You're giving too little credit to the mission designers there. If you can disable some modules, or better enable the ones you want to use, you won't have these problems. Also, you can play the sim in this century, I believe you can play it right now, nothing is holding you from playing the Su-25, Ka-50, A-10C and the P-51. They're out right now, you don't realy have to pay for whatever module will come next. As for the AFM, ED's releasing the API/SDK for the 3rd parties to integrate their own AFMs, which is the logical step as it will be more time consuming than you'd think for ED to write each 3rd party's AFM. They're not holding back anything, or at least they won't be holding back anything as I'm not sure if they've released it yet.

OK Remon. I'll give you line-by-line the explanation of my thinking.

And why is this so important Remon ?
If someone buy a module for DCS WORLD,
(i think) he will not check if this is an ED's or a 3rd party creation.

Off course updates fixes etc will be developers responsibility
Every 3rd party developer that will release a module for DCS
will provide customers with updates fixes and everything that
is related to their product. 3rd party customer support.

but ED has responsibility also to choose responsible 3rd party affiliates
As there will be many 3rd party developers with different management and
agreements with ED, some of them may release problematic modules or after
some releases will cut off the agreement with ED and leave their customers
to ask answers directly from ED.

Honestly that was all. And with no hidden meanings against anyone.

It's important because what you're trying to say there isn't what ppl are talking about here, some think that ED's making the module and wastes resources on an out of date ship, while it's beeing made by a 3rd party. What you say there is irrelevant to the conversation. Also, if they follow the FSX model, you will certainly know who made the module.



Again, you're operating under the assumption that Belsimtek isn't a reliable company. That could happen to any company that makes 3rd party modules. The alternative is to stop using them, which means that we'd see an ED module every 2-3 years.

Quote:
but ED has responsibility also to choose responsible 3rd party affiliates
As there will be many 3rd party developers with different management and
agreements with ED, some of them may release problematic modules or after
some releases will cut off the agreement with ED and leave their customers
to ask answers directly from ED.

Honestly that was all. And with no hidden meanings against anyone.


Again, you're operating under the assumption that Belsimtek isn't a reliable company. That could happen to any company that makes 3rd party modules. The alternative is to stop using them, which means that we'd see an ED module every 2-3 years.


Edited by Remon (41 minutes 21 seconds ago)



Remon, it is you who is putting a name on this period. ADHS has made a valid remark about 3rd party Developers. However to insure that we have good 3rd party developers, ED has the final say. Sooo ED has approved Belsimtek for the Huey. Your statement is totally out of line. You make the assumption not ADHS. Your reading between the lines is all wrong. Don't read between lines if you can't get the meaning straight and accuse someone for nothing but to start a rant. It should end here or I suggest thread be closed.

scotsmen54, thank you very much for clearing this matter.
From my part, i will end this here because is not right
useful threads to be locked because of a missunderstanding.

First of all, I didn't start this, I stated that this is being made by a 3rd party company because some people were talking like ED's spending resources and time to make this module while they could build something more relevant. ADHS hijacked my statement to turn this into a "How is that important, ED should choose their affiliates correctly or people may get hurt". The assumption of his is that ED isn't choosing their affiliaties correctly. Can you point to my assumption please?

Remon, this is a public conversation and not a rhetoric private of yours.
If you can't answer before understand this and others' opinions, re-read.
"Hijacked" etc declarations are not honouring anyone as an answer.

Please keep on the usefull conversation as includes usefull opinions for everyone.

It would appear any "useful" conversation is over. They may as well close this thread.

Anyways,

Does anyone happen to know if they'll include a utility version (i.e. non-gunship)?

I think the rockets/mini guns are going to be added like pylons on any other aircraft. But the mounting brackets for em still might remain as those are part of the current model in the game. I love the idea though. ED did it with the P-51 and I thought it was one of the better features to include with the aircraft.

I think so, because according to EvilBivol the release will include an Air America-skinned chopper as well.

Air america. Nice. Now all we need is an AN-2 and an ak47 door gun replacement mod and we can recreate the only air-to-air kill ever credited to a helicopter haha

I just watched "The Green Berets". Lots of excellent UH-1 footage! Pretty decent movie too.

Makes me wonder why you never see the A-10 in films...?

The A-10 made brief appearances in "Courage Under Fire", "Terminator Salvation" and "Transformers" to name a few. It just hasn't been the star of a movie the way the F-14 and the A-6 have been.

I remember the Transformers appearance. It was so short I thought I imagined it! What movie featured the A6?

For real?

Flight of the Intruder

Nate

Great movie.

Great! Another one for my list.

It is actually a good movie too. Enjoy.

Nate

Doesn't hurt that the book was written by an A-6 pilot.