AVSIM review of DCS

[th3flyboy]

EB, expect me to respond to that in an e-mail that will go to Rob as well as one posted here, right now I'm at school, I admit a few inaccuracies that you have pointed out, but I will state this, There is a lot of contradictory info coming through the forums, that has led me to believe things that were incorrect. Please forgive me for having certain inaccuracies. Please note however that the E-mail I got from the editor about the review also had certain inaccuracies as criticisms. I have found various sources around the internet for most of my stuff, and a few things, such as the MP campaign compatibility, EB let me remind you what YOU have said on the SimHQ TS to ME and various other community members regarding multiplayer campaigns.

 

EB expect a full response to your comments along with armeh as soon as I get home. I have a point and counterpoint for just about everything that has been mentioned. Finally, the reason I question if you guys actually worked with kamov or not is because everything stating that you have has come from YOUR team. I have learned over the years not to trust the developers when they are talking up their product. If you want me to trust that information, get me the e-mail at kamov I would have to ask about this at. EB believe me when I say, I try to get as accurate as possible, however certain things slip through.

 

Finally, regarding the errors. I will get out a fixed review, however remember this, A lot of information that you claim was wrong actually came from this fourm and even from you on a few occasions. If you want me to be accurate, you need to keep the official fourms accurate, even if it means responding to things on the fourm explaining things that are incorrect about technical aspects.

 

 

This statement is just wrong: "DCS models ring vortex effect, which is essentially when you fly low and slow over the ground. If you are too close to the ground your helicopter can’t gain enough lift and drops out of the sky."

 

A Vortex Ring State (which I guess is what you were trying to describe) has nothing to do with being close to the ground (in fact being close to the ground gives you more lift because of ground effect). Vortex Ring State is when you decend too fast at slow speed and the rotor gets into its own downwash.

 

And about the cockpit instruments you seem to be missing, then that's a different helicopter than the one ED has modelled (or possibly same helicopter after an upgrade). Since there are so few Ka-50s there really aren't any standard, and some have different instruments from others. The one ED modelled simply didn't have those instruments, it's not something they forgot, or left out because it was classified.

 

about ring vortex, yes I will fix that, I guess I screwed up the definition. *facepalm*

Edited April 21, 2009 by th3flyboy

[GGTharos]

Find that email on your own, since you don't trust developers. Shouldn'tbe difficult.

I also suggest you contact Russian Air Force - the Army Aviation branch. ED worked with their pilots, too - you know, the guys who actually flew the thing into combat.

 

But until you have proof that your distrust is in any way warranted other than some wishy-washy 'I learned not to trust developers ... ' line, you're not only talking hot air, you're treading onto something illegal called libel.

 

If you want the most accurate answers to your questions, go to the source - ask for a short interview with someone from ED.

 

Lastly, unless you said 'hey this is for my review, can you answer these few questions', none of what you heard is official.

 

If you want me to trust that information, get me the e-mail at kamov I would have to ask about this at. EB believe me when I say, I try to get as accurate as possible, however certain things slip through.

[Distiler]

For example, unless I missed something, ED has never confirmed that future engine upgrades will be free. That's a possibility, but it's not yet determined.

 

Can you elaborate on this please?. I always infered from reading here and there that DCS platform will be upgraded continuous to ensure compatibility between module development. I expected that kind of upgrade free so I can keep flying with friends even if I'm not interested by some module.

 

For example, A-10 module will get a new sound engine (stated by someone from ED in the russian forum). I think the sound engine is part of DCS platform, not part of the A-10. Am I right? will everybody be upgraded with that new DCS sound engine for free or not?

[GGTharos]

It is ED's intent to ensure that modules are compatible with each other online. There is also the intent to update older modules to the current DCS program standard (maps, AI units, ME, etc.) - there is a distinction between online compatibility and back-porting of code!

 

As always, until it happens it's not a promise - why is it not a promise? ED has learned the hard way that they might run into unforeseen technical difficulties that will prevent them from including a feature on time or at all.

But GG, does that mean the A-10C module will be incompatible online?

 

Nope, what I said above is an explanation. I haven't heard a single thing about the compatibility status of the A-10C module but I do know that it high on the feature list for DCS. As far as /I/ know the plan is still to enable me to shoot all you silly rotorheads down with the mighty hog.

Eagle has the option to tell community of future plans and intentions, but knowing that there will be times when plans do not work out. On the other hand, Eagle can simply not say anything and keep this community in the dark. A no win situation.

Edited April 21, 2009 by GGTharos

[th3flyboy]

Find that email on your own, since you don't trust developers. Shouldn'tbe difficult.

I also suggest you contact Russian Air Force - the Army Aviation branch. ED worked with their pilots, too - you know, the guys who actually flew the thing into combat.

 

But until you have proof that your distrust is in any way warranted other than some wishy-washy 'I learned not to trust developers ... ' line, you're not only talking hot air, you're treading onto something illegal called libel.

 

If you want the most accurate answers to your questions, go to the source - ask for a short interview with someone from ED.

 

Lastly, unless you said 'hey this is for my review, can you answer these few questions', none of what you heard is official.

 

 

understood, I am sorry for my remarks, I am just angry right now because of the fact that I pretty much got an E-Mail Nastygram that had incorrect statements in it from you guys, and then you try to go and discredit everything i said pretty much. I take that as a personal attack. I'm sorry if I crossed a line or two, I apoligise for my remarks, however right now I am in a very flustered state because I litterally got a nastygram in my e-mail forwarded to me from the review editor from someone at ED it looks like, and there are incorrect statements regarding certain things in the E-Mail. I'm sorry I crossed a line, I retract my remarks, up to a point. However I should state that I am very angry because I litterally got an e-mail from my boss pretty much slamming me, even when certain statements in that e-mail can be proven false using certain techniques, specifically the internet wayback machine.

 

I personally do not trust developers though on one simple ground, it's a personal distrust against ALL developers, not just you, so don't take personal offense, it's just that I don't trust anything that developers say unless it can be confirmed by an outside source when it regards working with an outside source. Please forgive my anger, I'm just really freaking easy to anger when I am literally called a liar when I have proof otherwise.

 

It is ED's intent to ensure that modules are compatible with each other online. There is also the intent to update older modules to the current DCS program standard (maps, AI units, ME, etc.) - there is a distinction between online compatibility and back-porting of code!

 

As always, until it happens it's not a promise - why is it not a promise? ED has learned the hard way that they might run into unforeseen technical difficulties that will prevent them from including a feature on time or at all.

But GG, does that mean the A-10C module will be incompatible online?

 

Nope, what I said above is an explanation. I haven't heard a single thing about the compatibility status of the A-10C module but I do know that it high on the feature list for DCS. As far as /I/ know the plan is still to enable me to shoot all you silly rotorheads down with the mighty hog.

Eagle has the option to tell community of future plans and intentions, but knowing that there will be times when plans do not work out. On the other hand, Eagle can simply not say anything and keep this community in the dark. A no win situation.

 

As for this, I was litteraly attacked in the e-mail for using the words "supposedly" for claiming that ED was being dishonest about the compatibility of the A-10 module and the working with kamov. This right here has killed a lot of trust I have with you guys because you guys are claiming that I am claiming that you are lying when I am just saying that it is a wait and see situation. I do believe that in this case, I am owed an apology for being accused of things I did not say, as such, you want to keep accusing me of stuff, at least accuse me on factual evidence.

 

Furthermore, I was called in the e-mail as being incorrect on saying that Black Shark was originally intended to be a Lock On expansion, which I have evidence that it is in fact the case. You guys want to accuse me of stuff, get your facts straight.

 

I am going to confirm with the editor if this was sent to him in PM or E-Mail form, ether way I'm going to attach the E-Mail I got from the editor regarding this. I have a feeling the community would like to see the e-mail that ticked me off to this point, combined with my responses.

 

Please do not accuse me of libel when I am just ticked off because I was personally attacked and I tried to explain part of why I don't trust people anymore. It's not personal when I say I don't trust developers, fact is I rarely trust anyone. I always have to see proof for myself before I believe, I'm a skeptic.

 

 

 

Can you elaborate on this please?. I always infered from reading here and there that DCS platform will be upgraded continuous to ensure compatibility between module development. I expected that kind of upgrade free so I can keep flying with friends even if I'm not interested by some module.

 

For example, A-10 module will get a new sound engine (stated by someone from ED in the russian forum). I think the sound engine is part of DCS platform, not part of the A-10. Am I right? will everybody be upgraded with that new DCS sound engine for free or not?

 

 

this is pretty much the way i've been reading into this as well.

Edited April 21, 2009 by th3flyboy

[Safari Ken]

As far as /I/ know the plan is still to enable me to shoot all you silly rotorheads down with the mighty hog.

 

:megalol::pilotfly:

[EvilBivol-1]

flyboy,

 

I'm sorry. It certainly wasn't my intention to get you into any trouble with your editor. However, given that I've been an ED representative on the forums for Black Shark, I could not have left my comments out.

 

I can't comment on the emails you received. Regardless however, I would imagine that neither ED nor your editor would appreciate emails being aired out in public. Certainly, as a forum moderator, I would not allow those here. However anything I or any other ED representative have said in public is fair game and we can discuss openly. If you feel some subjects may be sensitive, my PM box is open and I encourage you to use it.

 

Thanks again. I do regret causing you any problems, because I recognize you were ultimately recommending the simulation to others and I'm think everyone sees the good intent.

Edited April 21, 2009 by EvilBivol-1

[th3flyboy]

flyboy,

 

I'm sorry. It certainly wasn't my intention to get you into any trouble with your editor. However, given that I've been an ED representative on the forums for Black Shark, I could not have left my comments out.

 

I can't comment on the emails you received. Regardless however, I would imagine that neither ED nor your editor would appreciate emails being aired out in public. Certainly, as a forum moderator, I would not allow those here. Anything I or any other ED representative have said in public is fair game and we can discuss openly. If you feel some subjects may be sensitive, my PM box is open and I encourage you to use it.

 

Thanks again. I do regret causing you any problems, because I recognize you were ultimately recommending the simulation to others and I'm think everyone sees the good intent.

 

agreed, we'll keep this to pm messages... Just tell tharos to back off, OK, I really don't appreciate being accused of crimes because of my skepticism...

[GGTharos]

I didn't accuse you, I said treading on libel, and the point here is to have you think carefully about what you're writing.

 

You are trying to write a professional review, and while you may have a certain opinion on developer trust as you had originally stated it in your review, it firstly has no place in a professional review, and secondly when you write it down, and it being an unsubstantiated accusation (because yes, it is one) treads on something you really don't want to do - further decreasing professionalism - and here I am specifically referring to your allusion that ED did not work with KAMOV.

 

I hope I've made that clear.

 

At any rate, feel free to PM me if you have questions/comments etc.

Edited April 21, 2009 by GGTharos

[Kroll]

From the sidelines here. I think you guys are blowing this way out of proportion. I read the reveiw and I never took his comment so literally. In that, ED would do one thing or the other. He for the most part wrote a good review for the game. I think those that read your reactions to him .........might think your bulling him. He asked for help to make it more accurate...........instead you attack him and threaten him with "illegal" this and that. Yes he should have e-mail you to get some answers to deeper questions. His next review of the A-10C may not be so nice. As a customer I'm disgusted with how you've handled this on public forum.

[EvilBivol-1]

...but would it not have made more sense to correct inaccuracies before publishing the review?

 

In any case, I do agree. There is now more smoke here than fire. The only real issue that bugged us was the questioning of ED's integrity in regards to product research. Besides, the irony is that his review was ultimately a positive one and we recognize that. Unfortunately, it also contained many incorrect or under-researched statements, which we attempted to correct here. We only did it in public, because the review was already public. We would have gladly done the same in private, had we the opportunity.

 

ED is in contact with AVSIM and they are in contact with th3flyboy. I'm sure some kind of agreement will be found. It looks like AVSIM and th3flyboy are also open to editing the review, so I don't see a reason for any problems to continue. It just should have been done before, not after going public. In any case, until there's some kind of resolution, I'm going to temporarily close this, seeing as th3flyboy too has had a chance to respond to our comments.

 

Our intent here was to correct some of the inaccuracies of the review, which is what the author had requested in his first post. If our remarks caused any headaches, it certainly wasn't our intent.

 

I repeat, my PM box is open for any clarification on any previously made posts.

Edited April 21, 2009 by EvilBivol-1