TheGuardian

True, but I also haven't heard ED say they wouldn't allow DLC creators to do so. What if it is simply that easy. Baltic Dragon, Ranger, and others could come back and upgrade there DLC to allow it to port over to the A-10C II. There is nothing in the way that would stop this. Hell, Ranger has already put OPF on the User Files for free so people can still play it right now. Then they change the format to allow it to stay playable for the "old" A-10C and still work for the new Mk.II. Has anyone asked those guys if that is something they are interested in doing? If they want to continue to sell those DLC campaigns you would think they would have to support the new module. Apache600 allows two different planes to operate the same campaign in a single purchase, so I don't see why this can't be done for the content we already have as well. EDIT: Having said that, I would completely understand if DLC creators did charge to bring the campaigns up to the Mk.II. These guys invest a lot of time into these things, so forking a little more cash is understandable given the situation. IMO.

Like I said, MYSE did a great job in less than perfect conditions. What would you have us do, put an "Out of Order" sign on the Viggen until HB fixes all the issues. MYSE did what you asked him to do, showed a video of him taxing without issue (didn't crash or run off the taxi way), completed the mission, and landing (centered on the runway with an almost textbook touchdown). You looked for every fault you could find just to disrespect the him/her. If you want all systems working correctly, well........... good luck.:pilotfly:

Couldn't agree more. Afghanistan is going to be hella boring as far as flying goes. Syria looks like it is going to be well done, kinda concerned about how well it will run with a full on mission/multiplayer. I would think and older Korea (1950) might be doable though. Boznia would be a good pick.

1. Subjective 2. The YT vid is only in 720p res. Kinda hard to see much detail with that resolution. Plus he appears to use VR so there is some more video downgrading involved. 3. See #2 4. It appeared to me as though there was a crosswind. VV was centered up on the runway, with an almost perfect looking approach. Think you're being kinda picky with these comments. 5. No landing light is a little sketch but he didn't appear to phased by it. Also 260 kph is the slowest speed you fly on approach, he is maintaining about 275 to touchdown. You can clearly him switch over to landing mode right before landing (late and unsafe, I know) and VV switched to above his glide slope. Sure looked like his AoA was smack on 12°. So to sum it up, from the vid, the dude did a pretty fine job executing the mission with less then perfect conditions. I must say thanks for posting this. Now we all know not to join any squadron you're apart of. Anyways back to talking about the changelog.....shall we?

Good info, thanks for that. Hopefully in the near future we start to see these things corrected, considering ED has said they want to recreate the entire world at some point. Hopefully we are not all waiting on the ZTX 9080ti to get us there.

I wonder what makes you think them impossible? Serious question, not trolling or anything. We know we are going to get an Afghanistan map and the pacific map (very limited land mass though) in the near (all jokes aside) future. is it just hardware limitations that you are speaking of? That mixed with DCS not being very well optimized, or is it something else?

No Razor, you are not correct in thinking that, at least not from my statement. I said that for those that don't care about the realism side, Unlimited Fuel is an option for those that can't get the hang of AAR for whatever reason. If you want realism and you strive to be as realistic as possible, I don't think you would want an easy. But that is just me. I think Unlimited Fuel is a better option at the moment so as to not burden an already cumbersome process with a new option when ED has struggled in recent months just getting "simple" coding to work properly without completely breaking something else. Since they have yet to prove they can do it, no I would not like them to devote time to a development an "easy" mode for an advanced aspect of flight. Would I burn my DCS SSD if they added it, no, but I think they can move resources in better directions to improve the experiance for all without adding the easy button/switch/checkbox.

again, anyone can get better at AAR. I sucked for like three months at it and it still kicks my butt from time to time, but I can get gas when i need it. I still enjoy the challenge of it. As far as #4 goes, dude you either get with the sim, or go play arcade mode. #5 SKILL.......SKILL........skill requires practice and you actually have to practice at the skill you want to master. How does creating an "EASY MODE" promote practice? The individual will never want to practice without easy mode, therefore will never get better. I wouldn't want to fly with someone who doesn't want to get better at different aspects of flight. Just my opinion.

It is what it is man. AAR isn't supposed to be easy. As others have said Unlimited Fuel is already an option, so why add another. Can't really complain about wanting the added realism of not having unlimited fuel but not be completely realistic and want "easy" AAR.

Resent, sorry about that

We have had our issues with the SC. It not being able to properly identify incoming planes, not being able to switch properly between Case 1 or Case 3 (however you leave the boat, that how you're coming back in), LSO giving wrong information, switching to recovery before everyone has launched (though I think this my be a script issue). We use the SC comms as much as possible but we also announce our calls normally over SRS. SC Case 3 doesn't do a horrible job at comms, though when one commences it doesn't tell inform the next in the stack (I get that the approach time should be enough). Seems really lazy on ED's part to only use "Check In" for Platform, Passing 12, Going Dirty, and Needles call, I have to say. It's double the work, but without a human manning the LSO, it's as good as it gets for right now. Overall though, it has been a "ok" release, not great. SC in Beta vs Stable doesn't mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things though. It's still EA, so hopefully as they start working more things out it will get better for those of us that do fly in squads. Ya'll aren't completely alone some of the disappointment though.

PM Sent Stang. Thanks in advance

This is why we end up with crap like we got Wednesday. What is with all the rush. Let them figure it out a little bit. Jesus

Yea, I would be ok with that. $5 a month builds 1500 EDMiles a month on top of normal purchases. $10 - 2500 EDMiles, 5 days of Free Trail for use on any ED module. $20 - 3500 EDMiles, 7 days Free Trial on ALL Modules.

agreed.

I could get behind this kinda of subscription. Something like that makes sense to me. Even if you added a rotating two day trial for modules and EDMiles buildup over the life of the subscription, I thinking that would be of great benefit to both new and older players. This is the first time I have read that proposal and I like that one.

Yea this would be on a very short list wishlist for me. Would make like much easier in CASE 1 for sure.

Very modern day to create a new poll and change the wording because it didn't go your way the last four times this was discussed. You want to talk about paying for DCS 3.0, fine, no issue there. But for a subscription to even be discussed, I want HARD DETAILS from ED about what WILL BE GIVEN and what WILL BE WORKED on as a result of said subscription. I don't want us as paying customers to start talking about giving them anything more than we currently do because they have yet to prove (in 2020) that they properly know how to many projects/people/resources. Till then, pound sand.

@Bonzo, those are a lot of great points. Don't get me wrong, if ED laid bare details of how it was to work and all that stuff, more people might agree, myself included. Right now, it just doesn't feel genuine for that move happen.

P-51 TS: 437 mph P-47-30 TS: 433 mph FW-190 Dora TS:426 mph (same as the A8) Spit Mk IX TS: 404mph Bf-109 TS: 380mph I-16 TS: 316 mph This is max speed mind you. I used to feel the same way as you though, till I learned how to handle her better.

1. It is not my problem that ED can't properly estimate the cost to produce and maintain these modules. If $50-70 USD isn't enough to do that, they need to charge more for the modules. People may not like it, but if they prove that with proper funding they can do it, I bet most wouldn't stay unhappy. You don't fix mismanagement by throwing money at it. You streamline your processes, get rid of problems and work to be as efficient as possible. 2. You're asking people who may have already spent $50-$1000 dollars to enjoy these modules, to now pay more each month just to use them. Naw fam, I'm good. You want to move new modules to a subscription base, that's their choice. We were told they needed this much money to give us this much product, 1+1 ain't equaling 2 at the moment, they ain't getting more money for already purchased work. Not to mention that most of the problems we have been seeing recently are related to crap core code and failure to properly manage module devs, testers and patch releases. Again, throwing more money at the problem doesn't fix it, it just keeps the cycle going. If people have to lose their jobs because they couldn't perform as required, well bud that is life.

Clear misunderstanding of BETA right there

4. NO, NO, NO. None of those things will fix anything. You're adding complexity to an already complex system. ED needs to prove they can actually function under the resources they have. Stop with the new module development, fixing the damn code and get their ducks in a line so every patch doesn't break something major. They do those things, maybe, maybe we can start talking about subscription. Until then, there is no way to trust them to complete their work. END OF STORY. This aint AutoDesk or Adobe we're talking about. This is a platform that isn't required for a business to operate. This is for us play pilot big damn difference.

They need to make sure their "CLOSED" Beta testers are actually trying to find bug and test systems, not see how many planes they can jam into the hanger deck or how many bombs it takes to destroy the SC. Those are items created to get YouTube hits, not actually test anything, therefore should not allowed to take place in a closed Beta group.

Understood, thanks