ATA boost and F8 variant

[Pilpoil65]

Is this still getting worked on? If not why? It'd be really nice to have (increased ATA), but more than that it'd be REALISTIC.

[Slice313]

We have been waiting for years. At this point...

[irisono]

The discussion about the increased emergency power is old. It started soon after the module was introduced. People have always complained about the performance of the Fw 190A and the fact that this module is being intentionally left underpowered in DCS. Thanks to the effort and hard work invested by many historically knowledgeable and respected forum members to gather the necessary evidence for the existence and use of emergency power in the Fw 190A8, ED decided in early March 2023 to revise this module accordingly. Unfortunately, nothing has happened to date, absolutely nothing. Several threads that repeatedly bring up this topic have been closed by ED. This dubious behavior leaves many WWII enthusiasts incomprehensible and very disappointed. At least, that's how it is for me.

 

[MasaMan]

1 hour ago, irisono said:

The discussion about the increased emergency power is old. It started soon after the module was introduced. People have always complained about the performance of the Fw 190A and the fact that this module is being intentionally left underpowered in DCS. Thanks to the effort and hard work invested by many historically knowledgeable and respected forum members to gather the necessary evidence for the existence and use of emergency power in the Fw 190A8, ED decided in early March 2023 to revise this module accordingly. Unfortunately, nothing has happened to date, absolutely nothing. Several threads that repeatedly bring up this topic have been closed by ED. This dubious behavior leaves many WWII enthusiasts incomprehensible and very disappointed. At least, that's how it is for me.

 

And to rub more salt ( facts ) to the wounds, it's not going to get any better in the future either. More modules are needed for income and to keep the company functioning. Every module they release also means more modules that require upkeep. WWII -modules bring less revenue so they get much less attention.

It's very clear that year by year, it's less n less likely to get anything added to these older WWII -modules. No company is ever going to admit something is left to dust because of bad image but actions speak for themselves, there's no way to sugar coat it.

The ONLY way to have any chance of faster ( if any ) updates to older, less sold modules, is to hire more faculty. That is expensive and risky and we don't even know if ED is doing that actively or not. Even so, that gives no guarantee of any kind that this new possible workforce would put their efforts in these WW2 -modules or any of the older modules.

Don't hate the messenger.

[LeCuvier]

We get what we pay for. We pay for new modules, and the number of active modules is ever-increasing. Unfortunately, every module requires maintenance. But that maintenance requires manpower and manpower is costly. Impossible to finance all that work with one-time payments per module. So that maintenance is reduced to a level that produces more and more dissatisfaction. As long as we don't pay for maintenance we won't get much. 
I have bought 22 aircraft modules, not counting the ones in Flaming cliffs. But in reality I only fly about 6 or 7 of them more or less regularly. I would like those to be kept in shape and accept to pay a reasonable annual or monthly maintenance fee for maybe 6 of them.
And I will be very reluctant to buy any more modules, no matter how enthusiastically they are welcomed by the community.