ngreenaway

The writers from "the last Starfighter" would like to have a word with you

Que será, será. I don't play MP, but opting out of updates means im not likely to ever see the jf-17 that I paid for on day one. In any case, I'm on stable and it looks like ED has their hands full with the 256 rollout, so it may be awhile till the updated cockpit comes my way. My reason for preferring a blue pit is that instruments stand out more and are easier to read in vr

Yep, at very least it should be implemented in the huey and the yak. I can only imagine that sales numbers dictate priority when it comes to allocating programmer-hours, and this module doesn't quite make the cut in light of other things That being said, with the 3d asset already made, I don't know how much work it is to implement it into a module other than setting an x/y/z coordinate for the asset and updating menus to allow selection of the ns430. Who knows, it could be rocket science and I'm just not aware of it

thats a pretty huge torpedo!

I've got a fistful of shekels with their name on it if they can pull it off. With our bottomless appetite for more aircraft, more developers is a good thing (I have no clue why that was first in the chute to be deleted when the thread was cleaned)

I *AM* the a-hole in the cockpit!

Stable is slightly cheaper and available now....but yea, waiting on hardware is always an option

Or play on stable. Takes more patience waiting for new toys, but at least they're not broken on arrival

Not to be an ingrate, but I think I can do without the new pit. Without having English initially, and I'm highly doubtful a blue pit will be an option in any case, I'm perfectly satisfied with the Ricardo blue English pit for bs2

The flag is backwards on the first image. When worn on shoulder or placed on the side of a vehicle, the stars& field are supposed to be in the front, with the stripes streaming to the rear

In that case, wouldn't we bear a share of blame when that happens?

Today's a good day to be on stable

Players on stable be like this today : But really, hope this is cleared up soon, or itll be a loooong weekend for some folks! Good luck, ED. :)

why? this seems pointless, given the aircraft in DCS.

I'd suggest caution before accepting it as gospel. When straws are all we have, that's what we will grasp at. But we can't lose sight of the fact that that's what the are. While it's certainly supportive of the contention that the ah64 is coming, it could be on ice right next to f4e for all we know. He'll, we could all be wildly off base and says could be alluding to a future expansion, DCS:WW1 for all we know TBS website is a hint of what ED may have in the works, but might not be what they have in mind for this kind melting milestone eagerly anticipated aircraft Keep in mind what I said about ED having a lot of stuff on their plate, and what have we seen really? Scenery, yes. Process of bs2 cockpit overhaul (tho little else of bs3) . We've seen external model of mosquito in a few skins but little else of it. How much have we seen of the Hind? Virtually nothing In all respects, this aircraft could be nothing more that a wish at this moment. They may have an idea of what they'd like to do, when they get to it, but I think there's less concrete stuff complete than we think. I think they'll announce ah64. But I don't know for sure. A lot of modules have a compelling argument going for them, and if there was a clear winner we wouldn't have a thread that's approaching 50 pages in what? A week? Two weeks?

Yea, context in which the comments are made. Additionally, we are all pretty much treading water, so to speak, till there are new patch notes to discuss

My thoughts exactly. Apart from ESC, it has to be the easiest key to find. He'll, you could just randomly stab your keyboard with your finger and still have a greater chance of hitting spacebar than any other given key...on account of its small size and all, lol

i suppose a point could be made for a red aircraft, but what wouldve changed in the russian defense industry that prevented full fidelity before but not now? What prevented ED from getting the data from a client state and sidestepping russia completely? why allow mig21,mi8,ka50,and mi24...but not FF of something we already have a sim of? im curious how much revenue the battle sim brings in, and whats different between it and dcs? why we dont see more warbirds if they give a higher return on investment? to what extent does the battle sim subsidize the modules we see? curious to what degree sales determine priority of work? i mean, its a no brainer the yak has sold far fewer units than the f-16 or -18. is that why its languished in an unfinished state for so long despite it being the least complicated airframe in EDs hangar? same can be said for ns430- why is it available in only 2 aircraft as a 3d asset? you could argue a good case for it being in the uh-1 and the yak, and i think ive seen images of it in a mig21 somewhere online. it seems it would be real easy to implement in an existing aircraft, but why spend the man hours if market penetration is low? to what extent does multiplayer(as wingmen or adversaries, or as cooperative crew within the same aircraft)drive sales? theres certainly a loud contingent in favor of it but how big is the quieter group that couldnt care one way or the other ? how does that affect module choice by ED? theres a cap of 2 engines..is there a similar cap on crewmembers? or could we have a fully staffed multiplayer b-17, with someone at each station? whats done to try to bring more 3rd party devs into the fold? the community has an endless thirst for more aircraft, but not many devs doing work for dcs it would be interesting to see the stuff that goes on unseen in DCS so we could better understand why things are the way they are and what to expect in the future

ive wondered myself what the criteria is for an increment/ version numbering convention... is it whatever they feel like, or dependent on number of lines of code changed, number of fixes... or something else?

True, but we also have disqualifiers. They've stated they can't do full fidelity Russian aircraft. They've stated that f4e is on hold. What allows them to do a10c, f16,and f18 that would prevent them from doing f15c all along? Adding switches to an existing module isn't much of a milestone. From a Dev point of view, if you put your limited resources into a module and then ED put out another module on the same airframe as yours and poached sales - what would be your future relationship with ED after that? Raz has to cover their development, pay their people, et cetera ...so doubtful it's f15c While the site I referenced mentioned ah64, that development could be on ice just as easily as f4e is. I think I saw somewhere Marianas will have a modern & ww2 era version? I assume a simple change of structures/vehicles, so no biggie...but why do that unless preparing for Pacific war? I know f4u is coming, but I haven't followed it, but it'll need something to fight Ed has a lot on their plate. I don't think they'll make their announcement till end of Q3 or sometime in Q4. They have f16/18 to finish off, not to mention the yak. They have channel map, and Marianas. Super carrier, mosquito, Hind....who knows how many version increments this year after 2.5.6.... that's a lot of stuff to do with their staff, not to mention the inevitable but quashing and unfinished features to each of those kids. I'm curious to how much will be done this year

doubt its a super hornet. likewise, i also hope its not a super hornet. theres a compelling case to be made for japanese ww2 acft but in all likelihood, if i were a betting man, my money would be on the apache (interestingly enough, development of crimea is also mentioned on the site) see here: http://www.thebattlesim.com/

sweet jeebus that movie (and that scene)brings back memories if we are now in yet another "i want" list, fine, we have lots of those...ill **** off somewhere else. What was interesting , in this thread, was trying to decipher what aircraft wags & co were alluding to. to elaborate a bit further- i dont begrudge anyone wishing for this or for that, regardless of how unrealistic (like f-117) or how unsuited for the tactical theaters we have- an interesting plane doesnt yield a compelling sim (b-52, c-5) i understand people want yet another "i win " button... i dont share their enthusiasm, but no biggie people want full clicky FC3 planes- let em bemoan it, its not gonna change. but i hope no body legitimately gets their hopes up that its a modern full fi red air fighter, a reissue of anything we have in FC3, anything thats under development by a 3rd party, another variant of an existing airframe, or anything ED has said its not. theyll have no one but themselves to thank when theyre let down

I'm not shaking anyone for liking red air. I'd love to see more of it as well. If offered, I'd probably shell out the shekels for a glass cockpitted fully clicky bvr only gen 6+ red air if it came out I have no interest in the Jeff, but I keep bugging newey for when is it coming to stable. It was a day one but for me No interest in warbirds, the yak or the biplane...yet they're in my hangar. If they sold a full clicky reissue of FC3 , I'd end up buying that My point is just what fits ****ALL**** the criteria of eagerly awaited, highly complex, milestone aircraft that's not a full fidelity Russian fighter is not a different version of something we already have, and it's not a reissue of an FC3 aircraft, and ED isn't going to launch a module that poaches sales from another developers efforts.