Virtual Patriots L-39

[Lizzard]

After reading through all the Posts I can understand both sides..at least somehow..but one thing really doesn`t come to my mind...VP worked 2 years on the L-39..and was informed 2 weeks ago (as said by Wags) about the ED L-39..Wags said ED planned this aircraft quite a while ago and put it on hold..so why the hell back in the day VP conntacted ED and said "Hey guys we want to do a 3rd party L-39"..why did ED not say "o.k. Guys..good luck...but you should know we have our own L-39 in the queue and plan to realease it someday?!?!" I am dead confused:(

[kazereal]

After reading through all the Posts I can understand both sides..at least somehow..but one thing really doesn`t come to my mind...VP worked 2 years on the L-39..and was informed 2 weeks ago (as said by Wags) about the ED L-39..Wags said ED planned this aircraft quite a while ago and put it on hold..so why the hell back in the day VP conntacted ED and said "Hey guys we want to do a 3rd party L-39"..why did ED not say "o.k. Guys..good luck...but you should know we have our own L-39 in the queue and plan to realease it someday?!?!" I am dead confused:(

 

I don't know but when said this way it sounds like "Not Invented Here" (NIH) syndrome again..

[Feuerfalke]

I'm sorry, this has to do with the topic how?

 

Quite on topic, indeed.

Let me reformulate the question:

Does ED not have more important projects than doing the L-39 right now? :music_whistling:

[NineLine]

Quite on topic, indeed.

Let me reformulate the question:

Does ED not have more important projects than doing the L-39 right now? :music_whistling:

 

They have a good portion of the work done on the L-39, apparently it wont take much to get ready and will make a good test bed for the Mulitplayer cockpit... so its not going to interrupt anything else...

[Druid_]

Different words, same meaning. You suggest we are finished with everything, and are now looking at the cockpit model. You suggest the cockpit model is the only thing left to do, and is delaying release.

No Tango I am not suggesting those things at all, please go back and re-read my posts. You are reading things into words which do not exist.

 

Emotions are high so I will graciously bow out of further discussion on this as it surely gets no-one anywhere.

[Dr_Arrow]

Quite on topic, indeed.

Let me reformulate the question:

Does ED not have more important projects than doing the L-39 right now? :music_whistling:

 

Creating the framework for Multiplayer cockpits using L-39 as a test-bed is not important enough?

[NineLine]

After reading through all the Posts I can understand both sides..at least somehow..but one thing really doesn`t come to my mind...VP worked 2 years on the L-39..and was informed 2 weeks ago (as said by Wags) about the ED L-39..Wags said ED planned this aircraft quite a while ago and put it on hold..so why the hell back in the day VP conntacted ED and said "Hey guys we want to do a 3rd party L-39"..why did ED not say "o.k. Guys..good luck...but you should know we have our own L-39 in the queue and plan to realease it someday?!?!" I am dead confused:(

 

Until recently they didnt think they would ever have to release it.

[sorcer3r]

Creating the framework for Multiplayer cockpits using L-39 as a test-bed is not important enough?

 

I would like to see the Uh1 to have this (test) feature first. :smartass:

[derelor]

I would like to see the Uh1 to have this (test) feature first. :smartass:

UH-1H is Belsimtek

[NRG-Vampire]

As I keep saying, we are under NDA and can not tell you what we know. We would like Wags to clarify his statement: They are free to sell their project well before the Eagle Dynamics version

 

simple, i think Wags suggests to sell your afm/asm to ed if you cant make your own cockpit models and finish the module

or you should buy that cockpit what Wags showed in the newsletter, of course if it's problematic because of the investment then you should make a deal with ed/3d model makers of ed

Edited September 8, 2014 by NRG-Vampire

[shagrat]

Funny, there is 3 Third Parties queued up for DCS releases this year, 2 of which I think Tango are involved with in some sense... I think your statement is confused.

I was referring only to the L-39. I am well aware of the ongoing projects and how Tango is involved.

I simply rather see ED and VPJT work on the L-39 together! If everyone has the part the other is missing, it just makes sense and gives a quick chance to sell.

It simply doesn't make sense from my point of view!

 

You should know I seldom criticise ED's business decisions and never because they seem unpopular. You need to make money when you invest. A plain and simple truth, but here it seems to me like missing communications leading to a strange business decision.

[Lizzard]

Until recently they didnt think they would ever have to release it.

 

yay..it is all about the MP Cockpits the community screamed for..and ED recently remembered their long ago started L-39...so take that shortcut..business wise a smart move..sad vor VPJT

[NRG-Vampire]

to me like missing communications leading to a strange business decision.

 

we dont know the background

but

maybe there is an intention of ed why they made a cockpit what vpjt is missing (incidentally) :)

[sorcer3r]

UH-1H is Belsimtek

 

Belsimtek are ED Partner.

[VTJS17_Fire]

I'm sorry, this has to do with the topic how?

 

You're pointing on the delays, the different 3rd Party teams have. But - with all respect to ED - they have it's own projects, we're waiting for years and read once per quarter "soon" ...

 

 

kind regards,

Fire

 

 

PS: And I'm not a lawyer, but I bought the A-10C Beta with the Nevada map. That was offered and it's about 3 years ago. I also don't want my money back due to the delay of my offered feature - which was one of two sale decisions. When I can wait, why not ED? Why not test the multiplayer cockpit with one of the existing modules of their partner BST? - Who also offered this feature when I bought it.

[NineLine]

we dont know the background

but

maybe there is an intention of ed why they made a cockpit what vpjt is missing (incidentally) :)

 

ED has a lot of resources done on the L-39 already beyond a cockpit model.

[shagrat]

They have a good portion of the work done on the L-39, apparently it wont take much to get ready and will make a good test bed for the Mulitplayer cockpit... so its not going to interrupt anything else...

Now we're talking! Testbed for the multiplayer cockpit!? That would explain the decisions a bit and why Tango can't say much here (NDA).

Still I'd like them to pull a joint effort here...

[NRG-Vampire]

it is all about the MP Cockpits the community screamed for

 

yep but that not for the L-39, they can implement multiplayer front seat/back seat capability for other aircraft too

ed can do (should they?) this for the TF-51D as well

[NineLine]

The two situations are completely different. The 3rd Party team is still welcome to release their module. As for Nevada, you are getting 100 times better map than what was offered back then. You know why there are delays, they have communicated those the best they can.

 

You're pointing on the delays, the different 3rd Party teams have. But - with all respect to ED - they have it's own projects, we're waiting for years and read once per quarter "soon" ...

 

 

kind regards,

Fire

 

 

PS: And I'm not a lawyer, but I bought the A-10C Beta with the Nevada map. That was offered and it's about 3 years ago. I also don't want my money back due to the delay of my offered feature - which was one of two sale decisions. When I can wait, why not ED? Why not test the multiplayer cockpit with one of the existing modules of their partner BST? - Who also offered this feature when I bought it.

[Grim_Smiles]

we dont know the background

but

maybe there is an intention of ed why they made a cockpit what vpjt is missing (incidentally) :)

 

What makes you think ED only has a cockpit? Wags said it was due for release at end of 2014, sounds like more than a cockpit in their possession.

[SkateZilla]

yep but that not for the L-39, they can implement multiplayer front seat/back seat capability for other aircraft too

ed can do (should they?) this for the TF-51D as well

 

 

TF-51 isnt "Dual Cockpit", It's Pilot, and Passenger sitting in the back in a small seat with nothing to press, flip, or click.

[NineLine]

Now we're talking! Testbed for the multiplayer cockpit!? That would explain the decisions a bit and why Tango can't say much here (NDA).

Still I'd like them to pull a joint effort here...

 

 

I am not sure, but it might be more work to blend a 3rd Parties work in than its worth. And the 3rd Party might not be keen on that anyways...

[NineLine]

Guys, if someone wants to start a thread about ED's L-39 that might be better than discussing it here.

[NRG-Vampire]

What makes you think ED only has a cockpit? Wags said it was due for release at end of 2014, sounds like more than a cockpit in their possession.

 

do you think someone more familiar with that plane than a REAL PJT pilot ?

im pretty sure they have the knowledge (at PJT) how can fly that bird - especially in close formation

obvious, maybe they dont know the combat usage/employment

Edited September 8, 2014 by NRG-Vampire

[tobaschi]

i have a question to someone from virtual patriots, you have now developed over two year's on that project, you also have tango in your team who also _nearly_ finished two other 3rd party moduls in that time (hawk and c-101, please correct me if iam wrong), related to that you should be nearly done with your L-39 modul, so why don't you finish the little rest? Or what is that current state of your L-39 modul in percent? 80? 90%? 95%?

 

Why don't you finish that rest work and generate at least some cash from the rest of your code? Do you don't expect that your flight model will be better than the ED one? With all the experience your team has with L-39?

 

Would be very nice to get some clarification and answers from you