Shimmergloom667

Ok, and all I am hoping is the devs don't make that concession. Also, just for the record - where possible I take original cockpits (my cyrillic is actually improving!), authentic liveries and so on and so on. Since it doesn't take away from my experience, I wouldn't work myself up over it, though, so when the devs say "eh, let's do it": good for you, and more power to you!

Because 1-minute reloads, 4-minute repair times and theatres it never operated in doesn't touch the realism of the hardware itself, which should be uncomprising and as high as possible. And thus no unrealistic avionics.

And it is a blast of a journey, so a heartfelt "thank you!" from me! :)

I didn't have questions. I was making observations and suggestions for improvement. I don't have any doubts that we will get the announced features at some point either, which is why I never commented on that or doubted that. I am pretty relaxed and enjoying both the Viggen and the Cat a lot, thankyouverymuch. :)

I like how you paint us as people who say they "deserve" something where we just voiced our opinion in what could be improved by an already good team! But hey, whatever floats your boat. :thumbup:

Well... yes. When you make a statement the burden of proof is on you. I don't remember such thing either.

Better than the alternative. And making it fully available to all who don't buy it would be kinda silly, too.

No, you dont need it to connect to the server. IIRC you won't be able to communicate with it, spawn on it, launch from a cat or trap on a wire.

No autostart, no problems.

It is not "cheap". It is less expensive than other options. That's two different things.

Do "we", now? I think no, "we" don't.

All Roosevelt sub-class ships will (eventually) be included.

Wires and catapults will be inoperable if you don't own it, iirc.

The Stennis is *very slightly* too small. Tl;dw: it is about ~5%ish too small.

Ok, no, thanks, I won't stop respectfully voicing my opinion and engaging in discussion with the devs if they so choose. :)

How about you don't tell me what to do, and I don't tell you what to do? Agreed? Great.

Then maybe it is a question of structure. Like: take hoggit e.g.: this is the "official" information hub for DCS, the forums. I am practically glued to these forums, and that's why I get *most* of the information, but certainly not all. And hoggit is an external platform, tbh - the information there might be valuable, but IMHO it's *here* where it's needed. And while your sticky threads are helpful: some are outdated, some are redundant, there is no up-to-date "known issues, todo-list, what we are working on right now"-overview. Maybe that's why I am subjectively more impressed with DIS at the moment, because it is so easy to see, without going through several places, what exactly is going on. And again: I get that stuff like that takes time that may also be spent in coding. I'm just chiming in with what I see lacking and why. (And boy, that again doesn't mean that you do a BAD job, just where I see room for improvement. No need to look to much to other dev teams, but the one starting with R are certainly lacking a lot in that regard, and that is the absolute main source of frustration for a lot of customers) :) One way or the other: please don't take my comments here as negative - maybe you read them that way, but I hold your modules in high regards.

See: that is perfect. Why not more often post infos like this? Of course you will never satisfy everyone. I'd rather have textures and lighting in the Cat fixed before the Forrestal, but at least now I KNOW that obviously the whole art team is on the Forrestal, and that's ok for me. I just want to know. That is probably very much true, and I wouldn't want to do your job, nor tell you how to do it. All I am saying is, that I am impressed by the level of communication by DIS and would like somewhat more talk, even at the expense of walk. But that's just my 0.02$, which I am delivering in this thread as one voice for you to build an opinion about.

That was exactly what I was trying to point at, too. Viggen progress has slowed to a crawl, and I'm very glad to see it pick it up a bit again. And that, too - I totally understand that small fixes like correcting "COMP" to "COMB" in the hyd pressure gauges, the correct temperature gauges for the B-engines, the Avionics Cool textures, the lighting etc. are low on the priorities list, but really: that's half a year now and now we have the helmet visor knobs corrected? Some more transparency on why these (seemingly) small things take so long would be very neat. I have absolutely no problem with waiting, even a long time (else I wouldn't support the EA model so much), but more information is, IMHO, not only desirable but absolutely mandatory. A thread like this here was very, very welcome. I would wish for more frequent ones, is all.

No. Dude. Seriously. I know that you have been delivering a lot both at release and in the following months. You guys are still a great example of delivering seriously good work. All I am saying is: being a small team is no excuse in slacking, and you can't with a straight face agree, that work on the Viggen progressed as you probably had wished yourself. There's a lot of stuff still on the todo-List for the Tomcat too, and prior to your development update in this thread a lot of that was so badly in Limbo that I personally thought it quite understandable that questions started popping up. So: while your team certainly is delivering good work I feel like the guys at DIS are setting a new bar with the transparency and communication. Yes, even better than you guys - which doesn't mean you are doing a bad job, which is why I never said that. :)

Got you in my sights

Do you have the A-4 Skyhawk mod installed? That one caused falling-through-ground issues a few months back.

I'm pretty sure the SNIPER is still not 100% axed but in the Limbo of "we are still checking out if we can get enough non-classified documentation for it". At least I don't recall a definitive "it's not coming"-info since release.

I'm not even disappointed - I am just pointing out that "being a small team" is no excuse for slack. Others can do it, too, as being proven by DIS right now.

As long as it's stationary, that indeed works nicely - on the move you will want a solid PTRK, but looking at how active the guys are in working on bugs I'm pretty sure we will see improvement soon.