@Gambit21: I am aware there would be technical challenges with implementing the pay-for-AI approach but neither of us have detailed knowledge about how hard that is to accomplish. I think the goal here is to suggest ideas on how to make early-war cr@p-planes more economically feasible for 777. They can then tell us if it is too hard to implement for the benefit gained.
Cheers,
Fafnir_6
I think it might be a bit presumptuous for "suggest" anything for 777 . . . not that they are all knowing (or anything like it), but I find it improbable that they have not (or will not) explore whatever ways are feasible within their business model for building and release new content. Either way, we can argue till we are blue in the face over what is or is not feasible, but we little actual say in the matter.
I know, but this a forum for discussion. We were discussing the situation (my word ÈsuggestÈ may have been not the best choice
...Presumptuous, as you say). Early war planes (especially AI two-seaters) seem to be on a lot of people's want lists. Being in the midst of an Oct, 1916 Jasta 2 career, I can certainly see the argument in favor of a BE.2c and a Farman F40 (and maybe an early Albatros C). We were just discussing ways of making this happen, economically.
@MJMorrow: You sir, are a multiplayer RoF pilot...I can tell
. There are so many competing interests with respect to RoFès future itès easy to see why 777 might decide to go off on a tangent like they have with the 2012 roadmap (not that Ièm upset). Your aircraft choices would make a lot of Multiplayer users very happy (and Mercedes D.IIIau would make everyone happy).
@Gambit21: Limited resources can achieve a lot (just look at Daidalos Team with IL-2). ÈCommon senseÈ as you put it, far too easily translates into Èit cannot be doneÈ, until a visionary team like DT (or maybe 777 in this case) step in.
Cheers,
Fafnir_6