please see faq Release by end of Q1 2022

[kgillers3]

People are going to complain no matter what.  

[Paladin1cd]

And it will have things that are broken no matter what. Best to get it out and find out what’s what. 

[Raptor9]

20 minutes ago, kgillers3 said:

People are going to complain no matter what.  

I can't wait to hear the two arguments that always get brought up any time a major DCS update happens:
1) I paid for early access, and as a paying customer I shouldn't be given a product with [insert bug here]
2) "Everyone" plays on Open Beta, so Open Beta is actually just Stable by a different name. They shouldn't be allowing [insert bug here] to affect Open Beta like this.

Both are so illogical and silly, yet they will always happen.  No matter what.  I promise. 

[MAXsenna]

29 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

I can't wait to hear the two arguments that always get brought up any time a major DCS update happens:
1) I paid for early access, and as a paying customer I shouldn't be given a product with [insert bug here]
2) "Everyone" plays on Open Beta, so Open Beta is actually just Stable by a different name. They shouldn't be allowing [insert bug here] to affect Open Beta like this.

Both are so illogical and silly, yet they will always happen.  No matter what.  I promise. 

Won't be betting against that...

[kgillers3]

1 hour ago, Raptor9 said:

I can't wait to hear the two arguments that always get brought up any time a major DCS update happens:
1) I paid for early access, and as a paying customer I shouldn't be given a product with [insert bug here]
2) "Everyone" plays on Open Beta, so Open Beta is actually just Stable by a different name. They shouldn't be allowing [insert bug here] to affect Open Beta like this.

Both are so illogical and silly, yet they will always happen.  No matter what.  I promise. 

3) I read, think, heard it's supposed to do this.  Why doesn't it do this!

Edited January 14, 2022 by kgillers3

[Harry_Bumcrack]

Patience is a virtue... I've got nothing else!

[stormrider]

11 hours ago, kgillers3 said:

3) I read, think, heard it's supposed to do this.  Why doesn't it do this!

 

I hope you're not preparing the ground.

[kgillers3]

5 hours ago, stormrider said:

I hope you're not preparing the ground.

I’m a little unsure what you mean by this. 

[WobblyFlops]

17 hours ago, kgillers3 said:

3) I read, think, heard it's supposed to do this.  Why doesn't it do this!

If there's empirical evidence for a certain feature existing in the real life aircraft and it's not implemented, discussion can be had as to why that particular feature isn't implemented in the game. The data may not apply to the specific era that's modelled by ED, the community may misunderstand the feature or it's something it 'should do' but ED for whatever reason haven't implemented it (yet). Discussion is important to validate the veracity of the information through peer review (which includes helpful and informative SMEs) and allow ED to address if that particular feature should be in the game and whether or not it will eventually end up getting implemented. What's wrong with it? 

 

Or are you against using real life documentation to fact check the in game products? The last time someone used the TM to ask about certain features of the Apache your reaction was very negative. I may understand if it's due to OPSEC or legal concerns but if the documentation or data is available through legal open source means, I see no issue to discuss. Illegally obtain documents can't be referenced on the forum anyway.

Edited January 14, 2022 by WobblyFlops

[Cathnan]

On 1/13/2022 at 6:50 AM, MrDieing said:

This never works. The initial excitement always very quickly makes place for annoyance or anger, depending on the type of person you are. It's a 'damned if they do, damned if they don't' scenario.

Take longer to release, people will cry they want it now no matter the state

Release it in a semi-buggy, unfinished, unpolished state, people will cry that ED should have kept it in the oven a bit longer.

In the end all we can do is have a little patience and let the Gods at ED decide when they grace us with the presence of the holy Apache.

I think if the F16 launch taught us one thing, then that ED is far better of postponing once more if need be. The reputation of not keeping deadlines is already there anyway (not saying I hold a grudge against them), and at least parts of the community don't forget and - which is the problem imo - don't forgive a botched launch. Can't remember a single thread about EA in which the F16 wasn't brought up as the sole reason not to pre-order. Despite ED having launched several modules since, which I haven't heard complaints about. I mean more than the complaints you hear about any module. A botched launch apparently burns itself in the collective memory and you never hear the end of it. A succsessful one, even if postponed, seems to go more or less unnoticed in the long run. I know what I would choose.

[Steel Jaw]

On 1/12/2022 at 11:58 AM, BIGNEWY said:

We appreciate your patience, our plan is currently the end of January, if that changes we will let you all know. 

We want the release to be the best it can be.

thanks

No worries, do what ya gotta do.

[BioZ]

On 1/12/2022 at 1:31 PM, viper522 said:

I don't worry about the Apache features for an Apache EA release as much as I worry about the core DCS dependencies like improved FLIR. They've already had multiple SME flights - we know it flies, shoots, self- and buddy-lases, and more. The big picture stuff (IMO) is more likely to delay its EA release into Spring 2022.

If you haven't seen it, I suggest watching CasmoTV youtube, he is an RL AH-64D Pilot and one of the SMEs for the AH-64D DCS module, he flew the apache, and according to his words its more or less ready for EA, just a few polishes to be done.

https://youtu.be/bDzgaN_iWPg

[kgillers3]

1 hour ago, WobblyFlops said:

If there's empirical evidence for a certain feature existing in the real life aircraft and it's not implemented, discussion can be had as to why that particular feature isn't implemented in the game. The data may not apply to the specific era that's modelled by ED, the community may misunderstand the feature or it's something it 'should do' but ED for whatever reason haven't implemented it (yet). Discussion is important to validate the veracity of the information through peer review (which includes helpful and informative SMEs) and allow ED to address if that particular feature should be in the game and whether or not it will eventually end up getting implemented. What's wrong with it? 

 

Or are you against using real life documentation to fact check the in game products? The last time someone used the TM to ask about certain features of the Apache your reaction was very negative. I may understand if it's due to OPSEC or legal concerns but if the documentation or data is available through legal open source means, I see no issue to discuss. Illegally obtain documents can't be referenced on the forum anyway.

 

People are going to complain anyways.  So hopefully you have the correctly dated TM.  But the TM isn't the end all be all. I'd suggest if you have question of a difference between whatever documentation you're sourcing to ask.  There quite a few SME's who have flown this specific version and model as their daily job.  There are people who can help with other things like myself who haven't flown this specific model (I feel like I've been pretty open about that) but alot of the things are similar enough that I can explain.  With access to supplemental information.  Just because you don't get the answer you want doesn't make it wrong. I can read a book on carpentry but I 100% don't know more than a 15 year carpenter. So if I had a carpentry question regardless of the book I read, I'd probably lead off with a question. 

But I'd still bet that people are going to complain. Argue with the SME's, or people who actually fly helicopters, or maybe perhaps one of those people who fly 64's but not this specific version. 

TL,DR: If you have a presumption that something might be off, just ask the question rather than demand. 

 

 

Edited January 14, 2022 by kgillers3

[Jayhawk1971]

vor 42 Minuten schrieb kgillers3:

But I'd still bet that people are going to complain. Argue with the SME's, or people who actually fly helicopters, or maybe perhaps one of those people who fly 64's but not this specific version. 

You mean highly educated graduates from the renowned "/Kurt Plummer/* Center of the PC Test Pilot School", located at NAS Mom's Basement, or its subdivision at Fort Tuck-In?  

 

* old simmers should be familiar with that name, as well as the use of "/ /"  

[WobblyFlops]

1 hour ago, kgillers3 said:

There quite a few SME's who have flown this specific version and model as their daily job.  There are people who can help with other things like myself who haven't flown this specific model (I feel like I've been pretty open about that) but alot of the things are similar enough that I can explain

That's fair but once you get to topics that SMEs can't or won't talk about, all you'll have is public documentation. Not to mention that having multiple SMEs active on the forums is pretty rare. The vast majority of other modules may have some (or none at all) but they usually don't answer many questions, so usually all we could utilize was publically available stuff.

[kgillers3]

4 minutes ago, WobblyFlops said:

That's fair but once you get to topics that SMEs can't or won't talk about, all you'll have is public documentation. Not to mention that having multiple SMEs active on the forums is pretty rare. The vast majority of other modules may have some (or none at all) but they usually don't answer many questions, so usually all we could utilize was publically available stuff.

Well maybe this is the exception but I promise you that  they’re here and are active, I don’t know a single person who’s involved or has experience who doesn’t want to help people with the module. My go to is if I landed at an airport and were showing people around the aircraft (yes we do that) if I wouldn’t tell you there I won’t tell you here. 

If I or they won’t expand on a subject shouldn’t that be pretty explanatory that it’s sensitive? Like I’m active on here and I’m happy to divulge down any really open non sensitive area, so the information I conclude you’re looking for is the sensitive stuff.  The excuse of well what’s it really hurt? It could be nothing or it could be everything. Do you really need to know to accomplish a good time in dcs? The answer is no. 
I have yet to see an official site with a downloadable tm that’s accessible for the general public. So to me it’s not been officially released, maybe I’m wrong.  

In addition transferring real life to a sim is almost impossible to generate 1-1, because a computer is taking data to simulate something say that a hydraulics system would do etc. that’s an example. So because there’s not an actual hydraulic line with fluid, the computer replicates that. It doesnt all transfer over 1-1. There needs to be an understanding about that. Which is why I would recommending waiting for the ed manual. Referencing true open source info is great and I think it should give you the ammo for what questions to ask, but you should recognize you also don’t have all the pertinent data even with a tm or old gunnery manual so it doesn’t give an individual an excuse to demand something they don’t fully understand. 

The issue becomes when people familiar with the platform explain something and the people who are not willingly remain ignorant or naive. Which is fine, and by all means call me toxic if I give you an answer you don’t want. But we still call it the tads, regardless of what you read or the cool promotion video. I’m not pointing the finger at you @WobblyFlops, more of a statement for the masses. 

My hope is people will read this, be able to ask questions to help Ed and the smes improve the module, but also have realistic expectations so that they have a great time and not worry on why the delta doesn’t have space engines or something. 

Im personally very excited for the module, to share portions of my world with peeps. I hope everyone who messes with it finds it enjoyable. I’m sure the smes feel the same. 

[kgillers3]

I'm also no exception, I've been wrong before, and I'm sure I'll be wrong in the future too. Perfect example is the 0 having a dash or not having a dash on the ku.  I was at home when the discussion was taking place, my -10 shows no dash, I looked at my procedure trainer program, it has no dash.  I woulda bet money that there was no dash.  But I still went to the aircraft and just like @Raptor9 said, it has a dash. We all get things wrong sometimes. I had two sources that said no dash, but behold the aircraft has a dash in it's ku 0. So that's a perfect example of tm saying / doing something that isn't exactly right. 

[WobblyFlops]

44 minutes ago, kgillers3 said:

If I or they won’t expand on a subject shouldn’t that be pretty explanatory that it’s sensitive? Like I’m active on here and I’m happy to divulge down any really open non sensitive area, so the information I conclude you’re looking for is the sensitive stuff.  The excuse of well what’s it really hurt? It could be nothing or it could be everything. Do you really need to know to accomplish a good time in dcs? The answer is no. 

I'm not looking for any information, not sure what you're even referring to. And that's exactly the point, historically the vast majority of discussions about other modules heavily touch on sensitive areas that SMEs can't talk about. Those areas are still replicated in the sim, and we have to use deduction, every piece of open source information that we can scrounge up and a make some cohesive argument from that. Is it actually true to real life? Probably not, but the entire goal is to make the capabilities and systems as close as possible and push ED to do so. 

 

44 minutes ago, kgillers3 said:

So because there’s not an actual hydraulic line with fluid, the computer replicates that.

DCS is first and foremost a switchology, cockpit simulator. What it can do is to replicate (even without actually simulating underlying components) behaviour that you could see if you press a button or open a page on the MFD. 

 

44 minutes ago, kgillers3 said:

Which is why I would recommending waiting for the ed manual.

But the ED manual only tells you what it's supposed to do in the game, not how it's supposed to be in real life. So it's completely useless to see what systems or functions are unimplemented. 

 

44 minutes ago, kgillers3 said:

but you should recognize you also don’t have all the pertinent data even with a tm or old gunnery manual so it doesn’t give an individual an excuse to demand something they don’t fully understand. 

This is the inherent limitation of this entire hobby. Of course I'd love if there were every piece of testing data, operational report, any sort of technical manual and all that you can think of available about every module in the public realm but this is not the actual situation. We are limited by the availability of the data. But that doesn't mean that we can just give up and let perfect be the enemy of good enough.

 

But to illustrate my point further, let's use the Hornet as an example. It doesn't have a slew map function to this day but its usage is clearly described in the NATOPS and there's even a slew button on the DDI. We know from Wags' video that the Apache will come with a slew function. Let's say as a hypothetical scenario that the Apache (like the Hornet) were to also come without the ability to slew the map and it would stay like that for 3 years. Do you think that because you don't have all the data about the aircraft, you can't make a wishlist item about the map slew, referencing the TM? Another example, the A-10 still doesn't have the COMM page implemented. What if the Apache were to leave EA without the COM page? 

 

Or let's examine a topic where SMEs wouldn't be able to help, the F-15's radar. It had the same radar range as the Flanker, even though we have open source experimental data that shows that the real performance is much better. An actual F-15 pilot would likely still not talk about radar performance regardless, so people had to scour the internet and find that data, which may not tell the full picture but it's good enough for ED to adjust it one day. 

 

And don't get me wrong, I'm grateful to have SMEs. However, I'm still very sceptical about the result because when other modules also had SME input it was still very often ignored or postponed to be implemented when development resources allow during 'product sustainment' after a 3-4 year old EA cycle. 

Edited January 14, 2022 by WobblyFlops

[kgillers3]

4 minutes ago, WobblyFlops said:

I'm not looking for any information, not sure what you're even referring to. And that's exactly the point, historically the vast majority of discussions about other modules heavily touch on sensitive areas that SMEs can't talk about. Those areas are still replicated in the sim, and we have to use deduction, every piece of open source information that we can scrounge up and a make some cohesive argument from that. Is it actually true to real life? Probably not, but the entire goal is to make the capabilities and systems as close as possible and push ED to do so. 

 

 

 

Let me ask you this, if I were to land at whatever airport is near you, and you walked up too me, would you lead off with telling me about the aircraft? Or would you ask and expand your knowledge? Then if you were to ask a question and I said sorry, I'm not going to talk about that.  Would you start trying to teach me about it? The SME's are here they're willing to help. Even if you don't know who they are. AH64 pilots who haven't flown this period are also here, they're willing to help.  Wait and see what's released, make a comparison on your understanding. Ask if its supposed to be this way. Or what's missing. If this is coming or not. That's my recommendation. 

My common theme throughout all of this. Open sourced information > should give you some questions > Ask those questions >  If they're non sensitive they can be answered. If it's something wrong I'm sure in time it'll be remedied. 

My original statement stands. "3) I read, think, heard it's supposed to do this.  Why doesn't it do this!" All they had to do was ask, and accept the answer even if it was an answer they didn't want or hoped for. I mean don't get it twisted there are things I think woulda been cool but aren't being incorporated. But you think I'm pulling up manuals going "You're wrong because of x,y,z!" Even though I had no idea what was incorporated or not. Nope. I acknowledge it and move on. 

I'm like everyone else just patiently waiting for the release to play around with it.  I can only recommend to you, but since being apart of this forum I've heard people with no experience with the aircraft tell me that I would or wouldn't do things because of their perception. Like I fly the 64. How are you going to tell me I would or wouldn't do things, or what it looks like in x example.  

Choose your own road. 

 

[Zeagle]

2 hours ago, Jayhawk1971 said:

You mean highly educated graduates from the renowned "/Kurt Plummer/* Center of the PC Test Pilot School", located at NAS Mom's Basement, or its subdivision at Fort Tuck-In?  

 

* old simmers should be familiar with that name, as well as the use of "/ /"  

Thank you for that Jayhawk. I got big smile from that one. Well played sir!

[StrongHarm]

ED is very good at incorporating community feedback, while not caving to unreasonable community pressure, and for this we're lucky.  Can you imagine what DCS would look like if community complaints effected development priority?  We'd have a dynamic campaign and two aircraft to fly.  Although the complaints don't seem to affect dev priority, I'm sure it has some effect on the individuals who've worked so hard to make DCS what it is today.  Some of these people are brutal.  They'd give a surgeon who saved their life a negative review, because their butt cheeks showed through the split in their gown.

[Raptor9]

I don't want to speak for @kgillers3, but I think he was making a generalized joke about a very small group of people.  Like most things in life, a few very loud people ruin things for the silent majority.  These same people tend to turn forum threads into personal arguments where it is more about trying desperately to prove they are right instead of getting to the bottom of the topic to find out what the truth is.

If you want to see such an example of how quickly such a thread can go off the rails, have a look at the APKWS thread.  It's locked for a reason; the same reason the thread about Stingers is shut down.  Everyone made it abundantly clear where they stand regarding what they thought should be in the DCS AH-64D, the people that actually know what they are talking about on those topics provided facts, and the various camps had no way to reconcile their differences because no one ever really changes anyone's mind using the internet.

At the end of the day, nobody on these forums can force anyone else to accept what they say as fact, nor are they required to.  It's everyone's choice to believe what they want to believe, just as it is anyone's choice not to engage with the loud minority on these forums.  When internet threads turn childish, the adults generally just leave.

Edited January 15, 2022 by Raptor9

[Harry_Bumcrack]

4 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

I don't want to speak for @kgillers3, but I think he was making a generalized joke about a very small group of people.  Like most things in life, a few very loud people ruin things for the silent majority.  These same people tend to turn forum threads into personal arguments where it is more about trying desperately to prove they are right instead of getting to the bottom of the topic to find out what the truth is.

If you want to see such an example of how quickly such a thread can go off the rails, have a look at the APKWS thread.  It's locked for a reason; the same reason the thread about Stingers is shut down.  Everyone made it abundantly clear where they stand regarding what they thought should be in the DCS AH-64D, the people that actually know what they are talking about on those topics provided facts, and the various camps had no way to reconcile their differences because no one ever really changes anyone's mind using the internet.

At the end of the day, nobody on these forums can force anyone else to accept what they say as fact, nor are they required to.  It's everyone's choice to believe what they want to believe, just as it is anyone's choice not to engage with the loud minority on these forums.  When internet threads turn childish, the adults generally just leave.

 

I really appreciate how the people who have real world experience are prepared to share what they know and make this module as realistic an experience as possible for those of us who don't.

It can be really hard trying to educate armchair warriors about a sim, but please don't give up on the silent majority. I did on the forums for a very realistic armoured vehicle simulation because of these very reasons and still kinda regret it (former RAAC soldier IRL).

[stormrider]

13 hours ago, Cathnan said:

I think if the F16 launch taught us one thing, then that ED is far better of postponing once more if need be. The reputation of not keeping deadlines is already there anyway (not saying I hold a grudge against them), and at least parts of the community don't forget and - which is the problem imo - don't forgive a botched launch. Can't remember a single thread about EA in which the F16 wasn't brought up as the sole reason not to pre-order. Despite ED having launched several modules since, which I haven't heard complaints about. I mean more than the complaints you hear about any module. A botched launch apparently burns itself in the collective memory and you never hear the end of it. A succsessful one, even if postponed, seems to go more or less unnoticed in the long run. I know what I would choose.

Talking about the F-16 release in the Apache's EA topic is bad omen! It was so bad in so many ways.

From the day it was launched, (and cashed upon), it's development was halted and the product itself delayed for...until the other product was finished, whenever it should be. Not what one would expect of a EA product, is it, specially not what one would expect when it was explicit said that there would be 2 separate team working on both projects? The critics were all quickly censored and given warning points. All the ingredients for a perfect storm.

Criticism will always exist, specially for a EA product. The F-16 was an aberration.

For the smarties, instead of making jokes, they should instead focus their wits to steer and incentivize the criticism towards constructive criticism. The jokes, the irony, the sarcasm and the ego are roots of the toxicity in this community.

 

 

Edited January 15, 2022 by stormrider

[rweaves6]

We received our first official DCS World news update for 2022 today and I noticed it comes with no new information on the Apache development. 

I admit I was a bit surprised we didn’t get an update on anything, especially it’s release date. I’ve noticed the small niche flight sim/game market has been hit hard by the pandemic, it appears all developers have been moving at a snail’s pace. This of course is completely acceptable and regardless, we will wait patiently.