TheGuardian

@BN, were there visual range enhancements in yesterdays patch? I didn't notice any when I looked through the patch notes. We noticed last night we were able to see a hella long way out. We were seeing jets about 35 miles out (non-con), could spot the carrier at about 40 miles @25K. Just wondering.

Since we all know you're a STABLE ONLY player, not sure how you can say the OB is currently unplayable. Even if you are only asking, given the past posts we know where this is going, again and again. It is currently not possible to do A2A in the Hornet outside of ACM, and AI is invincible, and other smaller issues, that doesn't make the sim unplayable. VCAW-1 flew last night with almost no issues other than the CASE 3 radio on the SC being borked. Of course, we just used normal comms. Adapt and overcome kinda stuff. @BN thanks for the update on the hotfix.

VCAW-1 232

I just spit Dr. Pepper all over the keyboard. Thanks for that

But he already owns the A-10C. I thought he was talking straight up fighter.

Again this the hard part of communication. We (customers) demand they talk with us about what is coming down the pipe and where they are. ED does have a problem with overestimating their abilities from time to time, but at the same time we are not very forgiving nor understanding of things changing or problems popping up. I have been harping on ED's crap communication skills for the better part of two months now, but this one isn't in that list. They told us their plans, crap happens, Wags mentioned is wasn't going to make it in this patch, that is good enough for me. They have been doing better the last few weeks on comms (kinda). But promises are set in stone, ED writes on drywall during a hurricane with almost everything. Let's not descend the rabbit hole of team members having to help other on different projects. I think it is pretty understandable given the state of the planet (Dragon Crew leaving Earth was a smart choice).

interesting, can always post a track file in the bugs section and see if ED has an answer. I would try the second delay option just to see what happens, never know

Though I don't own it (did try it during the free month) I would have to say JF-17 is the most complete, F-18 is in ok shape/good shape, I feel anyway. Nothing wrong with the F-16 as long as you plan to stay mostly AA and only doing strike missions with GBU/TPOD.

are you using any delay on your fusing to allow for penetration? We had some issues on our last flight with damage but it was against ships, and well, we all know ships are pretty much invincible in DCS. I get the difference in damage between updates you're talking about, just wondering if maybe ED changed something requires proper setup for penetration-needing targets.

apparently not, lol. @Ercoupe...............:megalol: thanks for this I needed a good laugh this morning

:megalol: Sounds like someone needs to get off his/her butt and learn how to skin.

Wow ED, nice list. Should make for a lovely evening

That would be funny as hell, though I feel as though it may go over as well as the Landing Gear Handle April Fools joke.

Of course that was posted on Reddit. They don't know how to use their own website to give us details.

new one. As an old Jane's player, I do love the analog but i would rather have something that might be more compatible with future addons (maybe)

Riddle me this Batman. So you want ED to revert code back just so Stable can say they got updated? You want 3rd Party Devs, campaign and mod makers to revert code just so the "majority" can get an update to 2.5.5.......blah blah. Seems like a lot of work and a lot of wasted time. Seems as though that would delay a "real" update to Stable for another 6-8 months. Bru, you just are not listening. I hope they update stable next week, hell tomorrow even, but I have a feeling it won't make you happy or even partially content if they updated in the next five minutes. As an owner of almost every module, all the maps, and several campaigns, I feel as though ED is offering plenty of support and is trying to fix what could have been an awesome 2.5.6. Feel lucky you have not had to deal with the last few months of playing "What breaks in DCS with this patch?". As someone else said, you might be better off to uninstall DCS for a few weeks, go camping or fishing, try tantric yoga, whatever floats your boat. Hopefully when ya get done, DCS will be in a better place so as not cause so much stress in your life.

But it was a very important light bulb I'm sure. :lol:

bru......bru........come on now. Why is that you think that working on fixing OB is not working to make it ready for Stable? OB's entire reason for existing is to support Stable. Stable is the mainstay. Everything that works and doesn't work in OB is supposed to make Stable better. Out of all the problems ED has had with comms the last few months, the OB/Stable delay isn't one of them. They have been pretty damn open in explaining the reasons. By your own words Stable has the larger player base, this alone is probably some of the reason it has taken so long. 2.5.6 HAS to be fixed before they release it to Stable. Say it with me.......STABLE. I get your talk about releasing piece meal patches that bring parts of features or improvements, but that doesn't make sense either. ED would be better off just deleting 2.5.6 and starting over as there is no way of knowing what unintended problems will show up in Stable, which would completely go against the reason for having a OB. Serious question, is there a reason you refuse to use OB for the time being? Just wondering. You seem pretty center on the JF, which if you paid for I completely understand your point, why not move to OB for a short time?

Agreed and with what Harker stated as well. I'm less concerned with dates and more with pipeline stuff anyway, well that and just communication in general. I do agree that giving dates without properly testing is not a good idea. That being said I'm sure someone will chime in with wanting dates like so and so game. Either way, if they are catching problems before release I think we should all consider that a win. No need to add anything into the sim that will just cause more problems.

Oh no I get ya man. It's not a true 1:1 for sure. I was just spewing a little. Recent years have seen me doing more of the designing myself so I totally get where you are going. It wasn't ment to put down software devs (engineers, well that is a different story), more of a push to understand that it it isn't as simple as making (horrible word I know) the code and pushing it out. It has to get in the hands of those that can see it, test it, and try to make it break. XP helps in those matters and I have always found having someone else check my work always finds more flaws than me doing it and that is important.

Yea, I'm think that would be a hard "no" from ED or HB for that matter. Just because you don't plan to sell it or distribute it doesn't make it any better in terms of the EULA. Wish it did, a F-14D pit would be cool though.

True, but DCS being complex should have no bearing on ED being transparent about what's in the pipeline and where they think they are. The problem starts when "WE" view those dates as hard dates, which simply isn't possible in DCS. Communication is important, they have to talk about where they are. With the EA program, while not a completely true analog, we "customers" are more like investors. We paid for these items unfinished with the plan being ED finishing them. They should have to report what is going on.

Yea but people are always going to complain, that does mean ED has to run kiss the feet of everyone making demands on the forum. Without starting the circular argument of "I paid for it/When will it be Finished", simple communication is the key. They stated they planned for the 20th, crap happened and it can't be release. They said as much in a somewhat timely fashion. No one should be upset by them having to postpone. At least they are talking.

As far as pressure goes with EA, you can rest that blame solely on ED and their PR team. Would rather then tell us a date they think will work and change it due to circumstances later. As long as they are communicating issues/plans, I'm good. I love when the software devs come out to defend ED. I hear software dev and I pretty much think engineer, and as a machinist, engineers are about as useful as single ply toilet paper. Most think they know how something works, but have no actual knowledge of why something works the way it does. Can't tell you how many times I send drawings/plans back because Mr/Mrs College Degree lack fundamental understanding of the WHY, but still want to argue they are right and I'm wrong. Pretty sad actually.

So we get 1 out of the 4. Not bad considering. At least they didn't wait till tomorrow to say it.