Iraq Preview & Pre-Order

[BIGNEWY]

8 minutes ago, Jedkwak said:

ED please spend some more resources on the core game.. while a new launcher is good I’d really like finished modules and a more stable platform. This is such a great game but with each update it seems to be getting more buggy and unstable. You guys are on the verge of greatness with DCS please don’t squander it.

Sorry you are having issues, please post in the bug section with the issues you are having. Also you maybe under a misconception about the core of DCS, we have most of our team working on the core of DCS and terrain team work does not affect it regarding resource. But please keep this thread for talking about Iraq. 

thank you 

[OldFlyer]

I really, really, want to buy this map.

But, I pre-ordered Afghanistan and it's been such an underwhelming purchase that I don't fly it that much - there was the promise of 3-monthly releases and that hasn't happened, there have been no updates (yes I know, I saw in the newsletter that something's "coming"). And to be honest there's been so much drama in the last 12 months with DCS that I'm a bit put off.

So, I think I'll sit on this and wait to see how it pans out.

Edited October 21, 2024 by OldFlyer
"3-monthly" not 3 x monthly

[hannibal]

at some point in time, would be interesting to fly under the Sword of Qadisiyah
 

[Boosterdog]

Threads are threads and can never really be viewed as true indicators but I've not seen such a clear indication of general discontent expressed for some time if ever in one.

Perhaps ED should really consider addressing these concerns over and above sending in their CMs to placate and pacify.  The tech used for Afghan and Kola (and SA) doesnt play well with the current limitations of the game. OrbX as much as said that whlst defending their misleading marketing images of the airfields (like it came as a surprise to them). None of the maps really lend themselves to helos or low/slow GA (that now form a sizable segment of the newer and redux'd modules) with vast areas poorly realised to the point of being derisable. 

For all the talk of exciting new terrain tech, all many of us see are products that appear to have shortcut the efforts required to produce the "handmade" maps of old and failed. Miserably. And this really hasnt been addressed in any meanigful way. Firstly South Afghan was supposedly feature complete. Then it wasnt. But there is still no firm indication of what further work will result or how, especially to the incredibly poor texturing outside of points of interest. Morever, despite bold promises of a release schedule for other areas, that hasnt happned either.  Kola is a not disimilar case. There have been serveral "enhancements" that really have changed very little. An indicator I take to mean there is little that can be done. 

Aside of all that, DCS has has desert maps for years where the same pop up bushes continue to be sprinkeld liberally with each successive generation and without the eye jarring low lod and render distances that existed in LOMAC ever being looked at. 

All in all 2024 has, so far, been something of a step backwards in terms of enviroments for many customers. A step backward that many of us funded in good faith and with good will. Good will and trust that largely kept the maps on our drives in the hope of improvements and at the expense of immediately obtaining refunds. 

There is nothing to indicate Iraq will improve on any of this. There is nothing to give hope that these maps are awaiting their true realisation in some future DCS 3.0. 

If there is a plan or roadmap where these maps will see a meaningful improvement to their textures (and by that I mean looking as good as Syria in their base textures as a minimum), then I think ED needs to spell it out offically. If there isnt then ED also needs to be upfront about that too. 

Helos are my thing. This sim's saving grace in that respect is Syria,  a 4 year old map. Nothing produced since has improved on it and more worryingly, everything produced since has failed to match it and by some degree. 

Many of us have poured £100s and £1000s into DCS over time. Bought EA to help keep funds in EDs accounts. Bought modules we perhaps have little interest in to do the same. YadeYa, you know the rant. Now, whlst doesnt give us any right to demand explanations I think ED should seriously consider the disconnect that some of us now feel at being treated as cash cows and address it in a sincere manner. 

 

 

 

Edited October 22, 2024 by Boosterdog

[draconus]

41 minutes ago, Boosterdog said:

If there is a plan

There is - they work out the whole map high fidelity areas first - then they'll see how much it can be improved based on performance and memory requirements. Don't know what's Orbx's or Razbam's plan.

Edited October 22, 2024 by draconus

[Boosterdog]

54 minutes ago, draconus said:

There is - they work out the whole map high fidelity areas first - then they'll see how much it can be improved based on performance and memory requirements. Don't know what's Orbx's or Razbam's plan.

 

Thats not a plan - its an aspiration. Not even that. Its Newspeak. Its How long as ED been working with this Engine? How much experience from other maps are there in the database? Alpha branches? If they dont know its limits by now there's something wrong. 

Even if you are right then what we've paid for is for ED to experiment with no guarantees the map will ever be anything but high fidelity islands surrounded by mush. Lets not forget the marketing - The south is feature complete. And all those images that came with it - no mush there. Yet plenty of mush there was and ED damn well knew it.  ED can mealy mouth all they want about what was meant but many of us took that as meaning what you see is what you get. Now the position has changed to the one you quote now. Something dragged out of ED after many of us were left feeling ripped off or mislead. 

If that stands as a plan for you - great. For me thats just kicking the can down the road after pushing a product out as fast as possible with everything crossed than noone would bat an eyelid. Now, despite ED seemingly being unsure of their new tech's potential limitations, they've gone and launched another in exactly the same vein. 

That might be fine in the eyes of some. Each to their own. But for others, its a bridge too far. It potentially leads to using what you have and not paying for anything new and it piles onto the concerns about the RAZBAM situation, the woefully slow progress of the incomplete SC, and the kicked into a corner WW2 effort. 

Im not a naysayer (though I come across as one). I want DCS to succeed because Ive got £1500 sat in it that I can never get back. But right now ED has a trust and reputation issue. In the grand scheme of things it might be a small one, but its festering. The discontent with the direction taken is apparent across social media various including EDs own.  Even in this thread, replies expressing concern are garnering more likes and reactions than the OP launch post. That just doesnt normally happen. The comments on EDs You-Tube launch are almost exclusviely negative.

I just think its time ED stopped covering their ears and chanting "la la la" and did something affirmative to address it other than "we will bring you news when we have more to say". 

Sorry draconus, its a rant and its not directed at you nor anyone else who feels fine with it. We all see things differently. 

 

Edited October 22, 2024 by Boosterdog

[MadMonty]

1 hour ago, Boosterdog said:

Threads are threads and can never really be viewed as true indicators but I've not seen such a clear indication of general discontent expressed for some time if ever in one.

Perhaps ED should really consider addressing these concerns over and above sending in their CMs to placate and pacify.  The tech used for Afghan and Kola (and SA) doesnt play well with the current limitations of the game. OrbX as much as said that whlst defending their misleading marketing images of the airfields (like it came as a surprise to them). None of the maps really lend themselves to helos or low/slow GA (that now form a sizable segment of the newer and redux'd modules) with vast areas poorly realised to the point of being derisable. 

For all the talk of exciting new terrain tech, all many of us see are products that appear to have shortcut the efforts required to produce the "handmade" maps of old and failed. Miserably. And this really hasnt been addressed in any meanigful way. Firstly South Afghan was supposedly feature complete. Then it wasnt. But there is still no firm indication of what further work will result or how, especially to the incredibly poor texturing outside of points of interest. Morever, despite bold promises of a release schedule for other areas, that hasnt happned either.  Kola is a not disimilar case. There have been serveral "enhancements" that really have changed very little. An indicator I take to mean there is little that can be done. 

Aside of all that, DCS has has desert maps for years where the same pop up bushes continue to be sprinkeld liberally with each successive generation and without the eye jarring low lod and render distances that existed in LOMAC ever being looked at. 

All in all 2024 has, so far, been something of a step backwards in terms of enviroments for many customers. A step backward that many of us funded in good faith and with good will. Good will and trust that largely kept the maps on our drives in the hope of improvements and at the expense of immediately obtaining refunds. 

There is nothing to indicate Iraq will improve on any of this. There is nothing to give hope that these maps are awaiting their true realisation in some future DCS 3.0. 

If there is a plan or roadmap where these maps will see a meaningful improvement to their textures (and by that I mean looking as good as Syria in their base textures as a minimum), then I think ED needs to spell it out offically. If there isnt then ED also needs to be upfront about that too. 

Helos are my thing. This sim's saving grace in that respect is Syria,  a 4 year old map. Nothing produced since has improved on it and more worryingly, everything produced since has failed to match it and by some degree. 

Many of us have poured £100s and £1000s into DCS over time. Bought EA to help keep funds in EDs accounts. Bought modules we perhaps have little interest in to do the same. YadeYa, you know the rant. Now, whlst doesnt give us any right to demand explanations I think ED should seriously consider the disconnect that some of us now feel at being treated as cash cows and address it in a sincere manner. 

 

 

 

 

I agree with you unreservedly. I have also invested a lot of money in DCS, not only because it is a great simulation, but because I see it as support for the ED team and want to support the further development of the company and the game.

However, we are now reaching a point where more maps will give us more options, but at the same time open up more construction sites. I know the mantra that they are all different teams and I want to believe that. But for me, I'm no longer prepared to invest money in unfinished products that take a long time to complete. I'd rather do without the 30% discount and just buy the module or map in 2-3 years when it's ready.

However, if ED's business plan is aimed at generating revenue with new early access releases, they should consider whether this plan is still the right one for the future in view of all the feedback here. I realise that ED needs revenue, but in the end we also want to have finished products in a measurable time. Perhaps this can be reconciled somehow?

[104th_Money]

19 minutes ago, Boosterdog said:

Thats not a plan - its an aspiration. Not even that. Its Newspeak. Its How long as ED been working with this Engine? How much experience from other maps are there in the database? Alpha branches? If they dont know its limits by now there's something wrong. 

Even if you are right then what we've paid for is for ED to experiment with no guarantees the map will ever be anything but high fidelity islands surrounded by mush. Lets not forget the marketing - The south is feature complete. And all those images that came with it - no mush there. Yet plenty of mush there was and ED damn well knew it.  ED can mealy mouth all they want about what was meant but many of us took that as meaning what you see is what you get. Now the position has changed to the one you quote now. Something dragged out of ED after many of us were left feeling ripped off or mislead. 

If that stands as a plan for you - great. For me thats just kicking the can down the road after pushing a product out as fast as possible with everything crossed than noone would bat an eyelid. Now, despite ED seemingly being unsure of their new tech's potential limitations, they've gone and launched another in exactly the same vein. 

That might be fine in the eyes of some. Each to their own. But for others, its a bridge too far. It potentially leads to using what you have and not paying for anything new and it piles onto the concerns about the RAZBAM situation, the woefully slow progress of the incomplete SC, and the kicked into a corner WW2 effort. 

Im not a naysayer (though I come across as one). I want DCS to succeed because Ive got £1500 sat in it that I can never get back. But right now ED has a trust and reputation issue. In the grand scheme of things it might be a small one, but its festering. The discontent with the direction taken is apparent across social media various including EDs own.  Even in this thread, replies expressing concern are garnering more likes and reactions than the OP launch post. That just doesnt normally happen. The comments on EDs You-Tube launch are almost exclusviely negative.

I just think its time ED stopped covering their ears and chanting "la la la" and did something affirmative to address it other than "we will bring you news when we have more to say". 

Sorry draconus, its a rant and its not directed at you nor anyone else who feels fine with it. We all see things differently. 

 

 

This...

I have also previously purchased every module as they became available while knowing that a majority of them would become hangar queens. I did this to "support" ED and 3rd party developers as well. Not to mention all of the money spent on hardware just to fly DCS. For the last few years, I have only purchased models that I know I will fly regularly. At some point I feel that ED has changed the lens in which it looks at its customer base but I do also feel that we as customers gave them the new lens to look at us with. By such a large portion of the base purchasing modules in early access we surely remove the urgency and priority that would otherwise be present, allowing ED to adopt what appears to be a "we'll get to it when we get to it" approach. If we as a customer base were to stop purchasing modules in early access and waited for at least a majority feature and quality release, they would eventual need to get back to providing what the customer actually wants and not what they want to give us. 

There are so many other core aspects of DCS that are so far behind as well, such as basic mission editor issues that keep getting broken or dont get fixed at all. My favorite is flying my fancy new module in 4k, admiring the incredible level of detail to my aircraft, then pull up next to an AI C-17 or any other aircraft not having an updated 3-D model that absolutely looks horrendous. It is such an immersion breaker for me, especially after seeing the same model not changed for the better part of a decade or more but since it is not a revenue generator and we as customers don't address these issues with our wallets, nothing will change. 

That being said, I don't want to bad mouth ED, just expressing some frustration with the way things are done. I'm sure that creating any map or aircraft along with all of the other mechanics of DCS is a daunting task and I give them credit for slowly moving DCS along to where it is now. 

 

[draconus]

You guys are acting weird. You massively bought into EA and prepurchases and now try to blame others for it? ED was always very clear that it's their business model and wouldn't survive other way.

I waited for Iraq map since years but it's not like I'll jump into it right away. I'll let the map evolve (I'm interested in the south part) and mature, let mission makers do their thing, then buy if it's good enough.

[buceador]

2 hours ago, Boosterdog said:

This sim's saving grace in that respect is Syria,  a 4 year old map. Nothing produced since has improved on it and more worryingly, everything produced since has failed to match it and by some degree.

This!
I have all the other maps but Syria and Caucasus account for 90% of my DCS time.

2 minutes ago, draconus said:

You massively bought into EA and prepurchases and now try to blame others for it

I think it's more a case of misplaced eternal optimism with regard to the maps.

[pjbunnyru]

27 минут назад, draconus сказал:

You guys are acting weird. You massively bought into EA and prepurchases and now try to blame others for it? ED was always very clear that it's their business model and wouldn't survive other way.

I waited for Iraq map since years but it's not like I'll jump into it right away. I'll let the map evolve (I'm interested in the south part) and mature, let mission makers do their thing, then buy if it's good enough.

there will be no early access system, few will be able to enter market. no matter how I feel about early access, alas, for niche and ambitious projects this is almost only oportuniti. 
questions about qualiti of these products at sales stage, timing of improviments, and very concept of qualiti can be difficult.
expectation in our imagination is often higher than producer capabilitis.

[BIGNEWY]

Here is the thing. 

Development takes a long time, the tasks are massive. 

Without early access these projects would not be possible at all. 

Early access is optional. 

Early access is very popular, sales are good and this is an indicator of what people want. 

Early access allows us to develop at a steady pace, we get lots of feedback and that helps development, without this feedback the end product would not be as good. 


For everyone who has pre-ordered, thank you, you really do make this possible for us and we appreciate the support. 




-----------------------------

please keep the thread Iraq related, off topic posts will be removed

 

[104th_Money]

23 minutes ago, draconus said:

You guys are acting weird. You massively bought into EA and prepurchases and now try to blame others for it? ED was always very clear that it's their business model and wouldn't survive other way.

I waited for Iraq map since years but it's not like I'll jump into it right away. I'll let the map evolve (I'm interested in the south part) and mature, let mission makers do their thing, then buy if it's good enough.

Not this...

We massively bought into EA and pre-purchases with certain expectations, whether those expectations are provided by ED to the customer or implied by ED to the customer. If customers had expectations that were not provided nor implied then that is their own fault. Nobody is blaming "others" and certainly we are not weird. There are issues and they come from both sides and the solution for the customer side is to not massively buy into EA or pre-purchases in the future. If we do not buy in, then the solution for ED is to change. You stated they wouldn't survive the other way but I am quite certain they would change the way they do business if EA purchases dropped like a hot rock.

That being said, history is full of stories of companies that didn't adapt their business models to the future and either became a fraction of their former selves or went out of business completely. Telling us that we have to accept it or else is just not acceptable.

The F-16 was one of the worst releases to date and those expectations provided or implied were not met. Did they eventually fix it, yes, eventually. I am not a cynical person by nature but one has to wonder whether ED is trying to set a lower standard of expectation of what early access provides, whether this is due to financial strain or workforce issues or mismanagement. 

 

[BIGNEWY]

Just now, 104th_Money said:

Not this...

We massively bought into EA and pre-purchases with certain expectations, whether those expectations are provided by ED to the customer or implied by ED to the customer. If customers had expectations that were not provided nor implied then that is their own fault. Nobody is blaming "others" and certainly we are not weird. There are issues and they come from both sides and the solution for the customer side is to not massively buy into EA or pre-purchases in the future. If we do not buy in, then the solution for ED is to change. You stated they wouldn't survive the other way but I am quite certain they would change the way they do business if EA purchases dropped like a hot rock.

That being said, history is full of stories of companies that didn't adapt their business models to the future and either became a fraction of their former selves or went out of business completely. Telling us that we have to accept it or else is just not acceptable.

The F-16 was one of the worst releases to date and those expectations provided or implied were not met. Did they eventually fix it, yes, eventually. I am not a cynical person by nature but one has to wonder whether ED is trying to set a lower standard of expectation of what early access provides, whether this is due to financial strain or workforce issues or mismanagement. 

 

Everything we plan is clearly mentioned on the product page and the FAQ's most people understand what early access is and understand they will need to be patient. 

The F-16 gets thrown back at us a lot, we made things right and it is a great aircraft in DCS, but please again, stick to the Iraq topic here. 

thank you 

[Boosterdog]

7 hours ago, draconus said:

You guys are acting weird. You massively bought into EA and prepurchases and now try to blame others for it? ED was always very clear that it's their business model and wouldn't survive other way.

I waited for Iraq map since years but it's not like I'll jump into it right away. I'll let the map evolve (I'm interested in the south part) and mature, let mission makers do their thing, then buy if it's good enough.

Strawman arguments.

I completley understand EA. You buy the module in a basic state and a, b,and c (which are clearly defined as outstanding at the outset) are added later. I have many modules in EA but do you see me whining in the F18,F16, Hind, Apache threads? Not really.  I suspect the same goes for other here. 

This is not that. I am fine that certain aspects of the maps are not present but are defined and outstanding items to be added later (area expansions, airfields and cities for instance). No issue with that at all. But the general texture of the map is not a defined item. Its a "wait and see, perhaps, maybe, never" at best. And its a wait and see that came as a surprise to many of us given there was no mention of it in the preorder hype or the images shown. Its a wait and see that only came about several days or weeks after there was a firm "this is all you're getting" from ED and in a form of words that smacked of back tracking can kicking in face of a potential sales hit.  Theres an argument we should have expected it but equally ED made much of their "new terrain tech" to a point it mostly reassurred us it wouldnt be a dogs dinner. No ED map has ever been released in such an incomplete state with no little effort to mask the fact. Why should we have expected this not to meet those previous standards? This leaves a map where large swathes of it are unresolved with no guarantees or ever sorting the frankly unacceptable textures. I'll say that again NO GUARANTEES. Just Newspeak and vague statement. Not a "to be added" feature, not a later phase item. Its not a bit of the map that needs a bit of TLC. It IS the map.  

I dont think we are missing the point of EA or acting "weird" as you put it. We are not blaming ED without good reason. In fact Im not sure we are blaming anyone as much as seeking some definative answers to some very wooly statements so far.

The truth is, I want to support EA. I have done so for years. But its getting hard not to feel a bit "used". Harder still to trust I'll end up with something worthwhile before Alzheimer's or Cancer or both get me. And that does affect ED because, as you point out, EA keeps things ticking. 

 

7 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Early access is very popular, sales are good and this is an indicator of what people want. 

 

Sales were good based on trust. Im sure I dont need to point out just how much of that seems to have erorded of late. You have this thread for that. 

Edited October 22, 2024 by Boosterdog

[BIGNEWY]

1 minute ago, Boosterdog said:

Sales were good based on trust. Im sure I dont need to point out just how much of that seems to have erorded of late. You have this thread for that. 

I'm sorry you are not happy, but you do not speak for everyone, if people were not happy to purchase they would not, but they are. 

Its clear that some people want to be angry all of the time, they are not happy about lots of stuff in DCS, but I don't think they want to see DCS fail. 

At the end of the day we will continue to make content, use early access while the public support it and DCS will grow as it has done for over 16 years now. 

thank you 

 

[Boosterdog]

4 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

I'm sorry you are not happy, but you do not speak for everyone, if people were not happy to purchase they would not, but they are. 

Its clear that some people want to be angry all of the time, they are not happy about lots of stuff in DCS, but I don't think they want to see DCS fail. 

At the end of the day we will continue to make content, use early access while the public support it and DCS will grow as it has done for over 16 years now. 

thank you 

 

I never said I did. In fact Im pretty sure I already said as much myself.  But I think others who feel let down by Afganistan so far, as well as myself, make some valid points about our increasing unease and mistrust at how EA is managed and creeps ever more to the unfinished and undefined. Agree or disagree, its how we feel. Thank you for allowing us that voice at least. 

[BIGNEWY]

1 minute ago, Boosterdog said:

I never said I did. In fact Im pretty sure I already said as much myself.  But I think others who feel let down by Afganistan so far, as well as myself, make some valid points about our increasing unease and mistrust at how EA is managed and creeps ever more to the unfinished and undefined. Agree or disagree, its how we feel. Thank you for allowing us that voice at least. 

No problem, as mentioned we understand some people will not like early access, and that is fine. As for trust if we have lost some we are sorry, I hope we can regain it in the future. 

We will continue to bring products out and development will go on, we have already delivered new features to DCS core like multithreading ect, and we have lots more improvements coming. 

I hope you will take the time to enjoy DCS and have some good flights, its very easy in this day and age to be negative about things and ignore the good work being done.

thank you  

 

[Vakarian]

32 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

I'm sorry you are not happy, but you do not speak for everyone, if people were not happy to purchase they would not, but they are. 

Eh, this is only partially true. There are people that aren't happy but they still continue to support because they think things will improve eventually (I'm one of those "suckers"). It is however disheartening to see previous mistakes not being improved on.

First example being SA map. It's just awful down low, it was supposed to get better but it really didn't. Next comes Kola, pretty much the same thing and in the hindsight it shouldn't have been as surprise as the devs are the same. After that here comes Afghanistan and the same thing happens again. Good looking from high up, but down low there are still awful textures, object popping in ~100m in front of me despite having all graphic settings maxed out. 

It feels like if there is some technical improvement it's not showing or it's not producing the effect you hope for. I love Kiowa, I love flying it more than anything else, but it's also very bad experience when I fly low and then I see the bushes and small rock appearing just in front of me like we're back in early 2000s. 

After SA, Kola and Afghanistan I'm really hesitant to buy Iraq. I know I will get it next month, but it's definitely gonna leave a sour taste if the same thing happens again as if no lessons were learned from more than a couple of previous releases.

 

No one can argue that EA takes time and that things aren't complete when they launch in EA. However, you really can't expect people to be fine with EA lasting years (a lot of modules are 5+ years in EA). How long until we start measuring progress in percentage of a human lifespan? This is an exaggeration ofc, but you have to admit it's not that far from the truth.

[BIGNEWY]

Just now, Vakarian said:

Eh, this is only partially true. There are people that aren't happy but they still continue to support because they think things will improve eventually (I'm one of those "suckers"). It is however disheartening to see previous mistakes not being improved on.

First example being SA map. It's just awful down low, it was supposed to get better but it really didn't. Next comes Kola, pretty much the same thing and in the hindsight it shouldn't have been as surprise as the devs are the same. After that here comes Afghanistan and the same thing happens again. Good looking from high up, but down low there are still awful textures, object popping in ~100m in front of me despite having all graphic settings maxed out. 

It feels like if there is some technical improvement it's not showing or it's not producing the effect you hope for. I love Kiowa, I love flying it more than anything else, but it's also very bad experience when I fly low and then I see the bushes and small rock appearing just in front of me like we're back in early 2000s. 

After SA, Kola and Afghanistan I'm really hesitant to buy Iraq. I know I will get it next month, but it's definitely gonna leave a sour taste if the same thing happens again as if no lessons were learned from more than a couple of previous releases.

 

No one can argue that EA takes time and that things aren't complete when they launch in EA. However, you really can't expect people to be fine with EA lasting years (a lot of modules are 5+ years in EA). How long until we start measuring progress in percentage of a human lifespan? This is an exaggeration ofc, but you have to admit it's not that far from the truth.

You understand early access takes time, as mentioned in my other posts its your feedback during early access that makes the products better. It isn't going to happen over night, they are huge tasks.

It can be difficult to be patient when development times are long, the time frames usually wont suit you or meet your expectations, but in the end the products will be tweaked and improved based on good feedback. 

thank you 

[Beirut]

6 hours ago, Boosterdog said:

Kola is a not disimilar case. There have been serveral "enhancements" that really have changed very little. An indicator I take to mean there is little that can be done. 

 

We're perhaps way OT here, but I think the Kola map is very good and ORBX has delivered some quality updates. And I'm sure there will be more. I really enjoy the Kola map.

 

[Boosterdog]

26 minutes ago, Beirut said:

 

We're perhaps way OT here, but I think the Kola map is very good and ORBX has delivered some quality updates. And I'm sure there will be more. I really enjoy the Kola map.

 

Off and on topic is that it goes to show everyone has a different view of things.

[Thamiel]

As a sidenote: it just occured to me, that building on EA to that extent shares many similarities with those of a snowball system: For a promise of the future, you cash in money (adding to your future workload in doing so) to keep your current activities alive and your only salvation is to promise even more things for the future and/or to a bigger base of customers to keep going. I wonder if ED has a clue of how long it will take to complete the current available EA content with available ressources. Or the other way around: when will be the point, that new EA content is advertised without being able to deliver it in full? As a customer, I could not say if this point has already passed or not.

[Beirut]

31 minutes ago, Boosterdog said:

Off and on topic is that it goes to show everyone has a different view of things.

 

Exactly. For example, I agree with you that the Syria map is excellent, one of the best if not the best put together and great updates, but it's not in my Top 3. 

 

Not sure how hot and heavy I am for Iraq. I found Afghanistan kind of meh! and I'm guessing Iraq might be more of the same. Curious to see how good the textures are. 

[Boosterdog]

19 minutes ago, Beirut said:

 

Exactly. For example, I agree with you that the Syria map is excellent, one of the best if not the best put together and great updates, but it's not in my Top 3. 

 

Not sure how hot and heavy I am for Iraq. I found Afghanistan kind of meh! and I'm guessing Iraq might be more of the same. Curious to see how good the textures are. 

I think the next update for the Afghan map will be a key one for me. Its already being punted as a "major update to SW region" so we will see what that means.