When will we see a major update to the games Core mechanics?

[unipus]

3 hours ago, Exorcet said:

I agree with you in not buying modules if you think DCS isn't worth it or isn't showing enough progress. Keep doing that. I also agree that DCS should have a better combat environment and I urge ED to work on that as much as possible. I don't agree that charging for add ons outside of modules is a good idea that will fix anything, but I touched on that already in previous posts. Modules can be priced to not only pay for themselves but the core, and if people are willing to pay for core improvements, they should also be willing to pay more for modules.

I'm absolutely NOT willing to pay more for modules. Not necessarily because of the actual cost (most of them are priced reasonably), but because it sends entirely the wrong message back to the bean-counters, and leads to this exact continued situation where there seems to be no perceived incentive to do anything but find new aircraft modules to develop.

[Ignition]

I like DCS very much, but it plays exactly the same as 15 years ago.

It didn't really change much in that aspect.

The AI needs to be improved A LOT, ground AI more so. You're charging 40 dollars for combined arms and the AI has huge problems with pathfinding and the F10 map its really basic for combined arms.

[Slice313]

The current business model has finally proven bad for customers. Core mechanics has to improve "now". (more importantly AI, Dynamic Campaign, Ground Damage and better performance/VR). More and more people will realize this, all we want is a shift of focus "from creating more modules" to "improving core DCS".

[Baldrick33]

2 hours ago, Slice313 said:

The current business model has finally proven bad for customers. Core mechanics has to improve "now". (more importantly AI, Dynamic Campaign, Ground Damage and better performance/VR). More and more people will realize this, all we want is a shift of focus "from creating more modules" to "improving core DCS".

I think those who were into more realistic simulations in the turn of the century be it flight or racing recognise the very existence of developers in these genre as something to be thankful for. Back then we got to buy a new boxed set every six months or so which made the previous ones somewhat obsolete because the new ones had better graphics, sound, features, AI and so

Unfortunately the market wasn’t viable and the big Publishers abandoned the genre and the small studios couldn’t survive.

Content seems to be king in flight and race simulations as a measure of completeness as much as we might decry it that appears to be how the market works, so I think we probably have to somewhat accept it as a means to having the sims we have at all. Of course that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t push hard for the things we want but the business model maybe a necessity for the very development of the niche product we desire.

 

[BIGNEWY]

2 hours ago, Slice313 said:

The current business model has finally proven bad for customers. Core mechanics has to improve "now". (more importantly AI, Dynamic Campaign, Ground Damage and better performance/VR). More and more people will realize this, all we want is a shift of focus "from creating more modules" to "improving core DCS".

More than half of our team are on Core DCS items, all work takes time, you will need to continue to be patient. 

thanks

6 minutes ago, Baldrick33 said:

I think those who were into more realistic simulations in the turn of the century be it flight or racing recognise the very existence of developers in these genre as something to be thankful for. Back then we got to buy a new boxed set every six months or so which made the previous ones somewhat obsolete because the new ones had better graphics, sound, features, AI and so

Unfortunately the market wasn’t viable and the big Publishers abandoned the genre and the small studios couldn’t survive.

Content seems to be king in flight and race simulations as a measure of completeness as much as we might decry it that appears to be how the market works, so I think we probably have to somewhat accept it as a means to having the sims we have at all. Of course that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t push hard for the things we want but the business model maybe a necessity for the very development of the niche product we desire.

 

Yes it is a very niche market, we have been around for many years and have seen others fade away, our teams work and plans have kept us going and we continue to grow. 

thank you 

[Rapierarch]

5 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

More than half of our team are on Core DCS items

Thank you, really thank you! I cross my fingers to see the fruits soon. 

[hotrod525]

Recognising the huge progress made to DCS over the years, EDGE, clouds, effects, flight model of different missiles / planes revisited, etc, the hard work and everything. I'd say that some of us ''kinda share'' the frustration. (I'm quite sure DEV team must have some of their own too, human being human.)

We know, ED studio is not Microsoft, and it not spiling dev out of nowhere. We do get it.

But sometimes, it's just feel like it'll take forever to get a feature long speaked off / promised. Things that improve the playability of DCS. Dont get me wrong, DCS is in the Epic Class of game on several side, but when i pass hours in the editor setting up a mission just to know where everything is, it feel ''meh'' (Mission Generator and I arent friend anymore). When i pass 10 to 15 mins on the ground setup up my SEQ and my weapons before take off, i kinda miss the DTC. ( I've seen the WW2 update video, the fuzing features looks amazing, let's say it was ''long awaited'')

Add delay and bad release on top, and yeah, you got some frustration in the community. I can settle in the middle that we need to be more patient and DCS does indeed need some critical new core features. On the positive note, we are currently all waiting anyway, so we are developping patience and pretty much all features we all mentionned here are in the pipeline or already worked on. (FLIR, Dyn-Weather, Dyn-Camp (or even just battle would do GREAT) etc, etc).

 

[Callsign112]

8 hours ago, unipus said:

I'm absolutely NOT willing to pay more for modules. Not necessarily because of the actual cost (most of them are priced reasonably), but because it sends entirely the wrong message back to the bean-counters, and leads to this exact continued situation where there seems to be no perceived incentive to do anything but find new aircraft modules to develop.

 

7 hours ago, Slice313 said:

The current business model has finally proven bad for customers. Core mechanics has to improve "now". (more importantly AI, Dynamic Campaign, Ground Damage and better performance/VR). More and more people will realize this, all we want is a shift of focus "from creating more modules" to "improving core DCS".

I am fairly new here, but after following a number of relevant threads, it is easy to understand all the frustration that has built up from long periods of waiting for things to be fixed.

The benefit for me I suppose is that reading all these threads has caused me to step back and ask why would anyone, let alone a company, want to create such frustration?

All of this has made me wonder if part of the problem ED initially faced was not having a large enough inventory of flyable modules that would allow them to sustain operations while they go back and address bug fixes and other issues? And adding to that problem as things progressed is the obvious elephant in the room, a growing expectation on the SIM to generate a more immersive environment (i.e. VR).

I know this take on things can't explain everything, but my hope is that the current inventory of flyable modules/tech packs/maps is sufficient, and after the incoming major core updates (Vulkan/multi-thread) are in place to better support things like VR, we will start to see more updates/bug fixes to previously released modules/maps/tech packs.

Fingers crossed

 

[Exorcet]

9 hours ago, unipus said:

I'm absolutely NOT willing to pay more for modules. Not necessarily because of the actual cost (most of them are priced reasonably), but because it sends entirely the wrong message back to the bean-counters, and leads to this exact continued situation where there seems to be no perceived incentive to do anything but find new aircraft modules to develop.

Well when it comes to send a message doing what you did here (writing out what you want) is probably stronger than buying or not buying modules. It communicates more information. I won't tell you how to do things, but if you're worried that paying for modules sends the wrong message (which I think would be difficult if core features were implicitly priced for) you could always send the correct message to the devs via forums,reviews, etc.

[esb77]

Interesting observation I had looking at this thread.

I think when people are talking about "Core game function" there's some disagreement on what the core function is.

If you look at DCS World as an aircraft simulator, then there is a lot of work on core functionalities.   Typically there are significant upgrades on something, or even many things, coming out every month to two months.   The changelogs bear this out.

If you look at DCS World as a warfare simulator, and feel that once an aircraft is in game and more or less functional further updates don't really count as "core," then there's a reasonable argument that there have been long periods of inaction on core functions.   Especially if you define core as anything that's key to your personal sense of immersion and/or fun, which are some what more subjective.   What's more "core" in a list of: armored vehicle damage model, naval damage model, AI dogfighting logic, or air defense AI can depend heavily on what sort of aircraft and what sort of mission a person prefers to fly.

 

I'd say that on balance, DCS has been, is, and for the forseeable future will continue to be, primarily an aircraft simulator.   That's the focus, and they do a really superb job of it.  For simulating everything else, well it's nice when stuff works well, but it's probably forgivable if for example my attempt to make a fun and engaging RallySyria.miz failed because a HMMWV couldn't make it up a hill that it would have had no trouble with in real life.

DCS tries to be a high fidelity simulator, but it's a narrowly targeted high fidelity simulator.

[Ignition]

On 2/26/2022 at 7:20 PM, esb77 said:

Interesting observation I had looking at this thread.

I think when people are talking about "Core game function" there's some disagreement on what the core function is.

If you look at DCS World as an aircraft simulator, then there is a lot of work on core functionalities.   Typically there are significant upgrades on something, or even many things, coming out every month to two months.   The changelogs bear this out.

If you look at DCS World as a warfare simulator, and feel that once an aircraft is in game and more or less functional further updates don't really count as "core," then there's a reasonable argument that there have been long periods of inaction on core functions.   Especially if you define core as anything that's key to your personal sense of immersion and/or fun, which are some what more subjective.   What's more "core" in a list of: armored vehicle damage model, naval damage model, AI dogfighting logic, or air defense AI can depend heavily on what sort of aircraft and what sort of mission a person prefers to fly.

 

I'd say that on balance, DCS has been, is, and for the forseeable future will continue to be, primarily an aircraft simulator.   That's the focus, and they do a really superb job of it.  For simulating everything else, well it's nice when stuff works well, but it's probably forgivable if for example my attempt to make a fun and engaging RallySyria.miz failed because a HMMWV couldn't make it up a hill that it would have had no trouble with in real life.

DCS tries to be a high fidelity simulator, but it's a narrowly targeted high fidelity simulator.

Agree, but the simulation in DCS stops at the aircrafts. When you start looking it as a game (because it is a game after all) the simulation starts to fall short.

We have statics and vehicles that are soo old, 10s of years old and also there are very few ships. The AI is as old as those models and the pathfinding is terrible. When you see that in game all that amazing simulation goes away because you can't believe how stupid the AI is and when you destroy the same static a thousand times (because there're very few of them) through all these years the magic of DCS goes away.

When you start doing your own missions you see clearly how stupid the AI is because you need to start over and over and over and over the mission because you need to "fight" the AI to do what you want it to do, needless to say you need to learn lua and scripting to greatly improve them.

Yes playing with friends is amazing, new clouds are amazing, the graphics are very good and the simulation overall is excellent (It's probably the best of any game) but ED needs to take this into consideration. I almost have no desire to fly anymore, I will when the AH-64D releases but if ED doesn't change this it won't last longer.

[Haukka81]

AI needs LOS model for clouds badly.

It may not be in works, they are so silent about it. Maybe engine limitation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Callsign112]

On 2/27/2022 at 9:37 PM, Ignition said:

Agree, but the simulation in DCS stops at the aircrafts. When you start looking it as a game (because it is a game after all) the simulation starts to fall short.

We have statics and vehicles that are soo old, 10s of years old and also there are very few ships. The AI is as old as those models and the pathfinding is terrible. When you see that in game all that amazing simulation goes away because you can't believe how stupid the AI is and when you destroy the same static a thousand times (because there're very few of them) through all these years the magic of DCS goes away.

When you start doing your own missions you see clearly how stupid the AI is because you need to start over and over and over and over the mission because you need to "fight" the AI to do what you want it to do, needless to say you need to learn lua and scripting to greatly improve them.

Yes playing with friends is amazing, new clouds are amazing, the graphics are very good and the simulation overall is excellent (It's probably the best of any game) but ED needs to take this into consideration. I almost have no desire to fly anymore, I will when the AH-64D releases but if ED doesn't change this it won't last longer.

You raise a very good point.

Because the majority of people that make it to DCS do so out of an interest in flying, the community is largely focused on the aviation side of DCS. It seems that most aren't interested in hearing about improvements to DCS unless the improvement is something directly related to a plane/jet/helicopter. This makes me wonder how many realize improving all aspects of DCS World (Ai army/navy units/logic) will help create a better more realistic flying experience. 

[Baco]

On 2/28/2022 at 2:08 AM, Haukka81 said:

AI needs LOS model for clouds badly.

It may not be in works, they are so silent about it. Maybe engine limitation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is indeed announced and hopefully in the works, but I do agree its a pretty urgent matter.

[FlankerKiller]

On 3/1/2022 at 10:45 AM, Callsign112 said:

You raise a very good point.

Because the majority of people that make it to DCS do so out of an interest in flying, the community is largely focused on the aviation side of DCS. It seems that most aren't interested in hearing about improvements to DCS unless the improvement is something directly related to a plane/jet/helicopter. This makes me wonder how many realize improving all aspects of DCS World (Ai army/navy units/logic) will help create a better more realistic flying experience. 

This is one of the most true statements I've ever seen. Imagine how much better the experience would be from just having a basic ground and ship Ai, or access to all the static map objects, or truly dynamic whether, or partial destruction on all map objects, or really really good anti air Ai, or really good air to air Ai, or the list gose on. I'm hoping DCS 3.0 will have the multi core support to allow more complex things, a d a truly dynamic campaign. 

[Relayer]

I feel like the single biggest issue I run into with DCS is that while it's an incredible aircraft simulator, it does a pretty poor job of then allowing you to use those aircraft in a plausible context, and in a lot of cases this comes down to the very limited ability to control the AI on the fly - currently they're good for being shot down and that's about it. Now, I appreciate that you can do a lot with the ME, however I also believe that I shouldn't have to spend ages tinkering in the ME to get the AI to do things in a non boneheaded manner. We should have an AI that is capable of making intelligent decisions and applying actual tactics. 

For a couple of brief examples: inability to get AI wingmen to target specific threats. I know with the A-10 I can say 'hey, attack stuff at my SPI' (which seems inop in any case) but I have no ability to do that in...say, an F/A-18, or F-16. We have tons of data integrated into L16 and seemingly no ability to leverage that into meaningful options for AI control. I want to be able to say 'hey, see that SA-8 I'm looking at? engage that target specifically'. Or 'hey, look at this point of interest and tell me what you see'. The same applies to A2A - the player and AI wingman should have the ability to sort targets in such a way that we can engage a pair of targets and know we're not engaging the same aircraft etc.

I want the dynamic campaign as much as the next person, but before that we need an AI wingman who actually knows how to be a figher pilot. At the moment we have an amazing simulator for complicated aircraft, but very little scope to really use them.

Edited April 1, 2022 by Relayer

[Steel Jaw]

What “upcoming “ DTC?

[WelshZeCorgi]

9 hours ago, Relayer said:

I feel like the single biggest issue I run into with DCS is that while it's an incredible aircraft simulator, it does a pretty poor job of then allowing you to use those aircraft in a plausible context, and in a lot of cases this comes down to the very limited ability to control the AI on the fly - currently they're good for being shot down and that's about it. Now, I appreciate that you can do a lot with the ME, however I also believe that I shouldn't have to spend ages tinkering in the ME to get the AI to do things in a non boneheaded manner. We should have an AI that is capable of making intelligent decisions and applying actual tactics. 

For a couple of brief examples: inability to get AI wingmen to target specific threats. I know with the A-10 I can say 'hey, attack stuff at my SPI' (which seems inop in any case) but I have no ability to do that in...say, an F/A-18, or F-16. We have tons of data integrated into L16 and seemingly no ability to leverage that into meaningful options for AI control. I want to be able to say 'hey, see that SA-8 I'm looking at? engage that target specifically'. Or 'hey, look at this point of interest and tell me what you see'. The same applies to A2A - the player and AI wingman should have the ability to sort targets in such a way that we can engage a pair of targets and know we're not engaging the same aircraft etc.

I want the dynamic campaign as much as the next person, but before that we need an AI wingman who actually knows how to be a figher pilot. At the moment we have an amazing simulator for complicated aircraft, but very little scope to really use them.

 

Agreed. It's getting boring just plinking tanks while they sit there and take it. Not seeking cover or deploying countermeasures like smoke, or otherwise reacting appropriately on a logistical, strategic, tactical basis. Or even basic combat ability for that matter. AI bandits don't fight you, they cheat their flight models and fly predictably. 

 

That makes for a great sim that you can't fully enjoy. Like a racing sim that simulates down to the bolt but makes you race on go kart tracks. 

Edited April 2, 2022 by WelshZeCorgi

[Baldrick33]

5 hours ago, WelshZeCorgi said:

That makes for a great sim that you can't fully enjoy. Like a racing sim that simulates down to the bolt but makes you race on go kart tracks. 

 

I am not sure that makes for a great analogy as in the hardcore sim racing community equivalent of DCS, AI is for MarioKart. If you want human intelligence to race against then race against humans or something like that!

With the advent of generally available broadband the need for AI in sim racing was believed to be a thing of the past. Only recently has AI got more serious attention and even now some of the hardcore sim racers think it is a waste of resources. Fact is far more people play racing sims single player even if the vocal sim racing enthusiast find that incredulous.

I could imagine back in the early days of developing a digital combat world there was a vision for all those aircraft and tanks being flown and crewed by real people. There are other games where it kind of happens but not the experience most of us here would be looking for. Multiplayer here is even more of a niche within a niche as the complexities of combat and knowledge required far outweigh driving an MX5 round a race track!

[MadKreator]

I’d be happy if my wingman didn’t eject the moment they hit bingo fuel, especially when they are only a few miles from an airfield LOL 

I try to see both sides. As an aircraft sim, great, modules are super detailed, very complex and fun to learn and rewarding when you can actually implement them! At the same time, once you get to that point things start to fall short as the attention starts to turn to the world you’re flying in. Then you really notice things lacking, such as AI logic(or lack thereof), jittery clouds in the distance especially in vr, terrain graphics ( especially trees) that look like cardboard cutouts. You start to see how dated some things really are. Don’t get me wrong, it doesn’t stop me from playing several times a week. It doesn’t stop me from purchasing modules and content. But I do find myself digging through lua files and looking for mods to address things. 

For example, I installed a user mod for caucuses map, that makes trees look way, way better with literally no performance impact. Being a 95% ground pounder / low level flier, things like that are a world of difference for me. Not so much for someone dogfighting at 25k ft. Tree mod is awesome.. until you go to multiplayer and it breaks IC, even though its only rendering on my machine not affecting the server in any way. To me, taking the time to adjust some of those textures, or even using/ paying the creator for their work and implementing that change is far more important than adjusting the drag coefficient of an mk82 that is almost un-noticeable to the user,  pulled that straight from my ars but you get the  point. I have a cloud mod, one single file I replaced the original with, that does a great job smoothing out and blending the clouds. Its not a major overhaul, but for someone who really wants visual fidelity all around, its a nice improvement. 

To me the core mechanics are things like that, not just the flyable aircraft but everything around, textures, Ai, explosions, things to do, things to make it more enjoyable as a game. To others, core mechanics are every little detail about the modules themselves. I don’t use 50% of things the planes can do. I’m perfectly content if I can fly the plane use its main functions, deploy each weapon etc.I don’t care necessary that the aircraft radio isn’t modeled 100% exactly like the real thing. Or if the visual wing flex isn’t true pulling 8 g’s. It is, after all, called Digital Combat Simulator.. not Digital Aircraft Simulator. With that in mind, the dynamic RTS type campaign will be the best thing for the game as far as usefully implementing the modules we’ve all spent countless hours learning, and making it feel more like a real Combat Simulator IMO. Obviously that’s been beaten to death in other posts… Multicore to distribute the load and AI logic improvements probably need to go hand in hand with that as well to make everything functional as a whole.

I’m not a dev/ programmer/ coder, I know literally 0% about making these things happen, and can’t fathom how much work it takes. So as much as I want a list of changes, so do the other thousands of people that play DCS, and its quite impossible ( maybe improbable is the better term) for ED to just jump on it and do everything everyone wants in every in every post.

I for one am very thankful we have what we have from them! It’s not like they don’t put out patches and changes every month for us all. They do much much more than most other game developers! They are working on everything they can I’m sure, and as a business they need to make money( selling modules, maps campaigns etc ) to bring us these updates whether it’s exactly what each of us want or not. So to say I’m never buying anything again until this gets done is kind of silly since buying those things is exactly what it takes for updates and changes to actually happen. If every player quits buying modules until the DC comes out , ED would  prob go out of business or shut down the DCS world side all together because they wouldn’t be able to pay the 150+ employees(Wikipedia). No one is going to work for free and just get it done. I seriously doubt they have weekly meetings talking about how they can screw us over and milk us for all we’re worth while bathing in their piles of cash. It takes money and time. It would be nice if one or the other was infinite and just magically happened, but its not, and it wont. Support and patience is the best we can give in order to get the returns we want. If they don’t succeed then DCS World won’t either. Then we're left with nothing at all. End Rant

Edited April 4, 2022 by MadKreator

[Simultaneous]

Agree with MadKreator.

 

We are very lucky to have DCS as such an in depth simulation of a pretty wide range of aircraft and theatres. Especially in tough times economically, politically etc. It really is a luxury and without DCS there would be nothing to compare.

I am mostly desperate for the VR performance improvements from Vulkan / multi-thread, as on my Pimax 8K X it is really pushing things. I can however certainly get it to run plenty well enough for it to be an amazing experience. But improving on that so I can turn the remaining graphics settings up full with even smoother framerate is of course an ideal situation, so this update for me is the biggest.

That said, ED trying to cover everything everyone demands of them is a huge amount of work, and simply not possible with the resources and funding from such a niche product market. I think they do a great job of keeping things coming - modules, fixes, improvements etc, and keeping us pretty well updated, whilst not shooting themselves in the foot by making promises they might not be able to keep, then suffering the ire of those disgruntled customers who were banking on that particular feature. It's the nature of software development.

We saw dramatic improvements with 2.7 and the clouds are a good example of something ED kept quiet then dropped on us pretty much without notice (save for the sneaky background clouds in Wags' vids). So I feel they are doing a great job and doing their very best to serve all their customers.

And the Apache is awesome. So it is hard to grudge the work that goes into such things and be annoyed it has not instead gone into something else I might personally want more. 

Thanks ED and I patiently but very eagerly await the core engine updates for better VR performance!

[chembleton]

I've bought most modules but I'm utterly bored with DCS now. Like many I've spent a fortune on the F-14, F-18, Supercarrier and Persian Gulf etc and I'm on a carrier deck with a low res S-3 Viking and SH-60 Sea Hawk. I've repeatedly mentioned this on Facebook page but it's on the to do list apparently. How hard would it be - it is it spoils the immersion. Maybe they've updated them already, I don't know, I haven't been inclined to play DCS much in last few months. Utterly bored. I've asked for a check list for training missions or some sort of success rate that you can look to tick each one off and improve on, never happened that I know of. I spent a fortune, built my pc around DCS but I have no current inclination to buy more modules and a VR headset because I'm just so bored of it. There's no fun in DCS, for me anyway. That's my 2 cents worth. Sorry to sound negative, there's so much that's good about it but I log on and think ok what now and switch off after 10 minutes. 

[Rudel_chw]

7 minutes ago, chembleton said:

I've bought most modules but I'm utterly bored with DCS now.

Maybe you need to try other games, for example American Truck Simulator is very relaxing and has a long list of Steam accomplishments to fulfill. 

[Photon]

Have to agree with the sentiment that a lot of others are voicing here.

DCS is awesome if you only consider your own aircraft. Awesome models, physics, etc etc.

Me and my RL friend - who I lured into DCS- have been having fun learning to fly the AH64 together. Now that it feels like we have learned enough that we can employ all the weapon systems etc, the simulation of the rest of the world is what's letting us down. 
As an example. You join a MP server with a persistent mission. Get a mission to kill x targets in a town. You find them, and start picking them off. No taking cover, no defensive actions, maybe some limited movement, but nothing that would constitute "intelligence". More like cows for the slaughter. 

So I agree with a lot of the other here. I really wish the simulation of the outside world, especially the AI, would be improved with the actual I part in AI. 

[StormBat]

  I think like Jabbers I'm starting to get DCS World Burnout too.  That's why I stopped buying anything from ED months ago, and that's why I have no interest in getting anything else until the Core mechanics and AI ground/Air units get a huge overhaul.  I would love to get the  upcoming Corsair, but I'm not interested in most of the gameplay mechanics anymore.  Most of the time when I can play(disabled ATM with a bad shoulder that effects my game-time)I find I just do instant action missions, even though there are plenty of good mission makers out there, hell I even dabble in mission making, and have gotten pretty good at it.   But it's just the same thing over and over again rinse and repeat, except for the improved eye-candy, explosions and high fidelity mods.  it seems like a naked, lonely world, devoid of realistic dynamic assets, ATC, AI behavior, and so on and so forth.  Gets boring, real fast, even online with friends, or in my case my brother.

 

 Like I said Jabbers has a great take on it here.  Anyway I hope ED realise that just putting out Hi-Res Maps and high fidelity Mods won't be enough to sustain them unless they show significant improvements to the Game core(Bugs, Bugs, Bugs, dynamic environment, ground/sea asset DM, realistic active airspace civilians and military, VR/multiplayer support, especially for a more polished and better Combined Arms etc, etc).  I'm not giving up on them(flew my Ka-50 today on the Apache Hunting ground mission, it was okay for an hour, but I had to get off because my shoulder was getting to sore.  Anyway I think ED might be getting the point with this thread.  I'll be patient while I finish my physio therapy the next few months, but I'm still not buying anything else till then either, or afterwards until the Improvements that BN, NL have stated will happen.