KennyG

Just a noob perspective here. I'm sure they don't prioritize a lot of smaller details ahead of more important systems, but little details might be simple to implement. Some larger systems probably take a whole lot more effort, so we might be lacking some more important features while at the same time seeing little details that are trivial to insert. All these details add richness though. I think they all contribute to their competitive edge. They shouldn't overlook anything, but I don't mind if they prioritize little things toward the bottom or give them to their new programmers to get their feet wet.

There you go. It is a simulator first.

Ok, but that means we wouldn't have the Hornet or the Viper right now and I think I was first attracted to the product BECAUSE they had the Hornet, and frankly I don't care it's not perfect. I know it's a sim-first product and not really for casual users, and eventually I will be as picky as half the people on this forum, but honestly they need to expand their user base quickly or die. Am I misunderstanding you? You think they should simply never release an incomplete plane ever?

I agree, and I don't think this would kill the community. They could keep their free offering. Software that is evolving like DCS-World can justify a subscription. Of course they need to keep delivering core features, but the backlog items that people are demanding will keep them busy for a long time.

I think the question was basically answered, so we can close this thread up, since it just devolved into another argument over Early Access being good or bad and how fast we should get updates and/or a complete module after we pay our discounted EA pre-order or (gasp) full price if we waited until after the release. Really EA is all about pulling money from he future into the present so they can pay for ongoing development. You really need to want the module or just love ED to buy something in EA, and in addition be happy to wait. No sense complaining. This is complicated software. It’s going to take time. I expect a year at least, personally, with lumpy deliveries along the way. If they’re sharing coding resources between modules, that’s going to be unavoidable unless there is a lot of overlapping shared code between modules. I have a feeling they’re trying to kill two birds with one stone in some cases, but who knows. IIRC, EA is a major source of revenue for them. Along with just getting noobs to start playing out of the blue, it’s how they pay for core development too, which is probably unwise, but the alternative would be that you’d pay a subscription for the core itself. How’d you like to pay for every DCS core update, as in we get the current download plus new features for a year, then you’re stuck until you renew. Probably should start a new war in a new thread about that thought. LOL. Loving what they’ve made so far! It’ll get better as long as we shovel money their way. Peace.

Yeah,I think they’re going to keep it simple since they’re not going to make a lot of money on an update

Meh... I think the VR Times should lighten up. Unless you have control of the body in the cockpit and can move your hands out of the way to unobscure various console elements, I kind of disagree. Yeah it looks nice, but to me it doesn’t distract from the immersion and is entirely practical to have no pilot body. Saves on GPU as well.

Ditto. Don’t sweat the complaints and just do your best.

I also endorse the F-5. It’s all purpose, a complete product, has a clickable cockpit and is great fun to fly in VR. It doesn’t give you any high tech crutches and will introduce the modern jet fighter in its purest sense. There are campaigns available and extra outside reference material from Chuck Owl, which the F-16 doesn’t have. It has a tail hook so you can do carrier operations. Great plane to start with and it’s cheap in comparison to the others. PS the Air Force still uses a variant of this airframe for training today, in the T-38.