two separate things. The initial OP asked about a different thing: He/She was asking about about a cockpit texture update for the existing FC3 aircraft, that was published earlier by ED for free for existing FC3 owners (unrelated to the FC2024 thing). The FC2024 product is a different thing. A "new" FC version that includes 3 additional aircraft (F-5,F-86,Mig-15) that have been dumbed down to Flaming cliff standard (i.e. no clickable cockpit switches, dumbed down navigation,radios, radar etc). This will be available as a paid upgrade for existing FC3 owner for 9.99 or as a new standalone product for new customers that dont have FC3 at a higher price. When it will actually release I didnt track and neither did I check wether the 9.99 price offer times out at some point. Hope this clears it up a bit

I agree with your initial OP on this . Was this ever officially acknowledged or tracked as a bug?

Very good, thank you very much for your work !

It’s an acronym for “radio magnetic indicator” , a more generic / civilian term for this type of instrument as it is common in IFR equipped larger transport aircraft. But you’re absolutely correct in the context of the F-14 it should be called by it’s official name, BDHI @scommander2 For me the list is fine as well, as long as you put with a disclaimer that it is not complete.

Two things I didn’t see on your list: -Jester currently not visible anymore in Jester Selection wheel , only empty aircraft ( on MT) -model error : In pilot cockpit , on the RMI, the top left orientation marker is not placed at the correct 45 degree interval between the 270 and 360 degree markers.

Ok, understandable , thanks for your quick reply! As far as I’m aware it increases air to ground weapons damage radius to somewhat more realistic level to offset DCS‘ simplistic ground unit damage modelling. Have a nice weekend! Snappy

Quick question, does the server use the splash damage script?

Agreed, would be really nice to see some love going to the Viggen again. Some annoying bugs and issues at the moment present.

No, it’s long standing issue, but not a classic „bug“. As far as I know it has to do with how the RB-04 and RB-15 were designed (in DCS ,not in reality!) back when the Viggen module was developed. It was new territory. They were made differently than other guided munitions in DCS in order to give them their sophisticated capabilities , but the drawback this brought is the limitation you noticed. When the launching aircraft gets destroyed,the missiles disappear. regards, Snappy

Hello, as you can see in the attached picture, the brightness reostat for the target pipper reticle is only affecting the outer ring, the center dot stays bright, regardless of the setting. You can see the outer ring dimmed, the center dot is not. Regards, Snappy

Did you read that I specifically wrote "I set the drop tanks switch on left console to „air refuel“, prior to tanking" ?

You should read more carefully. I did not write "destroy" ecosystem , I wrote "fragile". Fragile means easily disturbed or damaged. As to your argument that this is only one specific case between Razbam and ED and has nothing to do with the rest of the ecosystem, you might want to think again, especially in light of your own questions to ED, questions which are by the way indicators of a fragile system. There can easily be other scenarios with other developers that could lead to similar situation/outcome . Just one example, some developer teams are pretty small and flightsim developement is a niche within a niche , so sudden death / illness of key personel, or events like a war ( I should not have to explain given current events), loss of data (happened even to Heatblur) , could easily lead to a completely unintended folding or breakdown of a developer team by circumstances beyond their control. In light of your very own questions, you gotta ask yourself, what happens with such a module then, when ED apparently does apparently not always have the source code and/or ressources to continue developement themselves, bought products can not easily be returned and easily become broken by DCS updates , abandoned products are still sold without disclaimer and there is little customer production? How the Razbam thing went down just shows that there were no adequate provisions in place. And the next time a studio might fail for completely different reason and without any bad intention or previous argument on either side. Without adequate provision ,it is a fragile system for the customer and you as the customer will again draw the short straw. But we are getting off-topic, like you said, you already made your own decisions in regards to this and so did I.

You missed the point I think. It’s not about what other 3rd party developers do. It’s about lost customer trust and that is has become clear how fragile the DCS ecosystem is. And for some it’s also about not wanting to financially support or reward ED and their business practices anymore at the moment.

Agreed, would be really nice to see some progress on the older models and fixing of bugs.

Apparently the fix made it into the patch, but not into the patch notes. But havent gotten to test it yet myself.

Well you can always resume sales once the situation is successfully resolved if you are so optimistic. However continuing to sell it (as well as the now broken Mirage) while the development and bugfixing has definitely stopped for the foreseeable future and while ED refuses to give any situation update simply leaves a very bad impression of ED, since neither product matches store description anymore. Its borderline false advertising as of now. Effectively the customers do not get what they pay you for anymore. That is bad. The very very least ED should&could do is to put a clearly visible disclaimer on both store product pages outlining the present situation so that potential new customers can make an informed decision. This is really a no-brainer. Same goes for Razbam btw. Even Casmo now pulled his Strike Eagle content from YT to stop luring in new customers.Sensible guy obviously.

Don't jump to conclusions. Strike Eagle was in developement for a looong while, that specific contract might predate the post-VEAO changes.

Yes, I would like a statement regarding the Mirage too, since it already has become effectively broken by the last DCS update.The FBW is broken, as is yaw control on the runway, making it unusable and no longer meeting product description/requirements.