LOFC and DCS:BS Priority's

[Yellonet]

The whining has really gone up since DCS was announced... someone get their little dreams stepped on? :harhar:

[SwingKid]

Right ... Though that in and of itself is not a bug.

 

So much for that agreement.

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

^^^^^^^

 

Watch it! First fighter that comes out, I'm coming after your 'Shark, little guy! ;)

 

How about some 30mm DU rain?! ;)

 

Edit: Doh, SK posted before me!

[S77th-GOYA]

GG, you've never shied away from stating how poorly modelled the missiles are in 1.12. Yet you now consider it acceptable for ED to ignore it because it doesn't fit your definition of a bug?

[Yellonet]

^^^^^^^

 

Watch it! First fighter that comes out, I'm coming after your 'Shark, little guy! ;)

 

How about some 30mm DU rain?! ;)

 

Edit: Doh, SK posted before me!

Sorry... couldn't help myself :( I just find all this whining about patches/addons and stabbing at DCS annoying.

ED took the only logical and smart alternative, and now they get backstabbed for it... :(

[SwingKid]

The whining has really gone up since DCS was announced... :harhar:

 

Duh, they were specifically ordered to WAIT FOR THE ANNOUNCEMENT.

 

I guess you're waiting for after the release?

 

;)

-SK

[SwingKid]

ED took the only logical and smart alternative,

 

I can think of at least three alternative development paths that I think would have been MORE logical and smart.

 

However, to be fair, developing a Lock On WAFM patch for free is not one of them. That's only about equal.

 

-SK

[Glowing_Amraam]

I'm sure any "path" would somehow be "backfired" by others........it's the good ol' saying:

 

Can't please'em all ;)

[GGTharos]

And I'll still keep stating they are poorly modeled; on the other hand, that their performance is not what /we/ expect it to be is -not- a bug. Basically, the software works as designed, so no, it isn't a bug. :P

 

So while I do want the situation rectified, I don't feel it's worth any frayed nerves on my part if it doesn't happen.

 

On the other hand, if you ask ED, probably no one bothers them about this subject more than I do ;) (Though I believe D-Scythe is a very close second, and there's probably some guys on the Russian side doing the same).

And I'll point out again - ED /does/ want to fix things. This is why they said they will try to do the 1.13 patch. Again, it's dependent on when they can dedicate resources to the task, and frankly, I have no reason to doubt them - to me the world of software development is -not- a black box, and I've seen what happens in a software shop when resources get scarce.

I've done my homework when it comes to missiles, and when the time comes to present data for the patch, that's when I'll say my piece again. Right now I'm focusing on the 'Shark.

 

One thing I will suggest is this; if the community wishes to decide on some of the parameters that those weapons should fullfill WITHIN the realm of doing parameter adjustments to the missile code AS IT IS (ie no new code), that might be just dandy. But we're talking at a minimum -all- missiles used by flyables in the A2A arena, and if at all possible, some of the SAMs (personally, I think S300 and Patriot should be pretty much blind to chaff)

 

GG, you've never shied away from stating how poorly modelled the missiles are in 1.12. Yet you now consider it acceptable for ED to ignore it because it doesn't fit your definition of a bug?

[Yellonet]

I guess you're waiting for after the release?

No use in whining untill you've tried the product yourself ;)

Nah, seriously I'm not much for whining. I'm more about coming up with new ideas, presenting them and getting shot down :joystick: :D

[S77th-GOYA]

And I'll still keep stating they are poorly modeled; on the other hand, that their performance is not what /we/ expect it to be is -not- a bug. Basically, the software works as designed, so no, it isn't a bug. :P

 

{snip}

 

One thing I will suggest is this; if the community wishes to decide on some of the parameters that those weapons should fullfill WITHIN the realm of doing parameter adjustments to the missile code AS IT IS (ie no new code), that might be just dandy. But we're talking at a minimum -all- missiles used by flyables in the A2A arena, and if at all possible, some of the SAMs (personally, I think S300 and Patriot should be pretty much blind to chaff)

 

The software doesn't work as designed. ED didn't intend for Strelas to attempt to shoot down incoming A2G missiles and ED didn't intend for missiles to bite so hard for chaff. I very much doubt that ED intended for TWS mode to not be locked on the primary. They may have intended for the 120 to top out at M3.2 but as I've said earlier, I sure would like to see some hard data that backs up that detuning of the AMRAAM and boost to the R27s.

 

Regarding the adjustments we'd like to see, there has been topic after topic on the subject but I'll agree that there has been no consensus. I'm trying to be as forgiving and realistic as possible, trying to not ask for too much. The number one priority is an increase in chaff resistance so that missiles launched in a high PK situation actually have a high PK. (I can't say if chaff resistance is the only problem induced by patches because I can only test them as a complete package, but chaff is the obvious problem) And unless ED can show data to back up why they limited the speed of the 120 and Winder so much, I'd like to see that addressed. I can live without the TWS fix and FM adjustments. It's all about bad missile modelling to me.

[GGTharos]

Eh, who said ED intended to have the TWS scan follow the primary? That's a feature that isn't implemented, not a bug. As for strelas trying to shoot down incoming missiles - it is a limit of the current missile model.

As for the missile speeds ... do -you- have any hard data to show otherwise? I mean, I do; but where do you come off asking for 'hard data'? Before the research piece on the sidewinder came along there was no such thing; and there were certain people in the know who pointed out that an R-27E would arrive before a 120 did.

 

Anyway ... all of that is pretty much pissing in the wind; again, these corrections are on the list, and have been on the list in the beta forum for quite some time. And yes, many beta testers, and I would -guess- the devs, consider them the biggest of niggles in A2A.

 

The question isn't if these are high priority as far as which items should be fixed goes; the question is rather, 'when will resources become available to do this'?

 

My point is this; ED is listening. The devs can't touch this stuff right now, but they're not deaf nor blind to this either. What's intervening if the cold hard world of business and the need to put food on the table.

[Toady]

Can I just point out that I dont mind what happens.

Ive had years of fun with Lock-on broken, bugged or otherwise and am looking forward to Black Shark as a stand alone game just as much as I was as an addon.

:pilotfly:

To qoute some bugger

You can keep all of the people happy some of the time or some of the people happy all of the time.

Im the latter. :thumbup:

[EvilBivol-1]

We're running in circles and starting new threads about the same thing isn't going to change anything.

 

I would suggest you contribute what you feel ED should fix in a possible 1.13 patch in the sticky thread for it. That may actually be usefull. They are reading it.

 

In the meanwhile, the choice whether to believe our statements about the patch is yours, as is the choice to buy future ED product. I think that's fair enough and until something more concrete on the likelihood of a patch can be said, the topic is becoming redundant. I assure you that ED is well aware of the community demand for a patch.

 

Locking this one.