Jump to content

Virtual Patriots L-39

Tango
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 222
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Parable

Parable

Posted
Posted

Bad move ED Bad move. Which 3rd party developers want's to be involved in this sim if you do things like this? Nobody. This was really a bad move they put so much time effort and money in it. I think the least you can do is give those guys a compensation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NRG-Vampire

NRG-Vampire

Posted
Posted (edited)
I'm sorry for being ignorant but I actually thought you guys were making the L-39 mentioned in the news letter...though reading it again, it does say "developed by Eagle Dynamics".

 

That's a waste of resources, talent and ambition. I hope things work out OK for you.

 

ok, first of all, im sad because vpjt did not come out yet with their module, but i dont think they are wasting their resources - this is a learning process and they will able to use that knowledge with other aircrafts in the future

guys you need to know that developing an afm/efm/pfm is not easy (in this case too long too, unfortunately), so on the other side i can understand why ed wants to bring an "easy" jet with an "easy" flight model/systems (easy money) before they bring the most "difficult" jet with the most "difficult" flight model/systems (f/a-18c)

 

unfortunately there are no more other "easy" jet in dcsw for ed too, so they are developing the l-39, because it is subsonic without radar, others are all supersonic


Edited by NRG-Vampire

sign-pic4.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MTFDarkEagle

MTFDarkEagle

Posted
Posted
ok, first of all, im sad because vpjt did not come out yet with their module, but i dont think they are wasting their resources - this is a learning process and they will able to use that knowledge with other aircrafts in the future

guys you need to know that developing an afm/efm/pfm is not easy (in this case too long too, infortunately), so on the other side i can understand why ed wants to bring an "easy" jet with an "easy" flight model/systems (easy money) before they bring the most "difficult" jet with the most "difficult" flight model/systems (f/a-18c)

 

unfortunately there are no more other "easy" jet in dcsw for ed too, so they are developing the l-39, because it is subsonic without radar, others are all supersonic

 

You forgot to mention that we knew that the Patriots were developing an L-39 years ago, while we just learned last week that ED are making one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NRG-Vampire

NRG-Vampire

Posted
Posted (edited)
You forgot to mention that we knew that the Patriots were developing an L-39 years ago, while we just learned last week that ED are making one.

 

 

i did not forget it...i know that was 2+ years, everyone knows this who follows the news here

again: im sad, sorry about that - just slightly resembles to BeczL's story (4+ yrs iirc) with the mig-21bis, unfortunately he disappeared while he is still under the nda

 

as i mentioned earlier many times, i think 3rd parties did not get sufficient helps from ed, (only bst can ?) , and this is what iris sim recognized very early/quickly ? :cry:

 

so, keep heads up guys, and find another aircraft, you can do it :thumbup:

 

sure, you got many valuable infos from the patriot pilots but maybe you should develop an aero l-29 delphin as well

 

http://www.dcs-l39.com/


Edited by NRG-Vampire

sign-pic4.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Justin Case

Justin Case

Posted
Posted
ok, first of all, im sad because vpjt did not come out yet with their module, but i dont think they are wasting their resources - this is a learning process and they will able to use that knowledge with other aircrafts in the future

guys you need to know that developing an afm/efm/pfm is not easy (in this case too long too, infortunately), so on the other side i can understand why ed wants to bring an "easy" jet with an "easy" flight model/systems (easy money) before they bring the most "difficult" jet with the most "difficult" flight model/systems (f/a-18c)

 

unfortunately there are no more other "easy" jet in dcsw for ed too, so they are developing the l-39, because it is subsonic without radar, others are all supersonic

 

I know it's difficult and of course they learned a lot! But I was afraid to say that because that doesn't repay them for their work during the last 28 months. If they embark to develop another aircraft it will be even better due to their recently gained experience, that won't help anyone pay the bills in the coming months though.

 

I'm not saying these guys are starving, I have no idea, but I think everyone want hard work to pay of.

http://www.masterarms.se A Swedish Combat Flight Simulator Community.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NeilWillis

NeilWillis

Posted
Posted

I never like to see the efforts that people have made wasted. Makes me think that there has been a lack of communication at some level here. I guess we'll never know the facts behind the matter, but all I can do is wish the Virtual Patriots team well, and hope they'll be able to channel their knowledge and experiences here into another module. I hope we haven't seen the last of their contributions because their efforts looked very professional to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WinterH

WinterH

Posted
Posted

Yup, although they didn't had a subforum, members of the dev team HAD "3rd Part Developer" status under their forum names, and as it has been stated many times, they had a licence from ED to develop said module.

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NRG-Vampire

NRG-Vampire

Posted
Posted (edited)
Yup, although they didn't had a subforum, members of the dev team HAD "3rd Part Developer" status under their forum names, and as it has been stated many times, they had a licence from ED to develop said module.

 

yep

http://forums.eagle.ru/member.php?u=59959

 

you should switch to the L-29 guys, that's another nice plane (with very similar flight model) and maybe you can get enough info from the patriots pilots as well

 

3623821069_a8f18e0e4a_o.jpg

15248.jpg

L-29_Delfin_Red_Star-a-1024x768.jpg

PlanespottersNet_089037.jpg


Edited by NRG-Vampire

sign-pic4.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasiuss

Anastasiuss

Posted
Posted

Is it perhaps a wrong information, provided by the newsletter writer?

 

 

Perhaps it should have read as: ED mentioned in the newsletter that a DCS L-39 will come. The Virtual Patriots DCS:L-39. Just like the C101 or the Hawk from VEAO.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=129630

several others like the UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, Hawk, and C-101
non of these moduls are from ED.

 

@ED PLEASE: Talk with each other and with us. Is ED developing a L39 parallel to Virtual Patriots?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

360th TFW Falconeers

last video ->

 

ASUS P6X58D Premium, Intel Core i7 920, 6GB DDR3, SAPPHIRE TOXIC HD 5850, Win7 64 Bit. X52, Track IR 4, Momo Racing.

ArmA1+2+3, DCS: World, K-50, A-10C, CA, P-51D, UH-1H, Mi-8FC1+2+3, FalconAF, FC1+FC2, IL2'46, rFactor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sobek

sobek

Posted
Posted

@ED PLEASE: Talk with each other and with us. Is ED developing a L39 parallel to Virtual Patriots?

 

ED are developing an L-39. Subsequently the VP have decided to cancel their project.

Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.

Come let's eat grandpa!

Use punctuation, save lives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VTJS17_Fire

VTJS17_Fire

Posted
Posted

Bad move from ED, IMO. :doh:

 

Of Course, VPJT did learn a lot with the development on the L-39, but what they have of it, except costs?

 

It's the third potential developer which cancelled his project (IIRC), due to the lack of communication and/ or missing support. As far as we know ...

 

Best wishes for you, guys!

 

 

regards,

Fire

  • Like 1

Hardware: Intel i5 4670K | Zalman NPS9900MAX | GeIL 16GB @1333MHz | Asrock Z97 Pro4 | Sapphire Radeon R9 380X Nitro | Samsung SSDs 840 series 120GB & 250 GB | Samsung HD204UI 2TB | be quiet! Pure Power 530W | Aerocool RS-9 Devil Red | Samsung SyncMaster SA350 24" + ASUS VE198S 19" | Saitek X52 | TrackIR 5 | Thrustmaster MFD Cougar | Speedlink Darksky LED | Razor Diamondback | Razor X-Mat Control | SoundBlaster Tactic 3D Rage ### Software: Windows 10 Pro 64Bit

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NRG-Vampire

NRG-Vampire

Posted
Posted (edited)

that's why we should know more about the decision why ed developing their own l-39 alba

was the vpjt developing process too slow ?

DGambo withdrew the external/aircraft model from vpjt ? :dunno:

all suppositions of course but should be better to clarify the case in order to avoid get ed blamed by the community here (again) :(

 

maybe by the best scenario they will work together on the l-39 module ? (vpjt as a partner of ed) :thumbup:


Edited by NRG-Vampire

sign-pic4.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darkwolf

Darkwolf

Posted
Posted

That is a sad loss of workload. Whatever happened, the result is really bad.

ED and VP should have straightened this long ago, and one of them switching to something else.

 

All that loss of work must be painfull for the VP team, I can't imagine- nor I can't find the propper words to say how much i'm sorry for them. Keep the head up guyz.

 

PS. Whatever happened, we will likely not know for sure (as with the story with Bzcel). Please keep it polite with either side :)

  • Like 1

PC simulator news site.



Link to comment
Share on other sites
VincentLaw

VincentLaw

Posted
Posted

Regardless of knowing the facts or not, I am concerned that this situation may drive away other potential third party developers (Perhaps more so if they don't know the facts). I know it would cost resources for ED, but I think a strong third party base requires some nurturing. This appears to be an area that needs improvement.

 

Hopefully ED handles third party relations better in the future.

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dr_Arrow

Dr_Arrow

Posted
Posted
Regardless of knowing the facts or not, I am concerned that this situation may drive away other potential third party developers (Perhaps more so if they don't know the facts). I know it would cost resources for ED, but I think a strong third party base requires some nurturing. This appears to be an area that needs improvement.

 

Hopefully ED handles third party relations better in the future.

 

We don't really know what has happened and it is unfortunate, but I am happy that we are getting L-39 from ED and it will serve as a testbed for multiplayer cockpits, a technology which will be greatly beneficial for everyone. I wouldn't like to wait some two years so ED might create a new multiplayer aircraft and drop L-39, which must have been in development for a long time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...