update from Belsimtek
Link

Despite being really interested in the F-4E I just cannot muster any joy knowing how many years these things take, and that is just reaching pre-release alphaBeta.

At least your expectations are realistic.

Really looking forward to the Hind though!

Nate

yeah, thats the thing...who knows how many years until we get something...

<commandant lassard voice> Many Many Many years </commandant lassard voice>

.........and how many years after the 'early release' do we expect to see something that comes close to finished/polished

#notinmylifetime

would've been really cool if they made the Hind's version with the gunner's turret, instead of the fixed gun

I for one am not a fan of multi seat planes because I don't want to deal with an AI. Multiplayer co-op would be nice, but I'd assume only half of people regularly play MP, and of those it would be even harder to find someone with the same modules and times as yourself. Otherwise I am very interested in an F-4.

I have flown several times with some clan buddies in the Gazelle and it was great havng someone with me

Still don't understand why they'd start another project when the current one isn't even finished yet...

I thought all Belsimtek's previous modules are now "out of Beta" and fully released

depends if you count things not being modeled right and or defeciences

I'd hope the belsimtek guys working on the Hind and Phantom aren't taking resources from the Hornet project.

That's what I'd hope, anyway.

The F4 is something I'd be properly interested in. It was operated by so many countries and I can see it having wide appeal. I'm unsure if the E model has a tailhook 'cos that would make it even more attractive.

Sometimes throwing more people are a project won't make it go faster. If they already have 5-6 people working on avionics and flight models, why should the rest sit around? Or would you prefer if they were fired and rehired 6 months from now? This is common across all industries as you know, but for some reason gamers get upset when a developer starts working on a sequel, DLC or whatever alongside the main game. Or in this case the Hornet. It is just how business is done and really isn't out of the ordinary for game development.

Yeah you do. The money comes for the "released we'll fix the bugs later" stage not the "remember when we promised to fix everything; we did" stage.

I'm with the majority here. Cheers and horrays for working to introduce new aircraft modules and genuine well-wishes but forgive us for reserving our true enthusiasm until promises become reality.

"Finding stuff for people to do" isn't the way to do business. When the work is done, the work is done.

What happens many, many years down the line when the first half of the staff have finished work on 4-5 aircraft but the second half of the staff have only finished 1-2? Do the first half just keep plodding on? Later, you'll end up with 10-11 aircraft but only 2-4 finished. Point is, you **WILL** have to fire someone at some point.... or get them to pick up new skills. The second half clearly can't keep up with the first half, so the skills distribution in relation to manpower is out of whack.

Just because it is not out of the ordinary does not mean it's the correct way to do it.

For all the hate the industry thinks, I think they know what they're doing. It makes sense from a business standpoint to continue growing. Your stance is more or less this:

Ubisoft is working on Far Cry 4. Therefore, they should can Assassin's Creed Origins, their racing games, mobile games, Watch Dogs and whatever else they are working on. Fire a few thousand workers. That is what you're claiming, but on a smaller scale, for BST/ED.

The F-4E/Mi-24 more that likely have zero effect on the progress of the F-18. If anything it can be a good thing, because if push comes to shove, they can temporarily assign workers to help for 1-2 months if needed.

So I do think this is a very petty thing to complain about. While I don't agree with every video game CEO, I do think they know what works best for growth.

Seems to me that Belsimtek are the ones who do all the technicalities behind the modules, ED In Russia 3D model the modules and the only thing the yanks do is test the modules. Does ED in the good ole US of A actually do anything technical other than eat mcdonalds? About the only thing Wags does in ED that I can see is post video's AFTER RUSSIA have finished the modules......Maybe send a few e-mail to the DOD and if he has a hit, employs a lawyer to draft the contact, still not much work involved in that Matt.....

Do any of these testers, forum mods, community managers (all ED Testers mind you, just thought I would chuck in their titles) actually do anything worthwhile with the modules once they have a copy in their greedy little hands? Hardly reporting back any bugs found as all the technical stuff is written in another language,,,,,,Russian. Since there is also a title for ED Translator on the forums, and the rate these people would actually be useful translating the flight manuals. Perhaps the translator could be more useful and receive all the bugs from the English speaking nations, translating them into Russian and e-mailing them direct to Belsimtek.

Not a very good analogy... a better one would be... Ubisoft is working on Far Cry 4 and once that gets to alpha/beta, they work on Far Cry 5, and neither one is complete when they start working on Watch Dogs 2, then Far Cry 4 is left in a very buggy state 2 or 3 years later, Far Cry 5 is in open beta, Watch Dogs 2 is just teasers, and then they work on Far Cry 6.... another 2 years down the line and Far Cry 4 is declared "release," Far Cry 5's bugs still aren't squashed, Watch Dogs 2 is nearing alpha, and they announce MORE work in mobile and racing games. They also release a patch to Far Cry 2.

My stance is "don't bite off more than you can chew" and for God's sake, swallow before you take another bite!!


It's been 6-7 years since DCS A10C. How long do they need for DCS F-18? How long has the F-18 been in development? It was supposed to be in public alpha or beta last year, according to their predictions early 2016. They said they'll announce ETA after Normandy has been released.... has Normandy been released yet? So where is ETA? When exactly does push come to shove?


Yeah. And complaining about ED developing 1.5.xx, 2.xx, and 2.5 is also a very petty thing to complain about, right?

More than likely? Didnt they say, 2 years ago, that the development of DCSWW2 wouldnt impact the other development ED were doing and look how that is working out. ED are a joke, their development incompetencies have a direct impact on everything they and their 3rd parties do. If it doesnt impact the f18, el oh frikin el, one can almost guarantee that something will come along to impact the development of the f4e/mi24 in the future. I would put my house on that. The reason they chose those 2 airframes is obvious, the platform is circling the drain and they need an injection of early access funds. Good luck to all who buy into this BS early access everything is subject to change farce.
#notinmylifetime

I think Ice was probably referring to their stated involvement with the F-18. Could be wrong, though, since this is typing, and assuming usually doesn't work out well.

I admittedly own all Belsimtek modules except the Mig-15, but really only fly the Huey regularly, and Mi-8 off and on. Just curious which ones aren't modeled right?

I presume he means the exhaust gasses not being modeled yet.

Nate

If you're talking about EGT effects on engine performance due to overuse of a transient limit (ie on the Huey, being in the 610 to 625 degree range for more than 30 minutes), then yes, I realize the sim imposes no penalty. The problem is, if they do model some sort of engine damage because of breaking this limit, we're talking about something that's a bit nebulous. The engine doesn't just break/quit/gradually lose power when you get to 00:30:01 on the clock. That time limit is built in to save long term wear on engine components. Only the manufacturer knows the true limit of the engine, and even that varies from s/n to s/n, I'm sure.

I'm not a Huey pilot, so I'll use a different example: if they(Eagle Dynamics, Belsimtek, etc.) made an H-60A where an engine died/gradually lost power/broke when hitting 00:30:01 on the clock at 850 degrees TGT, I would call BS, because I know it can do more. They problem is, maintenance and the commander wouldn't be happy because the aircraft would be down until the engine was inspected. They may, or may not find anything wrong. And if it was a brand new engine (what we get in just about any sim whenever we click 'Fly'), I would wage a lot of money on them not finding anything wrong.

Anyway, short story long, I agree, there is no modeling of engine damage due to exceeding EGT limits on the Huey, or Mi-8 that I'm aware of. However, at least engine power limits are modeled (ie, rotor droop when exceeding what the engine can do gross weight wise).

I've digressed far enough from the main topic. Excited about an Mi-24 from these guys. If it's as good as the other helos they've done, I'm sure it will be fun. Kind of wish they would have waited until it was close to release to make an announcement, though.

Heloguy,

I agree 100% on the 00:30:01 statement. What I have a problem with is:
Hot summer day in Nevada, I can load to 10,000lbs, two guys in the back with 134's, 100% fuel, 100% ammo, Rockets and Miniguns. Take off from Nellis, Torque at 45, Gas Producer 98%-99%, Gov blip increased to max, run it to the threshold of the Low Rotor RPM warning just about to scream which raises the EGT to 750°C to 760°C. Fly like this until low fuel. That is a lot longer than 00:30:01






Modeled:

Maybe Heloguy can answer since I am not a pilot. When I Practice Auto-Rotations in the UH-1H, I shut off the fuel. The RPM Needles(Engine and Rotor) stay glued together. Shouldn't the Engine go to near 0 and the Rotor fluctuate with the amount of collective?





I agree 100%.

Which brings up a sore point with me.
Mi-24P Crew: 2–3: pilot, weapons system officer and technician (optional)
F-4E Crew 2

On the Eagle Dynamics DCS e-Shop, for both the UH-1H & Mi-8MTV2, the language of "Multiplayer coop mode for crew members of the same helicopter under development for a later update" has been removed.

Eagle Dynamics DCS e-Shop UH-1H
Eagle Dynamics DCS e-Shop Mi-8MTV2

At the Belsimtek site, they still have "Multiplayer coop mode for crew members of the same helicopter under development for a later update" listed.

Belsimtek UH-1H
Belsimtek Mi-8MTV2

I bought UH-1H on 30-04-2013
I bought Mi-8MTV2 on 05-09-2013
Where is Co-Operative Multi-Player Multicrew after 4 years?
95% of my purchase decision for UH-1H & Mi-8MTV2 was Co-operative multi-player flight with humans in the different positions. I would have bought 2 more of each(total of three copies each) to run on different computers at home on a LAN for friends that come over so we could Multicrew.

No more Belsimtek products(F-4E nor Mi-24P) for me until they finish what they promised 4 years ago.

If Belsimtek being a Eagle Dynamics Partner, have extra staff to start on F4, Mi-24, and F-18C how about finishing what you promised customers first. In my opinion, even before working on F-18C

Thank you,
Monnie

Yeah, this is extreme. Hopefully whatever they come up with as 'the gray area' isn't too conservative. That is what I'm worried about.



Yes, the engine's free power turbine (N2) should decelerate well below the rotor speed if the engine is shut off during an autorotation, unless the free-wheeling unit is malfunctioning (probably not in DCS). Try initiating an auto by reducing the throttle to idle (this is how it is practiced IRL), or by shutting it off with the throttle. I'm unable to test it now, but I thought this did make the needles split the last time I tried it. At any rate, the needles splitting would just be a visual effect anyway. Whether they split or not, if the engine quits, you have to autorotate.

As far as the rotor RPM fluctuating or not, it should. If the engine is shut down, try increasing the collective to max, and you should see a major decrease in RPM. The Huey rotor system has notoriously high inertia (even the composite blades, compared to newer helicopters).

If there is no decrease in RPM, then the engine is not shut down. This would either be because there is still fuel in the lines, and DCS is modeling that, or it's a bug. The engine would indeed not quit immediately when the fuel valve is closed, and it would continue to burn what fuel is between the valve and engine, which would take some time (not sure how much, but couldn't be more than 10-20 seconds). With this in mind, the engine RPM would not decrease until the fuel was starved completely.

Thanks Monnie.

No money to be found in that.

I bet the pre-release alphaBeta mayhem we see today is there for a reason.
Will folks stop pre-purchase stuff/promises?
Doesn't look like it, but if we do I bet we "the community" will be at blame for killing the genre, not the half-assed developers.

Wagner likes to point out "everything is subject to change" Monnie Rock has pointed out a big example of this "Where is Co-Operative Multi-Player Multicrew after 4 years? ". Once the sales have reached their high water mark, the "change" is development stops. The big sales pitch evaporates. The customer is left with a product that isn't what they paid for, and in Monnie Rocks case a product that has been paid for more than once.
Certain members of the community are just as guilty of the platform circling the drain as the Developers ED/3rd parties. Their misguided belief that they're helping the platform by supporting beta/alpha just encourages the developers to throw their resources into the next product while leaving the old product unfinished because its not financially viable to continue development as sales have peaked. When more folk refuse to purchase beta/alpha, especially on the DCS platform, until the previous products are finished, then and only then will things improve. With the "soon" to be released f-18 in development I can't see that happening. It's a high demand airframe and there are folk who've been waiting for it a long time. Same with the f-14, same with the F4/hind, high demand airframes that will distract from the issues with previous modules. "Oooh shiny new" Ed will be rubbing their hands together at the thought of the early access monies soon to be had from the hornet. Will all the systems be present at early access? I doubt it. Will they be finalized within 3-5 years? Who knows, everything is subject to change, and who knows what difficulties their other products may bring that will divert resources from the Hornet. Same can be said for the F-14, F-4 and Hind.
Stop encouraging this business practice, show some self restraint and stop purchasing early access/beta from a developer that clearly has little regard for their customers once the "confirm purchase" button has been pressed.

@Johnny_Redd's reply. +1

I've been TDY for the past 2 weeks and have reading the various site's reviews or comments on 1.5.7 FPS and memory issues and listening to crickets in regards to fixing 2.1.1

The sales pitch was made very well. However, the environment now is so broken, my optimism is quickly matching. If half of your users are experiencing any issues, then you've got some major problems. And then to have people chiming in with "I dont have any issues" only discourages and muddies the support chain.

So like so many others, I'm stuck at 1.5.6 in order to keep some playability. 2.1.1 is a disaster as deferred lighting makes it blindingly unusable and the FPS a slideshow.

I quit purchasing modules in Beta, and I quit purchasing modules from developers that disappointed me.

E.g. Even though I would like the Viggen, I'm not gonna buy it. Why? 'Cause I got burnt enough with the MiG-21.
BST? I bought the F-5 after reading many opinions that it was a good module and mostly bug free. I've been very disappointed with BST in the past, so they're "on probation" for me, but getting better since the F-5.

ED? To be honest, ED's airplane modules are good quality upon release, unfortunately they #%&*$# them up later on and never fix things that are broken (see Ka-50, A-10, P-51).

Stop buying stuff upfront and throw 60 bucks in the bin. Make sure the product is good, research and if all seems ok buy. They are a business, not a church. If they don't provide good products, customers should flee, not pay more.

Indeed, the incentive to do any more work diminishes after the first round of sales. Most people will buy only one copy of the module; a rare few will buy two or three copies to either gift to someone else or to use for a server. So why continue pouring 100% of your resources/manpower when you can only expect to sell only a few more copies? Why not divert that resources/manpower into something that will sell another thousand or so of copies?

Makes sense in the business standpoint, but really, they're only shooting themselves in the foot with this practice. I bought the A10C during Beta because I flew the A10A in FC3. I bought BS2 when it came out as "support" for ED; I wasn't really much of a rotorhead and all previous helos I've flown were American-side in EECH/EEACH, namely the Apache and the Commanche, but I bought BS2 to support the devs. I'm glad I didn't do more after that..... one or two of the guys I was flying with bought Combined Arms but AFAIK, it never materialized to what they thought they could do with that module.

Looking forward to the Hind! Will buy it if/when multi crew is in and working.

Until then me and a friend are having a blast in the Gazelle. Just bought a Rift on the summer sale and that will probably double the fun despite beeing 1st Gen headsets. 399US/449 EUR is a bargain. Touch controllers, taxes and UPS shipping included.

Currently, Belsimtek is the only developer I really buy easily from, and both the Mi-24P and F-4E are easily among the things I want the MOST in DCS, so I'll probably buy shortly after they are available, but will probably shy away from prepurchasing as well.

They did have a spotty record on delivering features and fixing things at first, but they've mostly come clean these days, not entirely may be, but they have improved a lot. As for the other devs, yeah, like others said, it is "carefully watch first from a safe distance, then consider carefully, than watch some more, and then may be buy" for me.

But Hind and Phantom are two things I can hardly resist at all, and I do have faith in Belsimtek, so I'll likely keep my surveillance period short on these modules .

A bit of an update on the E Phantom, "straight from the horse's mouth":
https://belsimtek.com/news/1787/

Looks like we're set up for the '80s suite of systems on that bird.

Nice! Any word how they're going to implement the guy in the back (RIO)?

AIM9 AIM7
Bombs AGM65 AGM45 GBU15
Optical Search n Slave Device
FLIR targeting pod (AN/AVQ-26)
Automatic landing approach(?)

just ....wow!
didnt know F-4 was a multirole fighter with such an advanced device equipped.
MP is gonna be hella fun

Hopefully one of the ways is with a real person. After reading "Scream of the Eagles" I can't imagine playing without this option. I also hope that the current third party development procedure doesn't prohibit collaboration on features within DCS. I know that Heatblur has talked about RIO AI with the F-14. It would be nice if there isn't a huge disparity between modules due to "trade secrets."

would have been fun to have the naval version though.....

I was wondering if it was going to be a Vietnam era F-4E or a mid 80s variant. Good to know about the AGM-65.

THIS book?? Looks like a nice read...

That's the one, by Wilcox. It was definitely hard to put down.

Thanks!

Sure thing!