I have to LOL at this as well. Flash, I'm not sure what gives you the idea that Beach has a "vested interest" in posting his opinions about DCS/ED, but, from my administrator's chair here your unwarranted accusation seems an awful lot like a personal attack. Perhaps you'd care to provide a respectful explanation for your particular perspective after reading this?
and maybe you ought to learn the English language then? Because your post makes me feel like making a very personal insult.
I'll tell you why - it's very simple.
He gets access to their stuff before the public - he is also - as noted under his profile name at their forum "ED Partner", last time I looked (about 10 seconds ago).
So if he comes out with anything that says they are not up to snuff, he risks losing that position. Hence not being prepared to take his comments about their standards as entirely unbiased.
How hard is that to understand? [admin edit: no personal attacks]
"The way you keep forgeting things, you'd think you'd remember" - my wife
'Vested interest' usually refers to financial gain. I am pretty sure that being an ED Partner does not mean he is getting kickbacks from ED. That's not early access so Beech can write his articles. That's early beta testing for them.
I appreciate the work that Beech does and the time and energy he puts into it. I appreciate and respect his opinions.
Fridge ---------- Things which do you no good in aviation: 1) Altitude above you; 2) Runway behind you; 3) Fuel in the truck; 4) The airspeed you don't have.
I was on the beta test team way before I ever started making money (and it is not much money I might add) in this hobby. And when I say "making money" I'm referring to writing articles for PC Pilot magazine. I can write those articles with or without any access to ED and whether I'm positive or critical of them has ZERO impact on my bottom line because I either purchase the modules (A-10C, all the LOMAC and FC series, Combined Arms, and all the Black Shark series) or I get a review copy through my magazine contacts (UH-1H and P-51). In fact, I haven't even seen the Mi-8 yet.. So I could slam ED and it wouldn't make an iota bit of difference to me. The fact of the matter is that my review articles are always proportional to the quality of the product. If a product has 90% awesome stuff and 10% not so great stuff..you will see that in the body of my writing. And that isn't ED specific..I write reviews for all kinds of stuff (FSX, X-Plane, aircraft, scenery, hardware, utilities..etc..)
The Tutorial articles and *everything* I used to write for the web were done out of love for the hobby..not to stroke anyone or make anyone buy anything.
You are entitled to your opinion that my relationship with ED has somehow affected my writing, but I'd suggest you dig up all my old articles and show me where exactly my writing style has changed since I started writing for the magazine. I call them like I see them - ** cough - MS Flight **..
Here you go - I'll do the work for you - the very first article I ever wrote about a DCS product back when I wasn't writing for a magazine. I'm having trouble discerning how my tone was different then compared to now..
PS - The only module that DCS has produced that I haven't "liked" all that much is the P-51, and not because it isn't good, but because it doesn't appeal to me and it isn't within my area of "expertise" lets call it. I wrote exactly one article for PC Pilot that had to do with WW2 stuff a long time ago and I swore I'd never write another one (it was on an IL-2 update). The research and fact checking that accompanied that article (so as to not make myself look like an idiot on a topic I was not very familiar with) made it a very hard article to write and I felt it was not as good as someone with an intimate knowledge of that era could do (someone like Tom Cofield for instance..) For that same reason you won't find me reviewing any of DCS WW2 era offerings that may come down the pipe..
'Vested interest' usually refers to financial gain. I am pretty sure that being an ED Partner does not mean he is getting kickbacks from ED. That's not early access so Beech can write his articles. That's early beta testing for them.
That is correct - I get no kickbacks from ED. Back when I was on staff at SimHQ I used to regularly make the comment that I was a member first, a staff member second. The same is true for my writing and relationship with ED. I'm a huge fan of flight simulations and I always write from that perspective. Matt Wagner and the guys at ED are pretty comfortable with the fact that when I say something negative about their products that it might be a valid concern. Coupled with the fact that I'm a real life pilot, I can sometimes offer insights to them about certain aspects that they might be able to incorporate into their "World". In closing, I can say without any reservation that our relationship has always been professional and there has never been any pressure to steer any of my public comments. They are smart enough (and good enough) to let their product speak for itself. If their future products change course I'll be sure to adjust my content accordingly..
I've got some hours under my belt flying this thing now. First of all I'm surprised how nimble it is. Maybe it's my joystick setting being incorrect or me flying around in an empty bird, but if I take my hand off the cyclic I'm quickly inverted and about to plow into some georgian backyard. Given the huge cockpit and the need to flip a switch here and there now and again (with my cyclic hand), it's not very comfortable. I've done some shooting and if my computer wouldn't go from 40FPS to 2FPS when rockets hit the ground, it would be mighty.
The trim scares the living hell out of me. You really have to be careful or you'll snap into a dive which can be lethal at low altitudes.
There is no campaign yet but the missions seem to be along the lines of the UH1-H module, which is a positive thing. Not being terribly interested in learning cyrilics and not much of a buttonology geek, I'm hoping for an english language cockpit later on. Luckily you get the Mi17 flight manual with the game and it is in enlish with the cyrilic cockpit labels next to each function (life saver).
Still a lot more to learn about the Mi8 but the module arrived just at the same time as Rome 2 so it has some serious competition.
The best feature so far are the brakes. They sound like bus brakes, squeal...psssshhht. I could taxi around all day just braking. With all that mass twirling around upstairs and the suspension going it's a different experience than the huey for sure. I don't know what to do with the nose wheel on take off either... sometimes it's a bit like taking off in a shopping cart. I should probably read the manual.
There are improvments on the Mi-17 compared to the Mi-8 tough, among others stronger engine, left side tail rotor (Mi-8 right side), air filter domes on the engine intakes, etc.
Yeah, I noticed she can be a bit of a pig when well loaded. First crash was during a pinnacle landing, she entered VRS VERY easily.
THat said, VRS was something the team needed a few patches to work through on the Huey. Be interested to hear if the lack of power in this config is a 'glitch' or a 'feature.
Razor, how is the left side tail rotor an "improvement" over the right side? Is there's something more efficient in that design?
My Rig:i5-3570k @ 4.2 GHZ W/ Corsair Hydro H110 Cooler / Asus Sabertooth Z77 Mobo / GTX 1070/ 16 Gigs DDR3 RAM / A Few SSDs, and a Bunch of HDDs / All held together by: Corsair C70 Case
Other Assets Deployed: HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog SN#22621/CH Throttle Quad/MFG Crosswind Pedals SN#0004 TrackIR TIR 5 w/ TrackClip Pro Simpit: Obutto R3VOLUTION
Older Mi-8s with the tail rotor on the right had the tail rotor spinning down into the rotor wash. When it was moved to the left side, all they did was flip the gearbox...the tail rotor on the left side spins up into the rotor wash, which increases its effectiveness quite a bit.
I was curious too so I went hunting... this was an interesting answer from one of the ED Testers Team