Is it really that difficult to update both versions at the same time?

[haffende]

Is it really that difficult to give us a third party update to 2.0 as well as the 1.5.3 update xx. When I bought NTTR I did not think it world be 6+months to integrate an existing map.

I know the focus is on 2.5 but I can live with 2.0 as it is...just give us the third party plane updates please.

[RNeves]

You just read my thoughts

[Teschmacher]

pretty much same here, since 2.0 alpha was released i have never launched / played the v1.5.x even, i just can't stand seeing the outdated Caucasus terrain i was flying for almost 8 years

[haffende]

I am the other way...hardly use 2.0 now because the M2000C is way out of date. Shame there is no new third party launch coming...they would make time and update it then...e.g Gazelle.

[Coxy_99]

pretty much same here, since 2.0 alpha was released i have never launched / played the v1.5.x even, i just can't stand seeing the outdated Caucasus terrain i was flying for almost 8 years

 

Barteck and starway ground texture mods are just fine in 1.5 try them :thumbup:

[PiedDroit]

Is it really that difficult to give us a third party update to 2.0 as well as the 1.5.3 update xx. When I bought NTTR I did not think it world be 6+months to integrate an existing map.

I know the focus is on 2.5 but I can live with 2.0 as it is...just give us the third party plane updates please.

I don't think it is that difficult but propably time consuming as each version has it's own branch and update cycle.

[wilbur81]

With every new Friday, I think to myself - "I wish ED had never committed to the L-39, C-101, etc. etc." Is there really a market for people who are interested in sitting in the back seat of a trainer in a PC flight simulator...beyond just a bit of novelty? Maybe these aircraft are not keeping ED from progress on 2.5 and the Hornet, but if they are....please no more new projects!

 

Having said all that.... They have created an INCREDIBLE flight simulator and I'm a big supporter.

[RNeves]

With every new Friday, I think to myself - "I wish ED had never committed to the L-39, C-101, etc. etc." Is there really a market for people who are interested in sitting in the back seat of a trainer in a PC flight simulator...beyond just a bit of novelty? Maybe these aircraft are not keeping ED from progress on 2.5 and the Hornet, but if they are....please no more new projects!

 

Having said all that.... They have created an INCREDIBLE flight simulator and I'm a big supporter.

 

This

[msalama]

had never committed to the L-39

Bullcarp. Some of us, including me, actually like small war scenarios requiring only COIN / light attack AC and thus love the ZA, because it is well suited to that role. So your point was?

[wilbur81]

Bullcarp. Some of us, including me, actually like small war scenarios requiring only COIN / light attack AC and thus love the ZA, because it is well suited to that role. So your point was?

 

I caught a Bullcarp once... it was a real struggle. It's now mounted in my basement.

[NineLine]

Is it really that difficult to give us a third party update to 2.0 as well as the 1.5.3 update xx. When I bought NTTR I did not think it world be 6+months to integrate an existing map.

I know the focus is on 2.5 but I can live with 2.0 as it is...just give us the third party plane updates please.

 

2.5 will be the merge of maps with updates to the Black Sea map. 1.5.X is current release while we wait and it doesnt hold up other modules and updates, 2.0 is Alpha of new map tech. Its either like this, or those 6 months they could have just kept NTTR internal and the amount of updates would have been limited, and I cant imagine anyone wanted that.

 

SO while we wait, this is the update schedule we are dealing with. Trying to update 2 versions live to the public at the same time is potential for big bad things to happen.

Edited May 27, 2016 by NineLine

[SkateZilla]

I am the other way...hardly use 2.0 now because the M2000C is way out of date. Shame there is no new third party launch coming...they would make time and update it then...e.g Gazelle.

 

 

In Regards to the M2000C, You Realize RazBAM Primarily Operates out of an Area of the world recently hit by some earthquakes right?

[WinterH]

Originally I had decided to boycott the L-39, and I did so since it's release but, thanks to some comments on this thread I have just finally bought it :music_whistling:

 

I know it can be annoying to wait for updates, but it is not one sided. People without 2.0 also sometimes end up on a waiting queu before they can get stuff already released on 2.0 or 1.5 OB branch. In the end, 2.0 is an alpha released to allow people who have bought NTTR to both test and enjoy it, it is not the current actual release version.

 

From what I see, updates are being released according to what version is next in line to get stuff. For example, I had to wait two weeks before I can fly Gazelle since it first released on 2.0, than 1.5 OB, and finally stable, which is the only thing I have.

 

Yes, some of the 3rd parties sometimes miss the update train apparently. Hopefully, with 2.5 finally happening, things will be smoother for all of us again. Supporting 3 different builds "out there in the wild", and with additional modules from development studios does not sound to me like a dream scenario, as someone who is involved with software development for years.

[msalama]

It's now mounted in my basement.

Yadda yadda, more BS. OK, so you _don't_ have a point, since there's actually much more to planes such as the Albie than just "sitting in the back seat of a trainer" as you put it. Meaning, 1/ you've never tried it yourself and 2/ are thus talking out of your arse. Am I right or, perhaps, right? Edited May 27, 2016 by msalama

[wilbur81]

Yadda yadda, more BS. OK, so you _don't_ have a point, since there's actually much more to planes such as the Albie than just "sitting in the back seat of a trainer" as you put it. Meaning, 1/ you've never tried it yourself and 2/ are thus talking out of your arse. Am I right or, perhaps, right?

 

Wierd

[bkthunder]

I like the L-39, it's a high quality little ****er and I love aerobatics, so that's my cup of tea.

Anyway everyone is entitled to their opinion and I guess sharing opinions, politely, is how you have a forum discussion sometimes...so I really don't get all the harsh words?

 

Regarding updates, it would be great to have all the modules on par across 1.5 and 2.0, but in my case the main reason I don't fly 2.0 much at all (and I regret buying it early) is first of all bad performance and stuttering.

[grunf]

With every new Friday, I think to myself - "I wish ED had never committed to the L-39, C-101, etc. etc." Is there really a market for people who are interested in sitting in the back seat of a trainer in a PC flight simulator...beyond just a bit of novelty? Maybe these aircraft are not keeping ED from progress on 2.5 and the Hornet, but if they are....please no more new projects!

I actually prefer the front seat.

 

Having said all that.... They have created an INCREDIBLE flight simulator and I'm a big supporter.

Yeah...

[Vedexent]

You realize that multi-seaters like the L-39 and (eventfully?) the C-101 are test beds for the multi-seat technology, right?

 

Working out the kinks on something that doesn't have a broad public appeal (sitting in the back of a trainer), is what will eventually give you multi-player in the Huey (door gunner anyone?), Gazelle, F-14, etc.

[wilbur81]

everyone is entitled to their opinion and I guess sharing opinions, politely, is how you have a forum discussion sometimes...so I really don't get all the harsh words?

 

I agree. I'm not sure why my opinion set him off so. Anyway, I'm fairly confident that it is a majority opinion (I could definitely be wrong here) that the back seat role in a two-seat DCS aircraft will not be desirable to the vast majority of users. As legendary as the Tomcat is... the majority of folks, I'd imagine, are going to be flying the Tomcat as the PIC and not the RIO. With that said, I have ZERO PROBLEM with ED testing/creating Two-seat aircraft... I'm just bummed that a fringe role (i.e. back-seater) in development may be halting the bigger, more desirable projects. Maybe the L-39 updates aren't having that effect? But I digress. :-)

[mrsteel]

Holding back projects or not, i do believe this is a good step for ED to get used to 2 seat aircraft before releasing one of their most anticipated modules, now i do have a question, is ED considering something that makes it so if a player wants an AI RIO instead of a player who will potentially slack off during flight, they can make the RIO seat restricted from anyone entering it?

[Vedexent]

Two-seat aircraft... I'm just bummed that a fringe role (i.e. back-seater) in development may be halting the bigger, more desirable projects. Maybe the L-39 updates aren't having that effect? But I digress. :-)

 

Two things:

 

a) Do you have any evidence that working on multi-seat is slowing down "more desirable projects - or are you just "blue sky" speculating as if your opinions are established facts?

 

b) You realize that your wants aren't universally everyone's wants right? So what might be "more desirable" to you isn't more desirable for everyone.

 

Maybe I like the L-39 more than I'll ever use the Hornet. Maybe I really want multi-seat roles in the Huey, and have no interest in fast-movers.

 

If so, it doesn't make me wrong, and doesn't make my "desires" any less valid than yours. Or more, for that matter - but I'm not the one complaining that things that other people want are interfering with what I want, either.

 

As for multiple code branches, I would be willing to bet a large sum that the ED developers want to merge the branches as soon as they can; maintaining two (public) branches of a coding project is more work.

[SkateZilla]

Holding back projects or not, i do believe this is a good step for ED to get used to 2 seat aircraft before releasing one of their most anticipated modules, now i do have a question, is ED considering something that makes it so if a player wants an AI RIO instead of a player who will potentially slack off during flight, they can make the RIO seat restricted from anyone entering it?

 

Which Aircraft are you assuming ED is Developing that makes use of a RIO?

[Buzzles]

Speaking as a developer, we're lucky the 2.0 Alpha Terrian Testing branch is in near step to other branches.

 

Porting changesets across branches can be an absolute nightmare when concurrent development is happening.

If you're lucky, code changes will be compartmentalised to projects and library classes and not touch each other, if you're not...

[wolle]

I just wish that they would have stuck to their original update cycle: one week 1.5, the other week 2.0. Nowadays 2.0 is only rarely getting an update. Which is a little weird, since one would expect a feature-incomplete alpha project to experience more updates/changes than a feature complete beta/release version.

 

But we have to believe that there is a reason behind the asymmetric update cycles, and ED are optimizing the time effort towards releasing 2.5. Maybe it's because they are working more heavily on the Caucasus map since it is this map that they need to bring up to Nevada standards. Maybe that's why there is more happening in 1.5 than 2 atm...

 

Anyone seen a recent update on how far we are from 2.5?

[jimcarrel]

I caught a Bullcarp once... it was a real struggle. It's now mounted in my basement.

 

You mounted a Carp? Never had anyone ask me to mount a carp, lot of Black and Smallmouth Bass, Stripers, Crappie, Bluegill and even an occasional Catfish, but a Carp?

 

(just pulling your leg)