Second module I regret purchasing..

[WildBillKelsoe]

This thing is not even half finished! 

[Rudel_chw]

Why didnt you make use of the try-before-buy option? Even if you are a steam user, you can install a vanilla stand-alone DCS for trying out modules before purchasing.

[MAXsenna]

This thing is not even half finished! 

The forums are a pretty decent place to do research and read about feedback of long released modules.
Could you elaborate on your findings? To help other potential users.
Personally I didn't expect much myself, as this module I gathered was just an in between to get experience for the team, so I bought it to fund future ones.

Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[red23]

54 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

The forums are a pretty decent place to do research and read about feedback of long released modules.
Could you elaborate on your findings? To help other potential users.
Personally I didn't expect much myself, as this module I gathered was just an in between to get experience for the team, so I bought it to fund future ones.

Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

I bought it to help fund the team with the F4U lol. 

[Rudel_chw]

2 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

I bought it to fund future ones.

 

I did the same, but even so I did flew it for a while ... it was a fun experience, trying to imitate aerobatics maneouvers that I had watched at airshows.

[Raisuli]

I have one set up in a hardened shelter and take it out for a spin now and then.  Can't seem to get the TACAN to work, AIM120s won't fire, and forget about GBU-24s, but otherwise it's a really nice change of pace.  It's just plain awesome at Pyramid slaloming and can do maneuvers that would make a quail puke.  Apart from which if you can manage energy in this thing a 'real' combat plane is a piece of cake.

Probably the scariest bit is the difference between the external model and F1 view...where does that extra guy go?! 

Sorry you have buyer's remorse; that always leaves a bad feeling, but it can be quite a bit of fun for what it is.

[Slippa]

I got it a while back, flew it for a bit, it’s basic but flies easily and it’s alright for a bit if fun. It’s only cheap too if I remember correctly? Smoke on

[WildBillKelsoe]

because the sound hasnt been changed since its release. A pretty basic feature that constitutes a module. And many other bugs..

[Raisuli]

9 minutes ago, WildBillKelsoe said:

because the sound hasnt been changed since its release. A pretty basic feature that constitutes a module. And many other bugs..

Ha!  Interesting what people notice, because I paid no attention to the sound.  I can't even tell you what it sounds like, and I flew it last weekend!

I'm not saying it isn't important, just that it's not important to me! 

[Rudel_chw]

1 hour ago, WildBillKelsoe said:

because the sound hasnt been changed since its release. A pretty basic feature that constitutes a module. And many other bugs..

 

and that is enough to consider it only half-finished? ... bugs that you can't even mention? ... 

[Heimz]

Doesn't even belong in DCS a module in the first place, they could have spent the time on a half finished military trainer or cleaning up some DCS AI aircraft assets, or even making a pay-version of the Military AI Aircraft Mod.  

[Rudel_chw]

26 minutes ago, Heimz said:

Doesn't even belong in DCS a module in the first place

 

Why? ... I bet you also think the same of the I-16 too 

 

26 minutes ago, Heimz said:

... they could have spent the time on a half finished military trainer

 

DCS already has three trainers: C-101, L-39, and the MB.339 ... are you really looking forward to another one?

 

26 minutes ago, Heimz said:

... or cleaning up some DCS AI aircraft assets

 

Are you aware that those belong to Eagle Dynamics, while the  Chirsten Eagle is the work of a third party?

 

26 minutes ago, Heimz said:

, or even making a pay-version of the Military AI Aircraft Mod.  

 

Of course, like there are so many DCS users purchasing assets Packs (most whine all the time about why the WW2 Assets pack isnt free).

 

I totally understand that the CE2 isn't the combat aircraft most users want, but ranting about it is so pointless ...

 

Edited July 13, 2023 by Rudel_chw

[WildBillKelsoe]

14 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

Why? ... I bet you also think the same of the I-16 too 

 

 

DCS already has three trainers: C-101, L-39, and the MB.339 ... are you really looking forward to another one?

 

 

Are you aware that those belong to Eagle Dynamics, while the  Chirsten Eagle is the work of a third party?

 

 

Of course, like there are so many DCS users purchasing assets Packs (most whine all the time about why the WW2 Assets pack isnt free).

 

I totally understand that the CE2 isn't the combat aircraft most users want, but ranting about it is so pointless ...

 

 

its not about military or not its about the state of being finished is what I am ranting about, mind you as a paying customer....

16 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

and that is enough to consider it only half-finished? ... bugs that you can't even mention? ... 

when it comes to a basic feature like sound which defines fidelity, then I guess yes it is half-finished. And I am not the beta tester or getting paid to test the module and you have the bug reports section to see your list of bugs that I mentioned...

[Heimz]

22 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

Why? ... I bet you also think the same of the I-16 too 

DCS already has three trainers: C-101, L-39, and the MB.339 ... are you really looking forward to another one?

Are you aware that those belong to Eagle Dynamics, while the  Chirsten Eagle is the work of a third party?

Of course, like there are so many DCS users purchasing assets Packs (most whine all the time about why the WW2 Assets pack isnt free).

I totally understand that the CE2 isn't the combat aircraft most users want, but ranting about it is so pointless ...

 

 

Rudel, come on dude, this entire thread's intent is literally ranting about the regret of buying the CEII.   Don't deflect from the OP with my post, try absorbing the irritation caused by CEII.   I didn't even know the CEII had an engine for the first 2 years it was out, it would fly by me without a peep of sound.   Utterly a broken module and deserves a good berating to get it fixed so it can begrudgingly continue to be a licensed and purchased civilian aerobatic kit-plane in a combat-oriented simulator.   This module has been updated twice in the last 2 years, 16 total since it was released in 2019, and 7 of those updates were for textures or typos.  This frustrates paid users, and rightfully so.  

 

However, to retort:

The I-16 is, literally, a fighter plane and belongs in a digital combat simulator.   

The 3 trainers mentioned: 1) have served as light attack aircraft with actual combat service history, and 2) are incestuous in design and appearance with all 3 having similar qualities and appearance of being born by the same devil woman.  Dumping 3 similar looking trainers into DCS doesn't merit a 'DCS already has enough trainers' comment, when I personally fly the crap out of the free T-45 (dare I say devil woman-esque?) and would welcome a T-2 Buckeye or T-28 Trojan (which is why I fly the similar Yak-52 often).  I also fly the F-5 frequently because it reminds me of the T-38's that zip all over my skies.  I concede the 3 devil children have a place in a digital combat simulator even though I don't agree with ED's decision to allow us to be spammed with 3 versions of the same looking trainer.   I would prefer and enjoy some variation but that doesn't imply that CEII qualifies.   When a national military converts a CEII to launch Zunis I'll change my mind.   

If I thought CEII was DCS, why did I click on Magnitude 3 in the Third party project sub-forum? 

Look, my point is the resources it took the develop the CEII could have been allocated to some military-oriented vehicle (*cough* Corsair *cough*) to be used in a combat simulator.   Hence the rant is not pointless, you're just tired of hearing a common complaint.  The CEII would be perfect for MSFS where it could shine. 

Coincidentally, I wish I had time to go to EAA Air Venture next week so I could see some historic examples of CEII's on display.  IMHO, it's a great plane for other simulators, just not DCS.        

 

[Ramsay]

I wouldn't say I regret my purchase as
1. I did due diligence before my purchase (checked reviews, read the DCS and RL manuals, etc.)
2. have a good idea about my own preferences and how much time I would spend flying her
3. made sure to buy in a sale
4. there was nothing else DCS related that I wanted on sale

I didn't understand some of the positive reviews as, other than pretty liveries and a nice 3D model, it seemed lacking in many flight model, audio and system aspects - however, as I'd bought cheaply - it is very "back to basics" and a change from the complex aircraft I usually study and fly.

I was surprised by the aerobatic chapter in the manual, so spent perhaps 2-4 hours reading up on aerobatic notation and practicing some RL basic routines in DCS.

It was a pleasant  enough way to spend an afternoon and I learned something new.

However, as I have little interest in the current CE2, it'd take
• a module "refresh" like the Mirage 2000C or Gazelle 342 have received
• or a community "event"
... before I'll want fly her again.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Ramsay

[Callsign112]

I agree with the OP in that sound is a big part off immersion, but then again, I wouldn't know what a real CEII is supposed to sound like. So I guess there is that. Maybe threads like this will help M3 LLC decide to give the module a once over at some point, but personally I am very happy with my purchase. Aside from possible sound issues, the module is beautifully detailed and a hoot to fly on any map.