I can see why you're mad Johnny_Redd, that WWII kickstarter was a fiasco of the highest order. I still don't even know the whole story on how it turned into such a goat rope. CyBerkut does have the right idea though. I hope ED does make good for you though. I'm sure they are STILL trying to figure out how to fix it.

While ED seems to eventually make good on most of their promises, you might have to wait 5 or 10 years for that to happen, and even then it won't quite be what you expected (here's looking at you NTTR for those that bought the early A-10C package with the "free" NTTR terrain, fortunately not me). The 3rd parties seem to have been made in ED's image.

My favorite example is VEAO, who puts out a massive list of aircraft and then crosses them off the list one or more at a time as reality sinks in. Like some other 3rd parties, they decided a "simple" trainer was a good way to get used to coding for DCS. Like some other 3rd parties, they got burned for choosing to make a two-seat aircraft before the two-seat code was written/standardized. Despite announcing the immediate sale and imminent release of the P-40F a ways back, all that exists is the same Hawk with a simple flight model and an announcement explaining how everything they have planned is going to be delayed for an unknown time frame. Like ED, I expect VEAO will eventually come through, but how good will the final result actually be and when will it be released? This decade? I already bought into the P-40F. But I think I will wait until people are actually downloading and using their future products successfully before I buy any more from VEAO.

For me, NTTR is still out of reach. These days, I am not really interested in the alpha or beta testing business. I would like to enjoy great aircraft modules that are complete and stable in an environment that is complete and stable. I will wait until 2.0 or its derivative is officially released, so I haven't even tried NTTR yet. For the most part, I am patient and can wait.

I don't think the Hawk issues can be blamed on the two-seater issue. It was just overall a lower quality than I'd expect from a payed for plane in Arma to be, just shoddy work from a lazy dev.

It always has been a grievance with the devs. Although the constant defence of the devs, by certain members, no matter the issue, no matter the information, blaming the customers for helping the development by actually buying these products really doesn't help. Allow folk the right to voice their grievances, just as folk are allowed to voice their pleasure at the product.
I will take your stellar advice about the signature, it's a sound idea.

Nobody knows the whole story, that is half the problem. It's divisive. It really doesn't help the community. The kickstarter and the ED forums tell us a different story than the moderators over at the ED forums, most folk will listen to the mod rather than seek the information for themselves.
Oh I hope they make good too, it will be a long time until completion that is without doubt and I'm sure the quality will be the best. But how long and what else in between?

I would really like VEAO to finish the Hawk. The state it is in now it leaves a lot to be desired.

It certainly does. Not being able to complete a trainer in almost two years doesn't really bode well for a dev that aspires to be the first to release a 4.5th generation fighter jet (no way I'm calling it multirole, the Tranche they went with might get Paveway IIs). If they'd at least offered the to let their customers return it I could think of them as naively ambitious, as opposed to just unreliable.

The problem with paid reviews is that there is a pressure to give positive reviews.

Ask yourself this question. If a reviewer of NNTR had trashed it for what was missing at the time of the review. What is the likelihood they would get access to future updates for NTTR or any other DCS product? So while they may honestly believe what they are saying. What they are not saying MIGHT be just as important.

To give an example of what I am talking about ,look at DukeNukem Forever. A certain website highly associated with the dev team (i.e. the main guy was a regular poster on their forums) gave the game an 7.5 out of 10 in one of their reviews. Almost every other website gave it less than 4 with one website giving a review worded like this "Pros - Easy to uninstall. Cons - Everything else".

Well, if someone gets e.g. early access for the sake of a review, then it's just plain obvious that it's not a review but an outright commercial. No one would ever give that person/paper/organisation early access ever again if they don't get a rating of at least 14/5. Which is why I was at the receiving end of a few nasty PMs and emails when I criticized people for claiming that the handouts, perks and such ED gave them by providing early access to DCS World 1.5/2 several months in advance were just dishonest advertisements.

It is certainly possible that reviews can be biased or dishonest due to some perceived pressure (eg. advertising dollars, or access to pre-release software).

The earlier complaint though, appeared to be that reviews of NTTR were not being honest. Upon further discussion, he allowed that perhaps they were being honest in their opinions. Part of what I was getting at in the discussion is that the consumer needs to think about what parts of the reviews are opinions and what parts are factual/quantifiable data.

If a review of NTTR was dishonest, then a claim to that effect should provide a link and quote the problematic material. That supports the contention. Otherwise, it is an unsupported contention.

When one is reading subjective opinions, one needs to allow that the author may have different standards of acceptability than the consumer (reader) does. If a reviewer is providing factually incorrect information that is certainly something they should be criticized for, and held accountable. Their opinions though... that is different kettle of fish.

I'll readily admit that I'm not up on all of the various developments in the E.D. and 3rd party sagas. I have some E.D. products, and also a couple of BelSimTek modules. By the standards of probably everyone else in this forum, I have very little time in them. Real life has its twists and turns, etc., etc. I didn't participate in the WWII Kickstarter. However, I can see how various things can be aggravating, or at least annoying.

So, I have spoken in generalities on some of this stuff. I can certainly see that some folks have reasons for their grievances. I may agree with some, and disagree with others. From a moderation perspective, both detractors and supporters get to have their say, as long as they abide by the rules. From a forum participant perspective, I remain mindful that I'm certainly not the most knowledgeable guy when it comes to all of the history of what developer did/said what, etc. However, I do think that conversation is best advanced if we are careful to avoid exaggeration, or assumptions that lack a solid basis, etc. We can discuss the content of postings without maligning the authors. Life generally gives us all enough to be P.O.'d about. Software and hardware can certainly be part of that.

I've given dead honest reviews about hardware. I guess that's why Logitech never sent me another HOTAS to do a write up on after I did the one for the G940. LOL You can see my write ups at Combatace and LOF. It's been a while since I've written one but you can read for yourself if the gear rocked or if it sucked.

ED will never give me a piece of their software to review. The truth scares the piss out of them.

The importance of your reviews in this matter pales in comparison to some of the personal attacks you have posted about ED staff on the net. That is the prime reason why they won't have anything to do with you.

Not trying to be judgemental, i just think there's a fundamental misunderstanding going on on your part.

I will never understand people who bash eagle dynamics.

DCS is FREE. You don't have to pay anything to play it.

You guys bash a company that gives away an amazing piece of software and several aircraft for free.. Unbelievable. What's wrong with you guys??

If the only aircraft you wanted to fly were the unarmed TF-51 and SU 25 you would be right but how many people only fly those two aircraft.

oops.

I think even a cursory examination will reveal that the vast majority of the heartburn displayed is associated with items where money has either exchanged hands, or will be exchanging hands.

Maybe, but there is the whole internet out there, including youtube, where people post REALLY detailed reviews of exactly what you can expect to get before you consider shelling out your money.

Every single one of the aircraft available for DCS, and the NTTR, have been reviewed in excruciating detail on youtube and other sites, not all of them are positive reviews either. Nobody is FORCING you to fork out $50, $80 or whatever to Eagle Dynamics for a product that you won't like. Why not do some research on it before buying? Save yourself the disappointment, and save us all the mind-boggling complaining.

Anyway, if you've followed this simulator from its early days (Flanker 1) you'd realize that they're constantly upgrading and improving things and the improvements are generally given to existing owners for free. Just give things time and they'll make it even better. That goes for NTTR and existing aircraft as well.

I still think it's nuts and quite honestly rude to bash a company that gives away the software for free. Maybe the only two free aircraft are the P-51 and Su25 but really, come on, did your parents not teach you about looking a gift horse in the mouth?

The whole simulation engine is free, including the extremely powerful mission editor with its scripting language. The two aircraft are free. Multiplayer access is free, and the very frequent updates are also all free. They don't have to give ANYTHING to you for free, there is no obligation, it's pretty generous of them. Plus there is Matt Wagner on the team who thank god, came out of the deep to produce simulations again after the corporate idiots at EA destroyed the military simulator market and killed the Jane's brand name.

ED could probably could make more money with much less hassle by providing their software exclusively to militaries. You don't have to like all of their products, but please, the level of complaining from some people is just over the top, remember your manners people, and remember all the stuff they give you without having to pay a dime.

Seriously? I hope you're trolling here because if you aren't, I have no hope left for mankind.

Wow, the sense of entitlement is strong in this one.

What? That was clearly in response to the rather dishonest claim that people were complaining about a free product.

So who puts chopped cucumbers in their salad?... With some Olive Garden Garlic a d Romano Croutons.. OmG.