Kongamato

Exactamente eso es lo que hago: ya no compro nada en early access ni beta. Y creo que es una muy buena política. Personalmente no quiero más módulos, quiero que terminen los que hay.

No debería hacer falta explicarte que has hecho un vídeo hablando de temas generales de DCS ("Una crítica a la comunidad", nada menos. Hablando de cosas que son "muy arrogantes", como dices en un momento de tu video...). Aunque uses la "percha" del F-14B para las imágenes, no estás hablando especifica y únicamente del F-14B. Estás pidiendo a "la comunidad" que seamos consumidores menos exigentes. Y por lo tanto, temas generales de DCS como puede ser la cagada del Hawk o RAZBAM sacando módulo tras módulo sin terminar los anteriores tienen perfecta cabida aquí. Y si te molesta que haya alguien que NO te diga "cuanta razón tienes, que mala es la comunidad española de DCS que se queja sin motivo, con lo buenos que son ED y las 3er parties", pues no sabes cuanto lo siento.

This is not real life. This is a simulator. A game. In real life, pilots usually have a perfect vision and don't see all the world around in a screen with limited resolution, framerate and refresh rate. They also have preriferic vision, something that a screen doesn't allow. ED shouldn't try to copy the reality, since it's imposible. ED should try to do a simulation that FEELS real. And that ilusion of reality usually requires unrealistic "tricks" or "cheats", as the colums of the Partenon that look stright because they are slighty bended. DCS should make you feel like a real pilot even if you wear glases and you don't have a huge 4K screen. If that means unrealistic "tricks" or even "cheats" like the planes looking bigger than actually are in the distance to make them easier to spot, or something like that, it's OK for me.

Querría volar el Hawk si fuese un producto de calidad DCS, que es lo que nos prometieron cuando lo compré, y no una beta a medio terminar y que se va a quedar así. Y desde luego, no voy a gastar 90 Gb. de disco en una segunda instalación desactualizada de DCS. Si esa es la solución de DCS, no me parece una solución aceptable.

Pues yo lo que creo es que los consumidores debemos ser exigentes, en especial con una compañía que está en situación de monopolio en el sector de la simulación aerea militar. Tomemos ejemplo de los videojuegos mas "mainstream": en los últimos años se han generalizado prácticas intolerables, como el sacar los productos sin terminar ni testear correctamente, y luego, en el mejor de los casos, en los meses siguientes ya sacarán parches, o en el peor, los bugs ahí quedan. O los micropagos y microtransacciónes que hacen que en la práctica se acabe pagando el juego a mucho más de su valor. O DLCs y expansiones que no son nada más que quitar contenido de los juegos para luego venderlo aparte... A esa situación se ha llegado porque los consumidores lo han permitido. Y los simuladores, también son videojuegos y se puede llegar a eso perfectamente. Ahora mismo, veo dos problemas principales en el mundillo de DCS: el primero son las 3er. parties que han sido licenciadas por ED (y por lo tanto, ED tiene responsabilidad directa) pero claramente les viene grande hacer un avión a este nivel, y el asunto termina como el rosario de la aurora y con los consumidores perjudicados (lo que ha pasado con VEAO), o tardan años y años en terminar sus productos (AVIODEV, aunque hay que reconocerles que al menos siguen trabajando). El segundo problema son las 3er. parties que sacan al mercado avión tras avión en beta sin terminar los aviones previos, porque su modelo de negocio es obtener dinero con los pre-releases de modo que obtienen más fondos sacando un nuevo avión en beta que alcanzando el nivel de producto terminado en sus aviones más antiguos. Es el modelo de RAZBAM que sin terminar el Mirage 2000 y el Harrier, ha sacado el Mig-19 y tiene en cartera otro buen número de modelos más. Yo creo que los consumidores debemos quejarnos de estas cosas y hacerlo donde influye en las empresas, que es aquí, en el foro oficial. Y creo que, en especial con determinadas 3er. parties, debemos dejar de comprar productos en beta y pre-release, porque estamos incentivando a que las empresas destinen más recursos a sacar productos nuevos que a terminar los anteriores.

Este hilo trata de un video bastante penoso que viene a decir que debemos transigir con los bugs y las cagadas de DCS y los 3er. parties porque los pobrecitos trabajan mucho. Y lo del Hawk fue una cagada del tamaño de la catedral de Burgos. Me lo trago, porque no hay otra desarrolladora de simuladores militares equivalente a ED. Están en práctica situacion de monopolio. Su única competencia es una actualización freeware de un simulador de los 90's. Si hubiese competencia real, como entre FSX y XPlane, por algo así perdían un cliente y otra empresa lo ganaba. ¿O que tal un trato? Que ED y los 3er parties saque productos a medio teminar y con bugs y los arregle cuando buenamente pueda (o no los arregle, como con el Hawk), y yo también pagaré los módulos cuando buenamente pueda o no los pagaré. Pero no creo que ED esté de acuerdo con eso.

¿De verdad, me dices eso? ¿Que el no tener el Hawk es culpa mia por no tener el programa desactualizado?¿De verdad? Y de nuevo, me importan un pimiento las EXCUSAS. Te lo repito: no aceptaría excusas si me compro un traje y descubro que tiene las costuras torcidas. Pediría mi dinero o un traje nuevo. ¿Por qué debo aceptar excusas con el hardware cuando tiene bugs o directamente cuanto se convierte en vaporware?

La comunidad quiere por su dinero productos terminados y libres de bugs, como es lógico. Y no tiene por qué saber si tal bug es fácil o dificil de arreglar o si el responsable es ED o un 3er. Party, ni le interesa. Sin ir más lejos, yo he perdido el Hawk y como hace más de un año que lo compré (aunque no lo he volado ni tres veces, lo reservaba para cuando dejase de ser una beta y pudiese disfrutarlo realmente), no he recibido su importe. Y francamente, las explicaciones de ED, aparte de escasas, me dan igual. Yo pagué religiosamente por el producto lo que me pidieron, pero ahora no lo tengo. Imagina que vas a El Corte Inglés a comprarte un traje, lo pagas religiosamente, y cuando te lo pruebas en casa ves que el corte tiene una falla. Te da igual de si la culpa es del vendedor o del fabricante o si te dan explicaciones sobre lo dificil que es coser esa tela y lo duro que trabajan el sastre y el vendedor. No piensas "El Corte Inglés me ha vendido otras veces buenos productos, me aguanto con mi traje con las costuras torcidas". No. Vas, y lo cambias. Y si no te lo cambian, te quejas a la oficina de consumo. Porque tú has pagado por un producto terminado y sin fallas. No sé porqué con el software debería ser distinto.

I have a LG IPS 27" full HD 1080p monitor and track IR, and I find dificult to spot the enemy planes to start a dogfight.

I´m not interested in flying civilian or cargo planes in the limited maps of DCS. For that, the global sceneries of FSX and XPlane are way more adequate. But AI civil air traffic would be great. If enabled, would force the ROE of visually identify the targets before shooting the missile, which would be realistic and would add a plus of complexity to the missions.

This conversation has entered in a loop. I think it's time to finish it.

Not everybody have a 32" 4K monitor as you have, according your firm. If a monitor of 80 cm. ultra HD is a recommended requisit for this simulator in order of seeing and identify other planes in the distance, DCS should say it.

So, to avoid a realistic feature (an autopilot), you suggest to use two unrealistic features, stopping and accelerating time... :huh: Indeed, I know what instrumental vertigo is. But in a normal situation, if a pilot has to look down inside the cockpit for some reason and lose sight of the horizont and the attitude gauges, he will feel if a wing or the nose of the plane falls. In a home simulator, you don't.

Nothing of that is relevant against the fact that right now there are modules in DCS of fighters of the 80's-90´s more attractive than the F-5E, and that means that the F-5E is no longer a best-seller. And an update to a more advanced and capable version (let's say the F-5N) would revive the sales both for old costumers that already have the plane and new costumers that didn't have it an would find it more attractive than, lets say, the Viggen or the Harrier (that are not so good in A-A combat), or would buy it as a combo with the Tomcat and/or theHornet to have both the Tomcat/Hornet and the "adversary" version of the F-5 used in real life by the US NAVY. Also, I don't get why some people is against a payware update to this bird for people that would like to fly with it all weather and at night and would like to make more variety of missions. :huh: If you don't want the update, don't buy it, is as simple as that. :thumbup:

The suggestion is to make a payware update for the F-5E to the level of F-5N, the version of the F-5 used by the US Navy during the 90's and part of the 2000's as "adversay" trainers. If you don't like it, don't buy it. That thing of "let the F-5 as it is" is nonsense since nobody is going to change your F-5 if you don't buy that proposed module.

+1

I´m talking about COMERCIAL atractive. When I brought the F-5E there were not Viggen, Harrier, Tomcat or F/A-18. If I were a new costumer, I would prefer spend my money in one of those planes (same category, fighters, same era, late 70's to late 90's) since you can do more things with those planes that with the F-5E. To fly at night or with bad weather and land with ILS, for example. Or to use more variety of weapons, and to do more variety of missions. And, also, all of them are more "sexy" and "glamorous" than a trainer "sparring" for the F-14, F-15 and Phantom. That's actually the version of the F-5E simulated here. Question: when you saw "Top Gun", did you want to fly the Mig-28, or the Tomcat? What do you think new costumers will buy? The Mig-28, or the Tomcat? I´m pretty sure that the sales of the F-5E are pretty much stagnant for a long time and will be more stagnant when new and more attractive planes will exist in DCSWorld. But a payware upgrade to the F-5N version would make the plane more attractive for new costumers, and I´m pretty sure that most of the people that already have the F-5 would also pay a few bucks for it.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: I´m SOOO tired of the "arcade nooo" bs... in this forum. :doh::doh::doh: That said, I believe Sharpe is correct, the ''active pause'' is probably well suited for your needs as you can still interact with the aircraft while not worrying about it crashing. Only difference is you're not moving while doing so. Well, AP is a device that exists in real life, it's not actually a "cheat", just a help. Active pause is a cheat, since there is no plane in the world with a device for stopping the time... As far as I know, at least... :smilewink: And moving can be important. Imagine this: after a long flight with the F-5 or the C-101, you have killed all the bad guys and you return to base. You have in front of you 10, 20, 30 or 40 minutes of boring straight line flight and you want to rest your eyes, your arms, grab a beer, go to the WC, whatever, before landing. Also, in virtual flight, you don't have the sensations of the real pilots. In real life, if the pilot have to stop looking at the horizont or the gauges to read a checklist or something, he feels in his bottom if the plane changes the attitude. We, virtual pilots, don't. So, if not so unrealistic to have a help for maintaining the plane leveled even if the real plane don't have it, if we have to stop looking the horizont or the gauges for a moment. In theory, if you trim your plane out properly for cruise speed you shouldn't need an autopilot just to 'fly straight' for you. You should be able to do that hands free in nearly any aircraft anyway! Well, if are able can trim your plane so well, kudos for you :thumbup: I´m not so good virtual pilot.

No te lo tomes a mal, pero el video ha salido un pelín chapuzas... A lo mejor habría sido más interesante si ya tuvieses configurados los botones y conocieses un poco mejor el avión para enseñarlo. Esto es más bien tipo "Revientor reacciona al F-14" ¿Dirías que el Tomcat es el módulo más exigente con el ordenador? Porque con el F-18 por ejemplo no tienes que bajar resolución y todo eso, ¿verdad?

It would be great if there were a general key for all the modules that would eneble a simple cheat for and autopilot, as there is a key for "Pause". That AP could just maintain altitud and course. After pressing the key again, the plane would recover the previous trim settings. Some kind of small label in the screen like "AP engaged" would be great too. This simple autopilot would be a great help if you have to consult the manual or the checklist, shearch for some knob or switch in the cockpit that you don't remember exactly were is, rest your hands for some minutes during a long flight or just go to the fridge to get a drink, or to the WC. Right now, with some modules without AP, you have to pause the flight for that. Pobably there are people that could think "If the real plane doesn't have AP, I don't want it". Well, kudos for you love for realism, but you are not obligued to use or even map it in your keyboard or HOTAS, as any other of the helps that don't exist in real life and are totally unrealistic (unlike the AP that indeed exists in real life), but exist in DCS, like the "pause" button, the external views, the views or the enemy or target, etc. It would be just another help for the virtual pilot. :thumbup:

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: I would even gladly pay a few bucks for that update. It would make the F-5E attractive again for old and new buyers. I already have the F-5E, but if not, I would not buy such a limited plane now that there exist in DCS the Harrier, the Viggen, the F/A-18 and the F-14B, all of them more glamorous, powerful, complex and interesting planes. Right now, you can't even operate all weather and at night with the avionics of the F-5E. Also, I think the module won't be complete without the simulation of compressor stalls and flame outs.

+1

I would prefer more variety in unguided weapons, like the Mk-81, bombs with high-drag tails, etc. GBUs are not funny to use if you can't find and iluminate yourself the target with the electro-optical pod. I never use them in the F-5E.

It would be great if that GPS where integrated in the cockpit of the F-5E by the developer, as it's integrated in the L-39, for example. Maybe like some kind of "battlefield improvisation". Like if the pilot were brought a commercial GPS and fixed it himself in the cockpit with duct tape or something. It´s known that real life pilots do things like that in planes with older avionics.

I know that the C-101 doesn't have autopilot in real life, but it would be good a simple autopilot, "Flaming cliff" style: just a key, let's say "A", for maintaining altitud and course and some kind of light or indication in the cockpit or in the screen when engaged. When disengaged, the plane could return to the previous trim settings. I think it would not be very difficult to make. I know it would be like a "cheat", but most of us are not real pilots with all the manuals, checklist and all the knobs of the cockpit in the memory. Most of us during our virtual flights sometimes have to take a break for consulting the manual, looking for some knob or switch in the cockpit, or just go to the fridge to grab a drink or to the WC... :music_whistling: Or just taking a break of the joy in a cross country navigation flight. :thumbup: Having the possibility of being hands off the joystick for a second without having to pause the flight would be great. Probably there are people that would say "the real plane doesn't have AP, so I don't want one". Well, kudos for your love for realism. :pilotfly: But having an AP doesn't mean you are obligued to use it. You don't even have to map it in the keyboard or the HOTAS. And, after all, an AP is most realistic than the "Pause" key. A lot of planes in real life have AP, but not a single one (as far as I know) has a device for pausing the time... :D