[REPORTED] High-quality A-10C cockpit switch logic

[lxsapper]

Hello

This new cockpit sucks.

The lighting is too low, the switches can only be seen on night vision.

HUD is a failure, you can not see zero degree of ascent and descent. HUD is too high.

Functionally, the new cockpit is not good.

Amendments are required to fulfill its role as the previous one.

 

In the A-10 the HUD is in a position privileging looking down over the nose for it's ground attack role. Again this is a much lesser problem to view that information both in RL and VR, but even TrackIR helps. To "amend" it all you have to do is change the default head position.

[Snoopy]

Totaly agree! They need to make the lamps brighter. I can hardly see the green flood lights..

 

The flood lights aren’t that bright in the real aircraft either.

[lxsapper]

The old cockpit is available if you don't update to the version it was introduced, that would be the only way you can stay with the old one.

 

Now this is the most insulting answeer I could possibly have imagined from someone representating ED.

Was the request reasonable? I think so.

Was it feasible? IDK, only ED can decide on that. But if the answeer is no. Then just say no in a polite manner. Don't suggest to a client to permanently lock himself in a soon to be outdated version of the software that will never be updated and never again able to connect online to other users. I'm sure if he wants to do that he'll do it on his own.

By all means defend the new cockpit ( apart from lighting, particularly backlighting, glad to know that's getting looked at, really needed...). Explain how it's not that different, show a couple of wireframe comparisons. Explain what actually changed and why people are perceiving it as different. Or do none of that if it's an unreasonable use of your time as a Community Manager. But don't use what is basically in insult to a ED's costumer.

Am I over reacting over this? IDK, I suppose you could even have said something along the lines of "unfortunately from now on the legacy cockpit will only be available in legacy versions of DCS, as maintaing it as an option would not be feasible". But telling a costumer to actually go there? Doesn't sound right to me

[BIGNEWY]

Now this is the most insulting answeer I could possibly have imagined from someone representating ED.

Was the request reasonable? I think so.

Was it feasible? IDK, only ED can decide on that. But if the answeer is no. Then just say no in a polite manner. Don't suggest to a client to permanently lock himself in a soon to be outdated version of the software that will never be updated and never again able to connect online to other users. I'm sure if he wants to do that he'll do it on his own.

By all means defend the new cockpit ( apart from lighting, particularly backlighting, glad to know that's getting looked at, really needed...). Explain how it's not that different, show a couple of wireframe comparisons. Explain what actually changed and why people are perceiving it as different. Or do none of that if it's an unreasonable use of your time as a Community Manager. But don't use what is basically in insult to a ED's costumer.

Am I over reacting over this? IDK, I suppose you could even have said something along the lines of "unfortunately from now on the legacy cockpit will only be available in legacy versions of DCS, as maintaing it as an option would not be feasible". But telling a costumer to actually go there? Doesn't sound right to me

 

Nineline was not rude or insulting, he clearly stated that the only way to keep the old cockpit was to not update, and that is correct.

 

Lets not make this a personal issue, feel free to PM me if you wish to discuss it.

 

thanks

[ThorBrasil]

Now this is the most insulting answeer I could possibly have imagined from someone representating ED.

Was the request reasonable? I think so.

Was it feasible? IDK, only ED can decide on that. But if the answeer is no. Then just say no in a polite manner. Don't suggest to a client to permanently lock himself in a soon to be outdated version of the software that will never be updated and never again able to connect online to other users. I'm sure if he wants to do that he'll do it on his own.

By all means defend the new cockpit ( apart from lighting, particularly backlighting, glad to know that's getting looked at, really needed...). Explain how it's not that different, show a couple of wireframe comparisons. Explain what actually changed and why people are perceiving it as different. Or do none of that if it's an unreasonable use of your time as a Community Manager. But don't use what is basically in insult to a ED's costumer.

Am I over reacting over this? IDK, I suppose you could even have said something along the lines of "unfortunately from now on the legacy cockpit will only be available in legacy versions of DCS, as maintaing it as an option would not be feasible". But telling a costumer to actually go there? Doesn't sound right to me

 

ED is to be congratulated on the A-10C's new cockpit. Of course you need some adjustments, but over time it will be adjusted.

 

 

[ebabil]

I don't like to defend the producer like a fanboy but .. meh..

They give you a brand new cockpit which they didin't have to, and you blame them with being rude.

And also they stated that there will be updates on the pit afterwards, so problems may go away during that period. This is a 10 year old module.. Do you happen to see gta3 gets updates, new textures, new engine etc in these years?

 

And it is very clear that new pit has much more details compare to old pit. Yet old pit wasn't that good so we had to use ricardo's worn out pit all the time

[lxsapper]

ED is to be congratulated on the A-10C's new cockpit. Of course you need some adjustments, but over time it will be adjusted.

 

 

 

I don't like to defend the producer like a fanboy but .. meh..

They give you a brand new cockpit which they didin't have to, and you blame them with being rude.

And also they stated that there will be updates on the pit afterwards, so problems may go away during that period. This is a 10 year old module.. Do you happen to see gta3 gets updates, new textures, new engine etc in these years?

 

And it is very clear that new pit has much more details compare to old pit. Yet old pit wasn't that good so we had to use ricardo's worn out pit all the time

 

 

I said nothing in that post about the 3d in the cockpit. The only thing IMO that must be improved is the lighting and I have no doubt that ED will adjust this as necessary.

If you bother to check my previous posts in this thread (even just before) you will see they were actually trying to explain to some users, why there is nothing wrong with the 3D model in the new pit. I have not complained about the new pit. You really should read with more attention before chimming in. What I criticized was NL's response to a user whose opinion about the new pit I actually disagree with (See how things can be nuaced like?). If you had actually paid atention to what I said and read 3 posts above you would easily have seen that. Now I think what had been asked was reasonable to ask, in the sence that's a reasonable thing to put on a "wish list", it IS not reasonable to expect is that ED would be in anyway responsible to oblige all such requests, and it's fine for ED to say "we will not provide such feature"

What I absolutetly don't think it's allright is the answeer that was given by NL. Because you are giving the user (a costumer) what is basicaly a non-solution.

But you may dizagree, that's fine too.

But please don't missrepresent my position.

Criticizing the way you adress someone is not the same as saying "I dislike the sandwish you made", please don't conflate the two. I happen to like the "Sandwish".

I didn't ask for a new cockpit, but I'm glad it came.

I tried to explain here several times why there is nothing wrong with the "new" hud, and I never mentioned the lighting until my post about NL's response, because enough people have comented on it and ED has ackoledged that it's going to be looked at.

Really disagree with me all you want, but please make an effort to at least try to understand what I was arguing for, and what I wasn't.

[Redglyph]

I think this thread has outlived its purpose. It has been OT from the 3rd post and is obviously bound to continue as a useless debate... closing it now seems like a good move.

[NineLine]

Now this is the most insulting answeer I could possibly have imagined from someone representating ED.

Was the request reasonable? I think so.

Was it feasible? IDK, only ED can decide on that. But if the answeer is no. Then just say no in a polite manner. Don't suggest to a client to permanently lock himself in a soon to be outdated version of the software that will never be updated and never again able to connect online to other users. I'm sure if he wants to do that he'll do it on his own.

By all means defend the new cockpit ( apart from lighting, particularly backlighting, glad to know that's getting looked at, really needed...). Explain how it's not that different, show a couple of wireframe comparisons. Explain what actually changed and why people are perceiving it as different. Or do none of that if it's an unreasonable use of your time as a Community Manager. But don't use what is basically in insult to a ED's costumer.

Am I over reacting over this? IDK, I suppose you could even have said something along the lines of "unfortunately from now on the legacy cockpit will only be available in legacy versions of DCS, as maintaing it as an option would not be feasible". But telling a costumer to actually go there? Doesn't sound right to me

 

I'm sorry you thought I was trying to be insulting in any way at all. I simply was letting you know the only way to stay with older versions is to maintain older versions of DCS. We couldn't possibly maintain 2 completely different 3D models for the A-10C. People still play older versions for all sorts of reasons, this would be one of them, its why we still make older versions available.

[lxsapper]

I'm sorry you thought I was trying to be insulting in any way at all. I simply was letting you know the only way to stay with older versions is to maintain older versions of DCS. We couldn't possibly maintain 2 completely different 3D models for the A-10C. People still play older versions for all sorts of reasons, this would be one of them, its why we still make older versions available.

 

I don't think you necessarily tried to be insulting NL. I just thought it was insulting in the nature of the response because it sounded dismissive. But I'm sorry if I came down to hard as well. Maybe I'm ignorant of all the people who do play outdated versions of DCS. To me that's a totally invalid approach, and I supose that's why judged so harshly that an ED representative would present that as a solution to someone. But I appreciateunderstand I'm not everyone and maybe some people think this is fine. And I totally understand ED not wanting to keep the two cockpits, again, its perfectly fine to say no. Just as I think it was perfectly fine for him to ask. And heavens know my SSD can't handle the growing size of my DCS installation, I certainly don't need two sets of cockpits for an aircraft.

I disagree with the above poster that this thread should be closed. I think we are all adults here, we should be able to handle a little disagreement. But the matter of me disliking your post is closed as far as I'm concerned. I hope I was able to explain clearly why I didn't like it, but if not, I don't think I will be able to do any better than I already have. Anyway, I appreciate the way you handled it now. Thank you.

[BIGNEWY]

Please keep the thread topic High-quality A-10C cockpit.

 

Off topic posts will be deleted

 

thanks

[Redglyph]

Please keep the thread topic High-quality A-10C cockpit.

 

Off topic posts will be deleted

 

thanks

 

The original topic was those switches, so technically most of the posts are out of topic, even if you are ignoring my posts about that.

 

I'd really like to know why ED won't fix them, even though they have had a patch for 3 years that can be applied almost instantly.

 

Is there a fondness to keep the old, messy way each user has to guess whether they have to click right or left for each switch? Did they get used to it and don't want to get back to the standard that has been adopted for a long time?

 

Is that fear of incompatibility with specific instructions of some missions?

 

Is there another reason?

 

Seeing the number of downloads of the patch, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one annoyed by this. I understand ED is more eager to create new modules than maintain old ones, but the A-10C has the largest library of DLC and is one of the most complex and interesting module. And I would understand if they actually had to fix each of those switches, but since that part has been done and documented for them, I'm at a loss.

 

So at the very least, I'd like to know the reason, and not have a thread where every single post is ignoring my original question.

[BIGNEWY]

The original topic was those switches, so technically most of the posts are out of topic, even if you are ignoring my posts about that.

 

I'd really like to know why ED won't fix them, even though they have had a patch for 3 years that can be applied almost instantly.

 

Is there a fondness to keep the old, messy way each user has to guess whether they have to click right or left for each switch? Did they get used to it and don't want to get back to the standard that has been adopted for a long time?

 

Is that fear of incompatibility with specific instructions of some missions?

 

Is there another reason?

 

Seeing the number of downloads of the patch, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one annoyed by this. I understand ED is more eager to create new modules than maintain old ones, but the A-10C has the largest library of DLC and is one of the most complex and interesting module. And I would understand if they actually had to fix each of those switches, but since that part has been done and documented for them, I'm at a loss.

 

So at the very least, I'd like to know the reason, and not have a thread where every single post is ignoring my original question.

 

Hi Redglyph

 

your original question was not specific

 

 

Hi!

 

Today, we can read this update:

 

 

 

That's great news! :thumbup: Any estimation when this will be available?

 

Will that fix the cockpit switches too?

 

I have reported many switch issue for the A-10C

 

I can see in further posts you mean the switch direction, and can confirm switch logic has been reported.

 

So will mark this thread reported and closed as we are way off topic.

 

thanks

Edited December 24, 2019 by BIGNEWY