From past experience I will wait until it is more complete before buying, very interested in this module .... ... but sick of buying stuff and holding out on a promise that it will be completed in a timely fashion eg 101 , hawk
Ferengi Rule of acquisition #1 Once you have their money ... never give it back.
From past experience I will wait until it is more complete before buying, very interested in this module .... ... but sick of buying stuff and holding out on a promise that it will be completed in a timely fashion eg 101 , hawk
That was my thinking. But, with ED hopefully clamping down on quality (e.g. telling VEAO to do one) and having an internal test period before allowing the preorder - I'm going to risk it again.
Joined: Mar 2003 Posts: 3,922Paradaz
Senior Member
Paradaz
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
UK
Yup, this is one module I really want but I'm not putting up with more of the same crap from ED and their partners.....I'll buy when I know this is worth the price......and pre-ordering doesn't come close to fulfilling that regardless of any statements ED may make about any potential improvements.
On the Eighth day God created Paratroopers and the Devil stood to attention.
So. . . wake me when it's finished and I'll check people's honest reviews. Until then ED/Razbam need to do their homework and finish something for once. Speaking of finish, haven't been paying attention - did ED finally finish 2.5?
Also loved the lingering shot of the F-18 at the end. Steam from the catapult going by, I was waiting for it to launch. But it never did. . .
Crazy thing is though, a lot of people I have heard chatting on online servers complaining how long it takes and unfinished products, yet they are purchasing pre-sale straight away!
As long as the DCS: AV-8B is in the 80% - 85% finished range I'm good, RAZBAM are putting much time and money to get their aircraft as good as their able to do.
I'm happy to back them, cut down and only have two dinners out and two movies this month instead of three.
You guy's look and compare BMS a bit here to DCS, how much time and money would it take to get F4 to the 90% level after release, if it was a real company and the code was not leaked online? I think it would be years of full time work to get F4 systems and flight model polished up to the 90% level, from what I've read online about BMS, Superpak, FreeFalcon. Would this company have released maps and aircraft to support this work to get F4 to the level it is now, when the core game sales slowed down?
So I'm good with using the aircraft as is at 80%, knowing it will be worked on for the next see able years to polish it up to the highest level they can, like the other DCS and 3rd party aircraft and F4 BMS.
If your not good with this long development time and polish time for this niche, then I would say not to buy it now and wait a year and see where the aircraft is at then.
You can also look at other sims, like il2 cliffs of Dover, to see how long it took to become the sim it is today, thanks to Team Fusion that worked for free on the sim mods. That now have a stake$ ? and a legal license for the full source code to work with now.
One last thing, this will be the most detailed and realistic VTOL flight model there is for flight simulation, it could take time for this new flight model to get close to perfect as possible.
Well this is the DCS section, it's just a little heads up about the DCS: AV-8B and that it is available for pre purchase at a lower cost.
I signed up here to help Darren as seen here in this post actually.
and if I was advertising for this module, I would not have written.
"If your not good with this long development time and polish time for this niche, then I would say not to buy it now and wait a year and see where the aircraft is at then."
I really want a Harrier to fly (would have preferred the Falklands setting but that looks to be never coming) so this has my interest. Not going to pre-order though,I will wait to see what others make of it.
You guy's look and compare BMS a bit here to DCS, how much time and money would it take to get F4 to the 90% level after release, if it was a real company and the code was not leaked online? I think it would be years of full time work to get F4 systems and flight model polished up to the 90% level, from what I've read online about BMS, Superpak, FreeFalcon. Would this company have released maps and aircraft to support this work to get F4 to the level it is now, when the core game sales slowed down?
So I'm good with using the aircraft as is at 80%, knowing it will be worked on for the next see able years to polish it up to the highest level they can, like the other DCS and 3rd party aircraft and F4 BMS.
Hahahaha... that's one can of worms you'd best not open.
I really want a Harrier to fly (would have preferred the Falklands setting but that looks to be never coming) so this has my interest. Not going to pre-order though,I will wait to see what others make of it.
makes 2 of us
I never cared much for the US made Harrier - the British Sea Harrier FRS.1 yes, but what I wanted really to fly was the Mirage III in a Falklands setting.
Another interesting Sea Harrier would be the AMRAAM capable FA.2 ... one can only dream
Same as others: this could have been interesting, but I'm done pre purchasing stuff (well, I'm done purchasing anything DCS to be precise) until things change and we start seeing complete things, included the merged version 2.5.
Same as others: this could have been interesting, but I'm done pre purchasing stuff (well, I'm done purchasing anything DCS to be precise) until things change and we start seeing complete things, included the merged version 2.5.
these past 2 years have been frustrating - but I am sure that in another couple of years we will have a stable 2.5 and things should markedly improve.
I do really want the Harrier, but I think I will wait a bit. $50 is a lot of cash for a game. I wish ED would allow for custom bundles though. They often do two for $50 or $60, but half the modules I own or don't have any interest in. But if I could get a Harrier and something I have some interest in, such as an F-5E or Viggen, I'd consider it.
The 3rd screen shot does look great. What a big improvement over the old map. Although it is likely still lacking in a lot of trees, it is interesting to see them inside the air base. Which seems to be somewhat common in pictures of Russian air fields I have seen.
Nice screenshot! Did it come with performance numbers, by any chance? What FPS under what hardware?
Not my shot, it's the new free Caucasus map update for 2.5, It's close to the same fps as Normandy I believe? So still a bit up and down still.
Source?
Originally Posted by leigh583
Who's old friend?
A few guys have come here, got banned, then made up a new alias, got banned again... I think one guy did this 3 or 4 times, so some are thinking this may be account #5....
Nice screenshot! Did it come with performance numbers, by any chance? What FPS under what hardware?
Not my shot, it's the new free Caucasus map update for 2.5, It's close to the same fps as Normandy I believe? So still a bit up and down still.
Source?
One of the mods on ED forum posted that it was close fps to Normandy, not able to find it.
There is long term hope for a more multithreaded DCS
Originally Posted by FlyingMonkey
I sure hope that it's not worse than Normandy, because Normandy is pretty awful when trying to run it in VR (while Nevada runs fine in my experience).
If you use Deferred Shading? Then turn off MSAA, Anisotropic Filtering, Both shadows to flat. In Nvidia panel, Force Anisotropic Filtering 16x, Antialiasing 2x Super.
Every thing else set to high or ultra for Vis range, 60 to 100 FPS with 1070, 1440P, 4.8Ghz. It needs more work (Alpha ) be good if it is better when 2.5 lands.
Oh, that's for a monitor, should help if you turn these off for VR too.
I see that Razbam are making this module and as I have never owned any modules produced by them I was wondering what are they like for quality/bugs etc?
I fully agree with everyone that says that won't buy it (or any other DCS module for that matter) in a Beta stage! Moreover, if I had to buy a "Beta AV-8B" than I would buy CAP2 instead - At least with CAP2 there's a promise of a dynamic campaign and other important (to me) gameplay features
And even more, that guy who's clearly here promoting DCS tried to come up with Falcon BMS (probably in an attempt to compared it to DCS) but either way and now that the subject of Falcon BMS came up, I also want to say that there's a quite interesting AV-8B in the Falcon BMS (with a fully functional thrust vectoring and vertical landing/takeoff configuration), specially if one considers the AV-8B+ variant.
I see that Razbam are making this module and as I have never owned any modules produced by them I was wondering what are they like for quality/bugs etc?
They have a great way to engage with the community and take people along for the ride, IMHO I feel for DCS they set the benchmark for development updates and building the hype (if you're into that sort of thing).
They release modules far from complete (well to be fair in DCS they have only done the Mirage) but they indicate that fairly clearly in their manuals - so if you want the complete package stay clear of the Early Access aircraft. I personally don't mind this approach but I can understand others are frustrated by it, but the loud voices want thing now, now, now so this has become standard now.
Bugs – the Mirage had a few as was expected, though the commitment to fixing and developing the module was clearly shown. The challenge from what I see in DCS is that the fix release cycles across the two versions has slowed the release of these fixes which is incredibility frustrating to say the least but it’s not a reflection on RAZBAM. I get the sense with the Harrier that they are trying to get it nailed down in terms of quality before release, however, new features will more than likely introduce new bugs (I hate writing that – as it’s not a foregone conclusion and shouldn’t be, software QA engineering should be able to deal with this).
There has been some criticism of the state of the Mirage and that it’s not complete and that with all of the new feature releases the manual was never updated (BTW - there is a community driven update to the manual underway). Whilst I do have it, I stopped after a period of time flying it as I got distracted with another aircraft so I can’t comment on what’s not finished.
Conclusion – I like the quality of their products, I accept that it will not be a complete module at the release, I also accept that it will have bugs so am happy to proceed with the early access.
There was only 16 squadrons of RAF fighters that used 100 octane during the BoB. The Fw190A could not fly with the outer cannon removed. There was no Fw190A-8s flying with the JGs in 1945.
I see that Razbam are making this module and as I have never owned any modules produced by them I was wondering what are they like for quality/bugs etc?
You can see all the work they have done on the Mirage in this thread.
Originally Posted by ricnunes
I fully agree with everyone that says that won't buy it (or any other DCS module for that matter) in a Beta stage! Moreover, if I had to buy a "Beta AV-8B" than I would buy CAP2 instead - At least with CAP2 there's a promise of a dynamic campaign and other important (to me) gameplay features
And even more, that guy who's clearly here promoting DCS tried to come up with Falcon BMS (probably in an attempt to compared it to DCS) but either way and now that the subject of Falcon BMS came up, I also want to say that there's a quite interesting AV-8B in the Falcon BMS (with a fully functional thrust vectoring and vertical landing/takeoff configuration), specially if one considers the AV-8B+ variant.
Not compare, different time how developers made money, only with the development stage, if it was still a company. (We know it was updated for free, lets pretend it wasn't stolen for one minute) How long did it take to get F4 out of beta? Well I would have called F4 beta for many many many many years, the flight model wasn't right or good until BMS started to sorted it out in 2006, that's just one area of F4. Not taking away from what was accomplished back then by any means, it was still enjoyable and playable after a few mods like SuperPak..
What is the system modeling like in the AV-8B in BMS, is it much like the F16 by any chance? Could you even call it an Alpha stage? laughable to even bring up here really.
I get frustrated with DCS, it takes time to get things done, having several military clients properly doesn't help, except with paying the bills to stay in business, which enables them to spend more dollars creating more advance technologies for more advance aircraft, for us and their military clients, F4 is not at the level the military can use for training, it was never intended to be. DCS on the other hand has a website dedicated to promoting this accurate technology.
Well, F/A-18C is going to have 'a full pack' of complex features needed for other modern jets - AG radar, JHMCS, Link 4/16, HUD repeater, automatic landing, AA radar + long range missiles, 3 displays in the cockpit (one with different rendering method), 2 mission computers, Digital FCS, supersonic flight, arrested landings, HARM, Walleye, JDAM/JSOW, etc... So, yes new compex products will be done faster after F/A-18C.
Are we the military technology guinea pigs? Yes and no, this could change in the future perhaps when ED doesn't have to only rely on these contracts.
Not compare, different time how developers made money, only with the development stage, if it was still a company. (We know it was updated for free, lets pretend it wasn't stolen for one minute) How long did it take to get F4 out of beta? Well I would have called F4 beta for many many many many years, the flight model wasn't right or good until BMS started to sorted it out in 2006, that's just one area of F4. Not taking away from what was accomplished back then by any means, it was still enjoyable and playable after a few mods like SuperPak..
What is the system modeling like in the AV-8B in BMS, is it much like the F16 by any chance? Could you even call it an Alpha stage? laughable to even bring up here really.
What is laughable is that you insist on comparing a product that is polished by modders who do it on their free time vs. a product that is supposedly under full-time development by paid employees. Also, please review the timeline of Falcon and the timeline of ED and see why your for-free-work vs. paid-for-work is just silly.
Just in case you missed it ---- the point here is FREE vs. PAID ---- your predecessors don't seem to understand this concept. I hope you can.
Originally Posted by leigh583
I get frustrated with DCS, it takes time to get things done, having several military clients properly doesn't help, except with paying the bills to stay in business, which enables them to spend more dollars creating more advance technologies for more advance aircraft, for us and their military clients.
Ah yes, that old excuse.... remind me again what "advance technologies" have come out recently from their military contract???
What is laughable is that you insist on comparing a product that is polished by modders who do it on their free time vs. a product that is supposedly under full-time development by paid employees. Also, please review the timeline of Falcon and the timeline of ED and see why your for-free-work vs. paid-for-work is just silly.
Just in case you missed it ---- the point here is FREE vs. PAID ---- your predecessors don't seem to understand this concept. I hope you can.
I don't compare a software product that is not in business anymore to a company that has employees and other contracts to pay for the livelihoods of said 75 employees and especially when it's a STOLEN vs. PAID product.
No comparison and I hope you can understand the way I see it.
What is the system modeling like in the AV-8B in BMS, is it much like the F16 by any chance? Could you even call it an Alpha stage? laughable to even bring up here really.
You want to see something really laughable?? Look yourself at the mirror!
I'm here posting as a sim user and a costumer and as such this is my opinion which unlike your own opinions, it doesn't come from a DCS fanboy.
Yes, the AV-8B in BMS uses the F-16 avionics which is not that bad or far off if you're flying the AV-8B+ variant.
But then again, can you fly the AV-8B in your "beloved" DCS in a fully dynamic campaign and battlefield?? Trying to do this in DCS would be really laughable!
Nope , but the poster then created a new post and nicely asked the question of "What information do ED need to get these features implemented" ..... and he promptly got his posting rights suspended
Ferengi Rule of acquisition #1 Once you have their money ... never give it back.
@ SC/JG_Oesau. Thank you for your thoughts on RAZBAM.
I want to get back into flight sims again. I've spent long enough in War Thunder and World of Planes 'flying' with mouse/keyboard,now I want to play with the big boys again
My TrackIR I bought some 12 months ago has only collected dust in that time.My Logitech joystick was thrown out about 10 months ago (spiking issues,that's 2 with the same problem) so I just purchased a Thrustmaster T.16000M that I believe uses Hall sensors. I have never owned a throttle/stick combination although I have tried one and I didn't like it. I was brought up on early Microprose titles where the keyboard ruled along with a simple flight stick.
I'm looking forward to it and hopefully the RAZBAM Harrier will be exactly what I want.
Yes, the AV-8B in BMS uses the F-16 avionics which is not that bad or far off if you're flying the AV-8B+ variant.
No more to say really, got nothin.
There is just a little difference between a digital combat "simulator" and a Stolen F4, F-16 replicants.
Just sayin.
If you have nothing more to say then don't say!
And if you're going to quote me, at least quote me properly! I didn't put the sarcastic smile in from of the sentence where I posted about the AV-8B avionics in BMS! I put it in the previous sentence, like I'm putting next to this one (again)
Joined: Mar 2003 Posts: 3,922Paradaz
Senior Member
Paradaz
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
UK
Rule 2.5
Never discuss 2.5. Try and brush the 5 year delay under the carpet and do not, under any circumstances, give any updates regarding your alleged high priority merger build. Do however, push as many payware campaigns as possible that will all need major rework in due course.
On the Eighth day God created Paratroopers and the Devil stood to attention.
I don't compare a software product that is not in business anymore to a company that has employees and other contracts to pay for the livelihoods of said 75 employees
Um, you just did. Have you already forgotten?
Originally Posted by leigh583
You guy's look and compare BMS a bit here to DCS, how much time and money would it take to get F4 to the 90% level after release, if it was a real company and the code was not leaked online? I think it would be years of full time work to get F4 systems and flight model polished up to the 90% level, from what I've read online about BMS, Superpak, FreeFalcon. Would this company have released maps and aircraft to support this work to get F4 to the level it is now, when the core game sales slowed down?
So I'm good with using the aircraft as is at 80%, knowing it will be worked on for the next see able years to polish it up to the highest level they can, like the other DCS and 3rd party aircraft and F4 BMS.
Wasn't that you just comparing BMS and DCS? Please let's not then get on a high horse, that's just plain silly.
Originally Posted by leigh583
and especially when it's a STOLEN vs. PAID product.
You mean LEAKED, not stolen. Moot point anyway as the current IP holders of the Falcon name has given BMS its blessing.
Originally Posted by leigh583
No comparison and I hope you can understand the way I see it.
Yeah, cherry-picking the criteria to skew in your favor. Regardless of whether the Falcon code was stolen or leaked, the FACT remains is that BMS is a FREE product that requires proof-of-ownership of the original Falcon 4.0 disc in order to work. So again, the point here is FREE vs. PAID.
Originally Posted by leigh583
There is just a little difference between a digital combat "simulator" and a Stolen F4, F-16 replicants.
Yeah, we were talking about simulators and you keep insisting on writing off Falcon BMS just because it's "stolen".... which one has the weak argument now? Just sayin'.
Never discuss 2.5. Try and brush the 5 year delay under the carpet and do not, under any circumstances, give any updates regarding your alleged high priority merger build. Do however, push as many payware campaigns as possible that will all need major rework in due course.
Many videos using 2.5 getting around Paradaz, including the one at the start of this thread, it's their company, so it is what it is, we can keep discussing this all day right, it wont change anything.
From what I've seen, it's coming along nicely and in a good position for their and our future.
Originally Posted by - Ice
Sigh.... here we go again.....
Not here for that, you see what you see and that's ok. I see what I see and I hope your ok with that too.
Originally Posted by leigh583
and especially when it's a STOLEN vs. PAID product.
Originally Posted by - Ice
You mean LEAKED, not stolen. Moot point anyway as the current IP holders of the Falcon name has given BMS its blessing.
I mean LEAKED then STOLEN, I'm thinking they had no choice or be willing to go to court to sort it out. At the end of the day - Ice, it was taken without permission and that's stealing.
stealing "take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it."
Originally Posted by - Ice
Just in case you missed it ---- the point here is FREE vs. PAID ---- your predecessors don't seem to understand this concept. I hope you can.
At least say LEAKED vs. PAID. It's should never have been free for so many years with the work that went into F4, we are talking millions of dollars of code where LEAKED/STOLEN.
All fight sims are cool, they all have flaws.
I rate DCS at 7/10 just like steam does.
Same with F4, 7/10 just in different areas, only my opinion.
What would you rate these two sims at overall - Ice?
Same with F4, 7/10 just in different areas, only my opinion.
LOL 7/10 DCS? When the second most important part, which is combat, is done so poorly that even some arcade games provide more entertainment?! If it was not for its, still bugged, flight model it would be easily a 2/10 but i'll keep that in consideration and give a 5/10, unless ED changes the name to DS and take apart the combat from its name then i could give a 7/10. No way anything beyond that because it offers poor combat for a combat simulator and no decent environment (overall world and local detailed scenery, weather, etc..) for a pure flight simulator.
That's exactly how it should be named. In the case it would definitely become a 8/10 since the flight model is not perfect as some people try to makes others believe.
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla... Plus one Random DCS screenshot
It's "curious" how you "carefully" ignored Ice's argument that the Falcon 4 IP owners have given their blessing (a.k.a. permission) to BMS to continue to develop the BMS mod for Falcon 4. It's also curious how you conveniently forget that the company that owned/developed Falcon 4 (Microprose) ceased to exist so stealing from someone who doesn't exist is at least a bit weird and even debatable, specially after this someone actually ceased to exist which was exactly what happened regarding the Falcon 4 source code. By the way, wasn't the Falcon 4 source code leaked by someone from Microprose?? Isn't this like having my own business like for example a grocery store and in the meanwhile my business went bankrupt but instead of letting the products on my store to rot, I decided to open the doors of my store an invite whoever wants to take whatever he/she wants from my store! Yes, there are still people in the world capable of this! And of course anyone who worships the kind of business that ED/DCS follows is unable to understand something like this!
And it's also curious how you have to resort to a weird and poor argument of "source code stealing" in order to compare both sims (BMS and DCS) when you should be comparing (if you want to) the actual features on both sims - Or judge the sims for what they are instead for who supposedly own it and who developed it. But this doesn't surprise me at all, since this is a typical DCS troll/fanatic type of comment/reasoning
As a flight sim player and a customer I DON'T GIVE A F**K ABOUT WHO OWNS OR DEVELOPS WHAT! All I want is to have excellent and immersive sims and in terms of modern multirole fighter aircraft combat simulators there's currently only one that fits this criteria: B-M-S! CAPICHE??
RAZBAM is a quality developer who has kept promises during the development of their excellent Mirage 2000 module. That, coupled with the fact that there is about a 100% chance that I was going to buy this module anyway, because I'm very interested in the AV-8, led me to buy it now to save 10 bucks.
Then again, I once went on E-Bay drunk and bought all of the DVD Boxed Sets of the Golden Girls because I had convinced myself that my world needs more Rue McLanahan.
RAZBAM is a quality developer who has kept promises during the development of their excellent Mirage 2000 module. n.
We think about the same mirage?At the time of release ~60% of avionics does not work,and awful cockpit texture made in a paint? lool
Yes. That Mirage.
Would you like to Dogfight on Multiplayer? I'll take a Mirage and you can choose your ride. I'll give you a demonstration in what percentage of the avionics are now effective.
I'm sure we'll both come out of the experience having learned a valuable lesson about friendship.
You only confirm that it makes sense to buy a harrier two years after release.EARLIEST.
I guess.
Early Release stuff gives me a chance to be with the module as it develops. Given the intricacies of the "Study" modules, it's a bit less like drinking from the fire hose as elements are introduced. It doesn't bother me that they are incomplete, as (at least most of the 3rd party developers) tell us up front that they aren't complete.
You only confirm that it makes sense to buy a harrier two years after release.EARLIEST.
I guess.
Early Release stuff gives me a chance to be with the module as it develops. Given the intricacies of the "Study" modules, it's a bit less like drinking from the fire hose as elements are introduced. It doesn't bother me that they are incomplete, as (at least most of the 3rd party developers) tell us up front that they aren't complete.
It's not for everybody, but it's okay with me.
the best time to buy - IMO - is five years after early access release , by which time it should have most of its bugs ironed out.
You only confirm that it makes sense to buy a harrier two years after release.EARLIEST.
I guess.
Early Release stuff gives me a chance to be with the module as it develops. Given the intricacies of the "Study" modules, it's a bit less like drinking from the fire hose as elements are introduced. It doesn't bother me that they are incomplete, as (at least most of the 3rd party developers) tell us up front that they aren't complete.
It's not for everybody, but it's okay with me.
the best time to buy - IMO - is five years after early access release , by which time it should have most of its bugs ironed out.
Purchased. Don't regret it at all and I know I will enjoy it. Money well spent in that context.
Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people. Carl Sagan
Wow.... interesting flurry of activity, and when Daz referred to him as "Cadet David," I even missed that one! I guess DCS is so interesting and awesome that he just has to come here again and again, huh? To be fair, he did try a new tactic this time with STOLEN vs. PAID criteria.
Originally Posted by Clutch
Early Release stuff gives me a chance to be with the module as it develops. Given the intricacies of the "Study" modules, it's a bit less like drinking from the fire hose as elements are introduced. It doesn't bother me that they are incomplete, as (at least most of the 3rd party developers) tell us up front that they aren't complete.
It's not for everybody, but it's okay with me.
If you are fine with paying to be a free beta tester, if you are fine with paying full price for a module that isn't going to be full-feature for at least a few years, if you are going into this with open expectations, then fair enough and more power to you. At least you are honest enough to say these things, and for that, much respect.
I do hope you realize that we only try to discourage these things in order to send a message to ED.... you participating as you do kinda weakens the message. Maybe if ED had an internal or open beta testing phase, where people could try out the modules before it's fully released, then they (ED) won't get as much flak. Doing the beta testing while asking people to pay for the priviledge, however, that's another thing.
Why people should not buy early access?? Because they simply intoxicate the market with devs and publishers that simply exploit even when they can easily afford avoid early access. Unfortunately it seems that there is no way back, people just love to be f****ed to death and buy things blindly and the worst is when the product is horrible but fanboys comes is defending devs/publisher by simply going against their own interest.
Devs and publishers know that and simply exploit it even those who can afford avoiding early access. I could understand for some case but the thing just got out of control and now the market is full or buck of bugs games that either will take years to be fixed or even never been fixed. So they pay to be beta testers (unprepared beta testers but they feel so professional since they are part of the community and somehow the development) for full price and for some ludicrous discount.
The saddest part is that they fail to realize that the same game years ago would have taken less time and be released with a smaller bug list (specially major bugs)...but people love to poison their own interest
Obviously i'm referring to the whole gaming market and not just ED world
I'm not against beta testing or early access. Having to pay for the pleasure of bug reporting is another matter.
Paying to get the product in beta stage simply decreases or even removes the incentive of the publisher to finish and polish their product, and ED has shown this to be true time and again.
Yeah, best send money happy guinea pigs first... I am happy to wait till some major bugs ironed out first, then will think about getting it (ie when on sale...)... (sorry edit if I knew it was going to be quality first release then I would be happy to support with cash, but considering past experience, will wait to throw cash at them, I'm not just a tight a*s waiting for next sale..., but I don't just throw money with blind enthusiasm!!!)
Im no financial maniac but you guys seriously think people buying EA release suddenly fulfill development cost that took years, and start making profit so they dont work on project anymore?
Im no financial maniac but you guys seriously think people buying EA release suddenly fulfill development cost that took years, and start making profit so they dont work on project anymore?
And why would they suddenly work on Project B when Project A is not yet finished? Why is work being done on terrains and campaigns when the core engine keeps getting delayed?
Im no financial maniac but you guys seriously think people buying EA release suddenly fulfill development cost that took years, and start making profit so they dont work on project anymore?
And why would they suddenly work on Project B when Project A is not yet finished? Why is work being done on terrains and campaigns when the core engine keeps getting delayed?
The answer is (and I am not saying ED is doing it right) that you have to keep moving forward with the eye toward future revenue. I happen to know the head of a major game studio (an Activision/Blizzard subsidiary) and the next project is in the works long before the previous project is considered complete.
Joined: Mar 2003 Posts: 3,922Paradaz
Senior Member
Paradaz
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
UK
Yes, but there's less incentive for the devs (and especially so in ED's case) to keep the focus on completing a project when you already have received a lot of revenue for it and there is still some way to go
On the Eighth day God created Paratroopers and the Devil stood to attention.
The answer is (and I am not saying ED is doing it right) that you have to keep moving forward with the eye toward future revenue. I happen to know the head of a major game studio (an Activision/Blizzard subsidiary) and the next project is in the works long before the previous project is considered complete.
Yes but the major game studio finishes Project A. You've missed the point again. It is not about starting Project B, it is about not finishing Project A. Nobody would care if ED has Project A at 90%, Project B at 40%, and Project C at 10% if we were confident that ED would finish Project A, then work on finishing Project B, then work on finishing Project C. However, ED has left Project A at 90%, worked on Project B from 40% to 50%, Project C was at 10% and is now at 85%, and yet all three are still not finished. So your answer may apply to a major game studio, but it does not apply in ED's case as ED is obviously not doing it right.
As before, just because others are doing it does not excuse ED for copying it and copying it badly.
Yes, but there's less incentive for the devs (and especially so in ED's case) to keep the focus on completing a project when you already have received a lot of revenue for it and there is still some way to go
Selling an incomplete product does produce a whole set of issues that are a bit out of line with the way most companies (outside of the gaming industry) do business. You can't sell a car if the transmission will be delivered in the future. I will agree that this can create a mindset that is counterproductive to the long term bottom line, IMHO. Steam is full of offerings from companies that never end up finishing the product and this is, indeed, a bad precedent.
I currently work, when I wish, on various projects and my contracts always stipulate a partial payment at the start (usually less than 25% of the projected total cost) and the remainder is not due until the customer/contract has been satisfied. The gaming industry has evolved it's own set of rules that, in my mind, seem to defy logic in many ways. Unfortunately, it appears to be working for most of the companies involved.
So your answer may apply to a major game studio, but it does not apply in ED's case as ED is obviously not doing it right.
I can't dispute that. You are quite correct. However, you are very prone to nitpicking issues that really are not significant (i.e. graphics work as opposed to ground radar coding).
When I was very young I worked as draftsman (back in the pencil/pen on paper era) and there were often times when our department was waiting on the engineers to complete their work. The company did not fire the group of us, they found other work for us to do.
Steam is full of offerings from companies that never end up finishing the product and this is, indeed, a bad precedent.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. What does Steam Greenlight or indie devs have to do with ED? A dev company made up of maybe 2-5 guys starting out with their first game and you compare that to ED?
Originally Posted by cichlidfan
I currently work, when I wish, on various projects and my contracts always stipulate a partial payment at the start (usually less than 25% of the projected total cost) and the remainder is not due until the customer/contract has been satisfied. The gaming industry has evolved it's own set of rules that, in my mind, seem to defy logic in many ways. Unfortunately, it appears to be working for most of the companies involved.
And what would happen if you failed to deliver on your contract well after the time stipulated on the contract? What would happen if you were 5 years overdue?
Originally Posted by cichlidfan
However, you are very prone to nitpicking issues that really are not significant (i.e. graphics work as opposed to ground radar coding).
So you're saying ground radar is not important but graphics work is?
Originally Posted by cichlidfan
When I was very young I worked as draftsman (back in the pencil/pen on paper era) and there were often times when our department was waiting on the engineers to complete their work. The company did not fire the group of us, they found other work for us to do.
Ah yes, because my point was that the very moment there is no work to do, fire those people? Is that how you really understood what I said? Can you not comprehend that maybe in your instance, there were enough of your group for the work that was anticipated, but not enough engineers? Do you understand the concept of a bottleneck?
So pre-order half finished harrier for 49.99 ...... or
Pay 69.99 at release
So the early access sales were not as big as they hoped and they stuck the price up more to encourage( Scare) more people into pre-purchase to save more money ....
Ferengi Rule of acquisition #1 Once you have their money ... never give it back.
So pre-order half finished harrier for 49.99 ...... or
Pay 69.99 at release
So the early access sales were not as big as they hoped and they stuck the price up more to encourage( Scare) more people into pre-purchase to save more money ....
You have absolutely no basis for anything you just posted outside of the 10 dollar final price increase. Everything else you posted is pure ASS-umption.
And here I was about to post about how wonderful it is to have reasonable, balanced discourse free of speculation and hyperbole in the Sim Hq DCS Forum.
Everything anyone else posts is pure ASS-umptions unless one is privvy to the inner workings of ED.... however, with these guesses, some are more plausible than others.
You want reasonable, balanced discourse? leaf speculated that the $10 increase is to "encourage" people to pre-order and thus "save" more money. Why do YOU think ED put the price up by $10?
Discussions here tend to border more on the negative, as the disillusioned find SimHQ after the wonderful moderation being done on the official ED forums. That's not to say that it is blind and outright negativity, but you'll have to be able to stand your ground and be able to stand up to scrutiny, logic, and common sense. We are all fans of ED, but fanboi-ism is a totally different thing.
$69 is a reasonable price for a product that has been five years in the making.
considering that it might take another year or two for it to be out of beta, by then a $99.99 price would be fair, since the developer by then will have spent 7 years on it.
Originally Posted by leaf_on_the_wind
Wow ......
So pre-order half finished harrier for 49.99 ...... or
Pay 69.99 at release
So the early access sales were not as big as they hoped and they stuck the price up more to encourage( Scare) more people into pre-purchase to save more money ....
that is what beta means - not finished
that is why I try not to buy betas of any games or flight sims, to avoid frustration,
I also ASS-ume the price is to "encourage" people to buy early and as such I also ASS-ume that their pre-release-party didn't really turn out as they hoped for.
Personally I will wait for a summer sale of $20 which I feel a single aircraft, at best, is worth.
Maybe the glourious June of 2028 when I am half-dead.
Could it be that these modules are so complex to create it becomes impossible to bring it all home financially?
Personally I would buy a $20 4-pack FC3 level planes every quarter if offered (the DCS environment isn't on the level of these modules anyhow, hardly at FC3 level even with ECM reducing lock range with 15% or what hardcoded and AI climbing hard losing all speed when missile inbound and why not jettison all those ARM weapons while at it?).
If the pre-release has been disappointing (and I have no idea one way or the other), I'd ASS-ume the real reason is the looming release of the F-18C. If you have limited income, are married to a shrew, etc, your purchase options are going to be limited.
I ASS-ume the F-18C is going to be wildly successful, and will absolutely bury any module it competes with. Imagine if you were Belsimtec and ED informed you that the F-18 was going to be released concurrently, or worse off BEFORE the AV-8. Talk about 5 years worth of work down the tubes....
This thread starts to deliver I think you have a good point on the F/A-18 contra other modules Clutch, people will probably bury them into it not looking at other stuff for 6 months.
So pre-order half finished harrier for 49.99 ...... or
Pay 69.99 at release
So the early access sales were not as big as they hoped and they stuck the price up more to encourage( Scare) more people into pre-purchase to save more money ....
I knew the module prices would go up, which is lame considering how the sales are these days. I suppose I won't own a Harrier, or F-18. I fully expect the F-18 to be $100 or so.
It's no big deal. In every single hobby/pastime I have, the fanbase is like this. With no exceptions whatsoever.
I guess you've not seen the Falcon BMS fanbase. It's not like this at all.
Originally Posted by Clutch
We can have different ways of looking at the same situation I guess it means we care.
True!
Originally Posted by Clutch
If the pre-release has been disappointing (and I have no idea one way or the other), I'd ASS-ume the real reason is the looming release of the F-18C. If you have limited income, are married to a shrew, etc, your purchase options are going to be limited.
I ASS-ume the F-18C is going to be wildly successful, and will absolutely bury any module it competes with. Imagine if you were Belsimtec and ED informed you that the F-18 was going to be released concurrently, or worse off BEFORE the AV-8. Talk about 5 years worth of work down the tubes....
Like I said, any assumptions should be able to stand up to scrutiny.... The F-18 project is well-known and I've got newsletters talking about it in early 2014. Speculation of the Hornet being done next started almost as soon as DCS A10C was released. There's no way none of the 3rd-party guys didn't know about it. As for limited income, that's not the model ED is following at all, with early access sales, release sales, campaign DLCs, and aircraft scattered across various years of aviation. If ED thought a customer would buy only one module, they'd make it the best one they could, but that's not what we're seeing.
I don't doubt the F-18 would be wildly successful, but I don't think it'll bury any module at all. Sales of other modules will slow down and will probably stay that way for a while, but with the DCS environment, it won't be long before the average DCS customer looks for the next thing.
Having said that, do we have any educated guesstimates of release date for the Hornet and the Harrier? I was under the impression that the Harrier was further along, that it would be released well before the Hornet, but I've not been keeping tabs very much on the Hornet.
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
I knew the module prices would go up, which is lame considering how the sales are these days. I suppose I won't own a Harrier, or F-18. I fully expect the F-18 to be $100 or so.
Simply wait 1-2 years after release and it'll be part ofa 50%-off sale or bundle sale
Having said that, do we have any educated guesstimates of release date for the Hornet and the Harrier? I was under the impression that the Harrier was further along, that it would be released well before the Hornet, but I've not been keeping tabs very much on the Hornet.
Well, before ED got their hands on the Harrier for their internal QA testing (LOL), it was scheduled for Q3 2017. E/A was announced and opened a week-ish ago, so maybe end of November. Purely a guess. However, from a money standpoint, ED has not released back to back modules within a month of each other. This would stunt continued sales of the first module, as some people hold out and wait to see how the launch went before buying. Unless E/A is announced around the 1st of December for the Hornet, it's HIGHLY doubtful a 2017 release will be made. So the forthcoming excuses and crawfishing will be issued.
Well, before ED got their hands on the Harrier for their internal QA testing (LOL), it was scheduled for Q3 2017. E/A was announced and opened a week-ish ago, so maybe end of November. Purely a guess. However, from a money standpoint, ED has not released back to back modules within a month of each other. This would stunt continued sales of the first module, as some people hold out and wait to see how the launch went before buying. Unless E/A is announced around the 1st of December for the Hornet, it's HIGHLY doubtful a 2017 release will be made. So the forthcoming excuses and crawfishing will be issued.
Well, I'm seeing links to Harrier videos being posted on YT whereas nothing much for the Hornet so the Harrier is indeed further along.... based on the lack of videos of the A-G radar in the Hornet, I would say the Hornet would be late 2018 at the earliest, so if the Harrier comes out early 2017, I don't think it's competing with the Hornet at all.
I knew the module prices would go up, which is lame considering how the sales are these days. I suppose I won't own a Harrier, or F-18. I fully expect the F-18 to be $100 or so.
Simply wait 1-2 years after release and it'll be part ofa 50%-off sale or bundle sale
Even then its $50 or so. I don't mind spending the money if I use it, but these will more or less be novelty modules for myself. I'll never learn the systems enough to have fun with them so they'll almost never get touched. And I don't like putting money into something that I won't use. Thinking of CLoD, played 61 minutes according to Steam. I only played Rise of Flight for a few hours since I purchased it, but I put 20 or so hours into the free demo so it was well worth the money.
If it is what they need to stay in business then I understand. But they'll have to get the die hard flight sim audience to purchase it.
What Time Zone are you in Ice? It's November of 2017 where I am.
Didn't take long for you to abandon all pretense of wanting a "reasonable, balanced discourse," huh?
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
Even then its $50 or so. I don't mind spending the money if I use it, but these will more or less be novelty modules for myself. I'll never learn the systems enough to have fun with them so they'll almost never get touched. And I don't like putting money into something that I won't use.
So you'll spend $50 for a modern fighter jet but not learn it's systems? Why buy this at all then? The F/A-18E SuperBug is $50 for FSX or $60 for P3D, it's the E-model, and you can fly anywhere on Earth. Surely that's better value for money than buying the DCS Hornet where you can only fly in Nevada/Normandy/Black Sea/Hormuz.
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
If it is what they need to stay in business then I understand. But they'll have to get the die hard flight sim audience to purchase it.
Not when they cut out much of what makes the Hornet so cool. At Early Access release, it'll be like a Warthog-lite for A-G and an Eagle-lite for A-A, so why would a Warthog player or an Eagle player looking for an upgrade buy a Hornet?
Even then its $50 or so. I don't mind spending the money if I use it, but these will more or less be novelty modules for myself. I'll never learn the systems enough to have fun with them so they'll almost never get touched. And I don't like putting money into something that I won't use.
So you'll spend $50 for a modern fighter jet but not learn it's systems? Why buy this at all then? The F/A-18E SuperBug is $50 for FSX or $60 for P3D, it's the E-model, and you can fly anywhere on Earth. Surely that's better value for money than buying the DCS Hornet where you can only fly in Nevada/Normandy/Black Sea/Hormuz.
Which is why I said its only worth it if I use it. I've spend a decent bit of money on games I never played and I'd rather not repeat that. I'd buy a DCS module at $25-30 at the most, because I likely won't use it. The F-18 is actually appealing but considering it will be a pain to setup, it falls back into the same situation. Waste of money if I don't use it.
As for FSX, it seems like a great game for civil aviation. But with no combat, compatibility issues that seem like a nightmare, and payware everywhere that makes ED look cheap I'll likely never pick it up. Which is why I purchased a bunch of 1:400 models as of late instead. At least I get to see them.
don't buy FSX - buy P3D v4 which is a 64bit up to date flight sim made by Lockheed Martin - as for combat, I hardly miss it and I have been flying FSX-P3D almost exclusively for these past 10 years.
most new aircraft already are tacpack compatible and thanks to v4, it is a matter of time before air to air and air to ground becomes part of the P3D experience.
What Time Zone are you in Ice? It's November of 2017 where I am.
Didn't take long for you to abandon all pretense of wanting a "reasonable, balanced discourse," huh?
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
Even then its $50 or so. I don't mind spending the money if I use it, but these will more or less be novelty modules for myself. I'll never learn the systems enough to have fun with them so they'll almost never get touched. And I don't like putting money into something that I won't use.
So you'll spend $50 for a modern fighter jet but not learn it's systems? Why buy this at all then? The F/A-18E SuperBug is $50 for FSX or $60 for P3D, it's the E-model, and you can fly anywhere on Earth. Surely that's better value for money than buying the DCS Hornet where you can only fly in Nevada/Normandy/Black Sea/Hormuz.
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
If it is what they need to stay in business then I understand. But they'll have to get the die hard flight sim audience to purchase it.
Not when they cut out much of what makes the Hornet so cool. At Early Access release, it'll be like a Warthog-lite for A-G and an Eagle-lite for A-A, so why would a Warthog player or an Eagle player looking for an upgrade buy a Hornet?
I was just teasing you with the Time-Zone thing. I guess I should have put an emoji
As far as the switch from the Warthog/Eagle to the Hornet, One Word: Carrier Operations in a non-FC3 Attack Fighter.
Tom, I've been looking pretty hard at X-Plane 11. Having come from FSX, what would you say (IYHO) puts P3D ahead of X-Plane for Civil Aviation?
Which is why I said its only worth it if I use it. I've spend a decent bit of money on games I never played and I'd rather not repeat that. I'd buy a DCS module at $25-30 at the most, because I likely won't use it. The F-18 is actually appealing but considering it will be a pain to setup, it falls back into the same situation. Waste of money if I don't use it.
I don't quite get your reasoning here.... you'll spend $25-30 max for a module you likely won't use.... so why buy at all? Keep that $25-30 and use it on something you WILL use.
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
As for FSX, it seems like a great game for civil aviation. But with no combat, compatibility issues that seem like a nightmare, and payware everywhere that makes ED look cheap I'll likely never pick it up. Which is why I purchased a bunch of 1:400 models as of late instead. At least I get to see them.
As Tom said, there's Tacpack... if you're not digging into the Hornet systems anyway, then Tacpack should be more than enough. Plus you can fly anywhere in the world. It can become more expensive, yes, with terrain, weather, and cloud add-ons, but it will work everywhere in the world and you can fly a great variety of aircraft compared to what ED offers.
Originally Posted by Clutch
I was just teasing you with the Time-Zone thing. I guess I should have put an emoji
Still nothing that resembles a "reasonable, balanced discourse."
Originally Posted by Clutch
As far as the switch from the Warthog/Eagle to the Hornet, One Word: Carrier Operations in a non-FC3 Attack Fighter.
That's more than one word. Also, so what? What exactly do you think Hornet carrier ops would bring that is not available in current FC3 carrier ops (Su-33)?
As far as the switch from the Warthog/Eagle to the Hornet, One Word: Carrier Operations in a non-FC3 Attack Fighter.
That's more than one word. Also, so what? What exactly do you think Hornet carrier ops would bring that is not available in current FC3 carrier ops (Su-33)?
[/quote]
Well, it'll bring Carrier Operations in a "Study Sim". I'm excited about it, I'm excited about Harrier Ops from the Tarawa.
I also don't fly FC3 aircraft because I can't stand trying to fly an aircraft in combat whilst performing hand contortions because of all of the keyboard combinations.
I also don't fly FC3 aircraft because I can't stand trying to fly an aircraft in combat whilst performing hand contortions because of all of the keyboard combinations.
At the same time, using a clickable cockpit is very slow and un-ergonomic. It works okay for something like a 787 where you are doing very few maneuvers and looking down and releasing control of the stick is okay. But get into combat and using the clickable cockpit is a nightmare. Keyboard combos are quicker than panning around, zooming in by the right amount, and then moving your mouse to click on it, then repeating the progress again if the step requires two button presses, and then readjusting the zoom and view angle. Most keyboard combos you can release, hit them and be back into action in a second.
As for the Su-33, it lacks AGMs or any guided air to ground weapons. That is a big plus for the Hornet.
At the same time, using a clickable cockpit is very slow and un-ergonomic. It works okay for something like a 787 where you are doing very few maneuvers and looking down and releasing control of the stick is okay. But get into combat and using the clickable cockpit is a nightmare. Keyboard combos are quicker than panning around, zooming in by the right amount, and then moving your mouse to click on it, then repeating the progress again if the step requires two button presses, and then readjusting the zoom and view angle. Most keyboard combos you can release, hit them and be back into action in a second.
When you're in combat and you need to take your hands off the HOTAS to flick a switch or press a button, you've already done something wrong. But yeah, moving the view around to click on a section of the screen is a pain to do despite sounding cool. Pair that with a TrackIR setup and it's even worse to execute.
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
As for the Su-33, it lacks AGMs or any guided air to ground weapons. That is a big plus for the Hornet.
Which won't be the case for the Hornet for a good while yet, it seems.
I also don't fly FC3 aircraft because I can't stand trying to fly an aircraft in combat whilst performing hand contortions because of all of the keyboard combinations.
At the same time, using a clickable cockpit is very slow and un-ergonomic. It works okay for something like a 787 where you are doing very few maneuvers and looking down and releasing control of the stick is okay. But get into combat and using the clickable cockpit is a nightmare. Keyboard combos are quicker than panning around, zooming in by the right amount, and then moving your mouse to click on it, then repeating the progress again if the step requires two button presses, and then readjusting the zoom and view angle. Most keyboard combos you can release, hit them and be back into action in a second.
As for the Su-33, it lacks AGMs or any guided air to ground weapons. That is a big plus for the Hornet.
Not to continue to drive the discussion off topic (or maybe that's a good thing in this case... )...
This is something where I think FC3 missed the mark for me. I also agree that in a combat sim, intuitive keyboard commands are actually more useful than a clickable cockpit. However, in FC3, the selection of keys are 1) completely un-intuitive to me, and 2) vary from aircraft to aircraft. For these two reasons, I have to spend too much time trying to re-learn the key combos before (and during a flight). And for that reason I never got into any of the Russian birds and only got comfortable with the A-10, and slightly comfortable with the F-15. As clumsy as a clickable cockpit can be in combat, I do better in BMS simply because I can look at the MFD and change the drop settings for a Mk82 more quickly than I can remember what key press does it in the FC3 A-10A.
I know Strike Fighters 2 was an order of magnitude simpler, but it was nice that the controls were the same in all aircraft. It made it easy to jump around from aircraft to aircraft and really enjoy the "survey sim" aspect of the game. I want to do the same with FC3 but I get too confused.
Again, I recommend Helios plus a touchscreen. Imagine a clickable cockpit that you can manipulate with your actual fingers.... no need to reach for the mouse, no need to remember which keyboard keys does what. You know where the switch/button/knob is, you activate that, done, just like a clickable pit. The advantage of a touchscreen is that you can be moving your head around (keeping SA for example, or if you're padlocked) but your switch/button/knob is not a "moving target" that you have to hit with your mouse cursor.
Now with Helios and a touchscreen, you can therefore have a "clickable cockpit" even with FC3 aircraft....
Again, I recommend Helios plus a touchscreen. Imagine a clickable cockpit that you can manipulate with your actual fingers.... no need to reach for the mouse, no need to remember which keyboard keys does what. You know where the switch/button/knob is, you activate that, done, just like a clickable pit. The advantage of a touchscreen is that you can be moving your head around (keeping SA for example, or if you're padlocked) but your switch/button/knob is not a "moving target" that you have to hit with your mouse cursor.
Now with Helios and a touchscreen, you can therefore have a "clickable cockpit" even with FC3 aircraft....
Sounds cool. But (at least for me personally), I already question the amount of time and money I have invested in flight sims and HOTAS, TrackIR, etc... when I struggle to find time to actually play and enjoy. Buying more expensive hardware and softwware to try to make games fun is getting less and less attractive compared to simply doing things that are fun to begin with.
What sold me onto this idea was when I got the Cougar MFDs back when I was playing DCS A10C. As you know, it can be hard holding your head steady then clicking the correct MFD OSB. For people who fly without TrackIR, this probably won't be much of an issue but I can't imagine flying without TIR, so I had many, many instances of not being able to click the OSB (I turn my head away too early and miss the OSB) or just not hit the correct one due to the snap feature and the fact that the MFDs would be tiny with the FOV I was using. When I got the Cougar MFDs, this was no longer an issue! I could physically activate the correct OSB no matter what my head position was.... I could glance at my MFD, decide I needed to press OSB 3, and proceed to do that as I turn my head away to re-acquire my target and continue keeping my SA up. I could "feel" for OSB 3 and press it even as I was busy looking at something else.
The next step after this was velcro-ing the MFDs over a monitor to get a picture behind the MFD, but that soon gave way to touchscreens.
At this point, I have a Helios profile that has the entire F-16's set of controls at my fingertips. Cold-and-dark startups, mission prep and execution, finding alternate airbases and setting new TCN/ILS/radio frequencies, landing, and shutdown, all possible without the need to touch the keyboard or mouse at all. Once I am in the 3D world, I put the mouse and keyboard aside and interact with the sim via my HOTAS, rudders, TIR, and touchscreen "cockpit." No need to memorize any key combination and no need to hold my head steady as I manipulate a button/knob/switch. Even radio comms are set up in the profile as backup to when I can't be bothered to use VAC.
Obviously, this is in BMS but I know this exists for DCS A10C and DCS BS2 as well.... some of my inspiration for my layout was from a guy that was making Helios profiles for DCS. I imagine this is also possible for 3rd-party and FC3 aircraft as well.
I too use Cougar MFD's. I didn't velcro them directly to the monitor, but I made a black foamcore cover with cutouts for the viewable area, and velcroed the Cougers to the foamcore. I attached the foamcore to the monitor bezel with duct tape. (If you can't duc it, F*** it). Also couldn't (wouldn't) fly without TrackIr. Couple this with the fact that the MFCD's are made larger on a second monitor, and it's a cherry set-up.
In the A-10C I use the INCR/DECR slider on the right side of my TM Warthog throttle for Zoom in/Out, so I don't go hands off the HOTAS while inflight. With the exception of raising and lowering the gear. That's just about the only time I hit a key with any regularity.
I haven't measured it out yet, but hopefully I'll be able to squeeze a third cougar onto this 13" monitor so I'll have all three screens for the Hornet.
As for Cougar MFDs, they're cool up to a point.... the downside to they physical MFDs is that they occupy a permanent space over the monitor. With a touchscreen monitor, you can display something OVER the MFDs, thus making better use of the screen. For example, here's what the screen would normally look like in BMS:
But when needed, other things can be displayed over the MFDs:
As for Cougar MFDs, they're cool up to a point.... the downside to they physical MFDs is that they occupy a permanent space over the monitor. With a touchscreen monitor, you can display something OVER the MFDs, thus making better use of the screen.
I agree 100% with Ice (and that doesn't happen often ). As much as I like the Cougar MFDs, mine have been in a box on my hardware shelves for at least two years now. Even without a touch screen, what Ice said holds true since you can use Helios almost as well with a mouse and TIR has a negligible impact. Many of Capt Zeen's profiles make use of multiple layouts for a single aircraft which is priceless in cases like the Huey or the Kamov which have many more control panels than you could possibly fit on a single screen.
I agree 100% with Ice (and that doesn't happen often ).
Yeah! I better quote that to keep a record of it!!
Originally Posted by cichlidfan
you can use Helios almost as well with a mouse
Is that true? Always used Helios with a touchscreen so it's interesting to know that it works for regular screens too. Does the sim work fine even when clicking on Helios with the mouse? In BMS, there are instances where doing so would cause the sim to "lose focus" and you'd have to click on the sim again to re-focus on the game, otherwise your inputs won't be seen by the game.
Originally Posted by cichlidfan
many more control panels than you could possibly fit on a single screen.
Indeed! In my BMS profile, I have the map of Korea, all the S.Korea airfield approach and departure plates, the pilot's kneeboard sheets, and even a menu of all of the radio calls available in the game!
Is that true? Always used Helios with a touchscreen so it's interesting to know that it works for regular screens too. Does the sim work fine even when clicking on Helios with the mouse? In BMS, there are instances where doing so would cause the sim to "lose focus" and you'd have to click on the sim again to re-focus on the game, otherwise your inputs won't be seen by the game.
I used Helios for quite a while, before acquiring a touch screen, without any issues like that.
What has my curiosity peaked now is how you have physically set up your multiple monitors. Ciclid, you're running a 40" main monitor and a 22" secondary touchscreen. There's no detail in your sig Ice. I'm running a 34" curved display as my main. For the life of me I can't figure out an elegant way to mount my second monitor.
Pictures would be appreciated, but are not necessary. How is your rig set up for optimal display and ergonomic use?
Thanks! The borders are only about 1.2cm wide and once I'm flying, I don't really "see" them... Some people are quite bothered by the bezels and opt for ultra-wide monitors instead.
Not to continue to drive the discussion off topic (or maybe that's a good thing in this case... )...
This is something where I think FC3 missed the mark for me. I also agree that in a combat sim, intuitive keyboard commands are actually more useful than a clickable cockpit. However, in FC3, the selection of keys are 1) completely un-intuitive to me, and 2) vary from aircraft to aircraft. For these two reasons, I have to spend too much time trying to re-learn the key combos before (and during a flight). And for that reason I never got into any of the Russian birds and only got comfortable with the A-10, and slightly comfortable with the F-15. As clumsy as a clickable cockpit can be in combat, I do better in BMS simply because I can look at the MFD and change the drop settings for a Mk82 more quickly than I can remember what key press does it in the FC3 A-10A.
I know Strike Fighters 2 was an order of magnitude simpler, but it was nice that the controls were the same in all aircraft. It made it easy to jump around from aircraft to aircraft and really enjoy the "survey sim" aspect of the game. I want to do the same with FC3 but I get too confused.
I don't find the controls to be hard to memorize or in bad locations. I do understand that it differs from plane to plane, but that is mainly a US vs Soviet difference in methodology. The few differences of the F-15 compared to the Flanker carry over to the MIG-29 and Su-25. It is just the nature of them being different enough to warrant different procedures. In general, for combat, most of my controls can be mapped onto my HOTAS. The things that may require an extra press are typically done en-route.
I have confidence in Razbam, the developer of the AV8B. Their Mirage was rough at the start but became a FANTASTIC aircraft after several months of updates and fixes. I will be purchasing this module. Very excited about the harrier!
I'll buy it.....when\if it is available in Prepar3d....otherwise it will be on the back burner like the hawk should have been before all the hype all those years ago
Not sure what he's doing but CCRP is done by keeping FPM on the bomb fall line. He basically executes a CCIP using CCRP.
CCIP and CCRP are weapon aiming methods, not delivery types. You can use CCRP or CCIP for pretty much any weapon delivery type, although each are better suited to some delivery types over others. In short, "a CCIP" is not a thing.
That said, all the deliveries in the videos of the harrier so far haven't been the best executed affairs, so haven't shown the aircraft's capabilities that well really. But then I guess it is representative of the way most will employ it.
It's got to be a system specific thing, because my frame-rates both in and out of the cockpit are as smooth as silk. It's not a finished product by any means, but it's quite bit of fun and very interesting to fly.
I re-installed the Beta inorder to try it out and there are some interesting changes in that also. The Mission Editor has a new look and some added functionality, but I haven't had the chance to dive into it yet.
I'm interested in the Harrier. If it is a system specific issue I'd like to know what it is before I buy and I guess it's almost pointless asking how long it would take to fix. What is ED's refund policy nowadays?
I'm interested in the Harrier. If it is a system specific issue I'd like to know what it is before I buy and I guess it's almost pointless asking how long it would take to fix. What is ED's refund policy nowadays?
They don't have one
DCS Kickstarter Wags July 2014 "In this July 2014 update, the primary news is in regards to the restructured backer rewards. After a careful review of the older system under RRG, we found it financially unattainable." Wags October 2017 "the investment vs. generated revenue has been excellent for the World War II aircraft. In fact, the P-51D Mustang has twice the cost effectiveness of the A-10C Warthog."
Still has some kinks, FM feels too easy to fly, but Razbam has a solid track record for improving things as time goes on. Will keep flying it and look forward to watching the aircraft improve. Not that it's at all bad now - very neat plane to fly.
NO FPS issues whatsoever here. Smooth as silk, FPS over 100 all the time and my rig is not particularly a monster.
Still has some kinks, FM feels too easy to fly, but Razbam has a solid track record for improving things as time goes on. Will keep flying it and look forward to watching the aircraft improve. Not that it's at all bad now - very neat plane to fly.
NO FPS issues whatsoever here. Smooth as silk, FPS over 100 all the time and my rig is not particularly a monster.
Second all of these points, based on my initial ~45 min of stick time yesterday evening.
Deja Vu from the Mirage; solid alpha launch, lot's of in op stuff, and flys like a "toy"; there's no way I'm that good at flying the Harrier, lol. Not a lot of things that are buggy or "broken" though, just things that aren't there yet.
All item Razbam addressed with amazing speed and transparency with the M2k (a refreshing change of pace for this platform!). I've no reason to doubt they'll have things in top, full release shape within 6-9 months. Personally I like this style of launch: it lets us get a taste of the harrier (development warts and all), and it's fun getting some new features to play with every week as they continue updating.
ED could learn a thing or two from these guys...
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
I don't run on max settings. most of my settings are on medium or high, heat blur turned off.
Settings when I use VR are turned pretty low as VR is murder. I value clarity of the VR display and ability to see units far away more than the prettyness of the scenery.
resolution 1600x1050 or 1920x1600 depending on my mood (windowed or full screen) most menu settings at medium, land textures high, cockpit screens set to 512. fsaa etc at 4x.
Specs: Core i5 3570 3.6 OC'd to 4.0ghz 16gb ram GTX 1060 3gb video card Oculus Rift turned on when I feel like it, otherwise trackIR.
100fps is on the regular monitor, fps hovers around 30 in VR. but i have to admit i have not tweaked much for VR as i usually use it more for other games and sims than with DCS
100fps is on the regular monitor, fps hovers around 30 in VR. but i have to admit i have not tweaked much for VR as i usually use it more for other games and sims than with DCS
Thanks! And that monitor is the 1920x1600 that you were quoting above?
Hey Longbow how are you getting this?..... I pre-purchaced and can't find the download anywhere
You are aware that the Harrier, and related update, are currently only applicable to the Open Beta version, not 1.5.x release version and not v2.x Open Alpha.
Hell yeah Remon! XIII and Ice are so silly and childish, everyone knows MFCD's are never part of beta testing, they are added just before release candidate is created.
Those two dudes will never know as much as you and me, we are the best!
Hey Longbow how are you getting this?..... I pre-purchaced and can't find the download anywhere
You are aware that the Harrier, and related update, are currently only applicable to the Open Beta version, not 1.5.x release version and not v2.x Open Alpha.
I wasn't when I pre purchased the Harrier when it was announced but figured it out last night, quick question, now that I have downloaded and installed Open Beta again just for the Harrier, can I install my other DCS modules into Open Beta that I also have installed into my DCS World 2 Open Alpha without losing any more activations? on same PC of course? Have tried to google this and looked at their FAQ but cant seem to find an answer.
Still catching up with this new activation scheme that starts with the Harrier ... so I have got to fire up DCS Harrier every 3 days or lose it? surely not???? Was not aware of this when I pre-purchased the Harrier either!
Last edited by Carefree; 12/01/1710:39 AM. Reason: to clarify
Hey Longbow how are you getting this?..... I pre-purchaced and can't find the download anywhere
You are aware that the Harrier, and related update, are currently only applicable to the Open Beta version, not 1.5.x release version and not v2.x Open Alpha.
I wasn't when I pre purchased the Harrier when it was announced but figured it out last night, quick question, now that I have downloaded and installed Open Beta again just for the Harrier, can I install my other DCS modules into Open Beta that I also have installed into my DCS World 2 Open Alpha without losing any more activations? on same PC of course? Have tried to google this and looked at their FAQ but cant seem to find an answer.
Still catching up with this new activation scheme that starts with the Harrier ... so I have got to fire up DCS Harrier every 3 days or lose it? surely not???? Was not aware of this when I pre-purchased the Harrier either!
Yeah, of course you can install your modules in open beta.
As for the new copy protection, no, it's nothing like that. Every time you log in to play you'll get a 3 day period during which you won't have to go online again to play it.
Thanks Remon, so I can install my modules in Open Beta as well as Open Alpha 2 without using up another activation, thats good, quite missed the old terrain map to be honest.
I think I understand the new Harrier copy protection thing now, seems a strange thing though, thank goodness all my other sims and games have nothing like this, so long as I am not in danger of losing my paid for modules ... because I can be quite an infrequent sim player being away from home for a month or so at times.
Thanks Remon, so I can install my modules in Open Beta as well as Open Alpha 2 without using up another activation, thats good, quite missed the old terrain map to be honest.
I think I understand the new Harrier copy protection thing now, seems a strange thing though, thank goodness all my other sims and games have nothing like this, so long as I am not in danger of losing my paid for modules ... because I can be quite an infrequent sim player being away from home for a month or so at times.
Going on deployment or on extended business shouldn't be an issue. DCS will simply re-check the next time you log in.
Thanks Remon, so I can install my modules in Open Beta as well as Open Alpha 2 without using up another activation, thats good, quite missed the old terrain map to be honest.
I think I understand the new Harrier copy protection thing now, seems a strange thing though, thank goodness all my other sims and games have nothing like this, so long as I am not in danger of losing my paid for modules ... because I can be quite an infrequent sim player being away from home for a month or so at times.
Going on deployment or on extended business shouldn't be an issue. DCS will simply re-check the next time you log in.
Sorry thats is totally WRONG
If you have NOT checked in every 4 days at least then DCS World STOPS working
Correct it will check in the next time you login, so you will be able to play for 4 days only if you are offline .... then nothing until you connect again
Ferengi Rule of acquisition #1 Once you have their money ... never give it back.
Thanks Remon, so I can install my modules in Open Beta as well as Open Alpha 2 without using up another activation, thats good, quite missed the old terrain map to be honest.
I think I understand the new Harrier copy protection thing now, seems a strange thing though, thank goodness all my other sims and games have nothing like this, so long as I am not in danger of losing my paid for modules ... because I can be quite an infrequent sim player being away from home for a month or so at times.
No mate you are screwed, if you cannot connect to ED servers every 4 days then your legally paid software will cease to function
Last edited by leaf_on_the_wind; 12/01/1701:06 PM.
Ferengi Rule of acquisition #1 Once you have their money ... never give it back.
Thanks Remon, so I can install my modules in Open Beta as well as Open Alpha 2 without using up another activation, thats good, quite missed the old terrain map to be honest.
I think I understand the new Harrier copy protection thing now, seems a strange thing though, thank goodness all my other sims and games have nothing like this, so long as I am not in danger of losing my paid for modules ... because I can be quite an infrequent sim player being away from home for a month or so at times.
No mate you are screwed, if you cannot connect to ED servers every 4 days then your legally paid software will cease to function
Read what he said.
He specifically stated that he is an infrequent SIM player due to extended absences, ie HE DOES NOT PLAY for the month of his absence.
Upon his return, the program will authenticate and he’ll be free to play.
I honestly don't think those pirating stuff would be customers if blocked by DRM and as such no true sales are lost. As such, DRM adds more trouble to legimite customers than securing revenue.
I honestly don't think those pirating stuff would be customers if blocked by DRM and as such no true sales are lost. As such, DRM adds more trouble to legimite customers than securing revenue.
That’s the thing - will we ever know?
Probably not - none of our business. One thing is however certain: Starforce Proactive is not cheap and if a company pays for that service for years on end then there has to be a very good reason for it.
...at the cost of public relations...quelle surprise , there has to less intrusive options surely.
Might be.
Then again, who knows. They have certainly done their homework before spending money on securing a new DRM. We should do ours as well if we are going to take issue with it.
So having 100 customers and 120 users are way worse than having 100 customers and 100 users thanks to paying dollars to Starforce. Not sure I see what ED sees or any other company btw.
Still all feels a bit spyware-esk tho', begs the question why? Seems a strange choice considering the inevitable reaction.
You own a software company coding Flight Sims for a living.
Your company is bleeding X-thousand pounds a month down the crapper due to software piracy.
Would you not take all possible steps to mitigate your losses?
Do you?
Where are these figures of loss pulled from ? someones rectum maybe ?
So starforce is not working anymore ? or is it that ED don't want to pay for it anymore and increase their profits by using their own system ?
How do you get from that to ‘Starforce does not work anymore’?
Your company’s DRM solution (Starforce) is doing a good job. You stumble upon another product that would do a far better job at the end of the day.
Which one do you choose?
Yes, there obviously would be those that elect to stay with an inferior product. The majority of people will however pick the better product. Common sense.
Thanks Remon, so I can install my modules in Open Beta as well as Open Alpha 2 without using up another activation, thats good, quite missed the old terrain map to be honest.
I think I understand the new Harrier copy protection thing now, seems a strange thing though, thank goodness all my other sims and games have nothing like this, so long as I am not in danger of losing my paid for modules ... because I can be quite an infrequent sim player being away from home for a month or so at times.
No mate you are screwed, if you cannot connect to ED servers every 4 days then your legally paid software will cease to function
You really misunderstood how this works. You couldn't be more way off base.
When he comes home from deployment or wherever he's been away from his computer and he starts DCS it'll log in and re-validate his modules.
Hell yeah Remon! XIII and Ice are so silly and childish, everyone knows MFCD's are never part of beta testing, they are added just before release candidate is created.
Those two dudes will never know as much as you and me, we are the best!
The version that was provided to content creators didn't have this problem. It could be introduced in the version they released.
...at the cost of public relations...quelle surprise , there has to less intrusive options surely.
Might be.
Then again, who knows. They have certainly done their homework before spending money on securing a new DRM. We should do ours as well if we are going to take issue with it.
I am doing my homework, you are after all the current ED inside guy manning these forums, it's just you seem to have a knee jerk defence without taking into consideration the human factor...quite a skill.
Still has some kinks, FM feels too easy to fly, but Razbam has a solid track record for improving things as time goes on. Will keep flying it and look forward to watching the aircraft improve. Not that it's at all bad now - very neat plane to fly.
NO FPS issues whatsoever here. Smooth as silk, FPS over 100 all the time and my rig is not particularly a monster.
Try flying it (normal flight, not V/STOL) with the SAAHS disengaged. The aircraft becomes a lot more slippery that way.
...at the cost of public relations...quelle surprise , there has to less intrusive options surely.
Might be.
Then again, who knows. They have certainly done their homework before spending money on securing a new DRM. We should do ours as well if we are going to take issue with it.
I am doing my homework, you are after all the current ED inside guy manning these forums, it's just you seem to have a knee jerk defence without taking into consideration the human factor...quite a skill.
What does your homework tell you?
That Starforce Proactive is currently the best there is and that there is accordingly no reason to secure a better DRM?
That it?
You really need to be less vague. Keeps guesswork to a minimum.
And for the last time, I have nothing to do with TFC/ED at all. I’m just here calling out the BS, something which has been lacking around here for far too long. Two sides to every story and all that.....
...at the cost of public relations...quelle surprise , there has to less intrusive options surely.
Might be.
Then again, who knows. They have certainly done their homework before spending money on securing a new DRM. We should do ours as well if we are going to take issue with it.
I am doing my homework, you are after all the current ED inside guy manning these forums, it's just you seem to have a knee jerk defence without taking into consideration the human factor...quite a skill.
What does your homework tell you?
That Starforce Proactive is currently the best there is and that there is accordingly no reason to secure a better DRM?
That it?
You really need to be less vague. Keeps guesswork to a minimum.
And for the last time, I have nothing to do with TFC/ED at all. I’m just here calling out the BS, something which has been lacking around here for far too long. Two sides to every story and all that.....
Well at least your life has purpose, albeit bouncing around a forum with a baseball bat smiley looking for arguments.
re: your affiliation with ED?...sorry, not convinced, you do seem to have a thicker skin than Sith tho', more tenacious... but inevitably bias to the cause.
Joined: Mar 2003 Posts: 3,922Paradaz
Senior Member
Paradaz
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
UK
Originally Posted by Remon
You really misunderstood how this works. You couldn't be more way off base
You really misunderstood what the key point is here. You couldn't be more way off base.
When anyone is away from an internet connection for more than 3 days or can't validate their installation.....the software ceases to function until it can re-authenticate. You are aware there is a single player mode/non-dynamic mission structure within DCS, you are aware not everyone has access to internet when they're away from home? For a game with a single player mode that doesn't require online connectivity to play it surely you can why a module that is part of the overall software package that ceases to function after 3 days without an internet connection is a bad idea....and especially so when that implementation is mentioned last minute and after some customers have already bought the product.
It's obviously pointless coming back with a reply every time that this DRM is the best thing since sliced bread......as long as you have got an internet connection and can re-authenticate after a period of time. Not everyone has that luxury for multiple reasons.
On the Eighth day God created Paratroopers and the Devil stood to attention.
Just to clarify, I can go offshore for weeks (I am not in the military) and nobody but me would touch my flight sim PC with all its add ons DCS or otherwise.
So lets assume for arguments sake this scenario ...
I play DCS and with latest AV8B Harrier module up until Midnight, go offshore for 3 weeks the next day, will I be OK to play again with no restrictions with new Harrier copy protection once I'm home?
Above is a hypothetical situation, I'm more dynamic, but it represents how I use DCS and would use the new Harrier module.
I really hope there are no major problems or headaches for me or any users, been looking forward to this Aircraft, this module for quite some time.
I understand I'll be able to use the Harrier in DCS World 2 OpenAlpha in coming weeks too ... right?
You really misunderstood how this works. You couldn't be more way off base
You really misunderstood what the key point is here. You couldn't be more way off base.
When anyone is away from an internet connection for more than 3 days or can't validate their installation.....the software ceases to function until it can re-authenticate. You are aware there is a single player mode/non-dynamic mission structure within DCS, you are aware not everyone has access to internet when they're away from home? For a game with a single player mode that doesn't require online connectivity to play it surely you can why a module that is part of the overall software package that ceases to function after 3 days without an internet connection is a bad idea....and especially so when that implementation is mentioned last minute and after some customers have already bought the product.
It's obviously pointless coming back with a reply every time that this DRM is the best thing since sliced bread......as long as you have got an internet connection and can re-authenticate after a period of time. Not everyone has that luxury for multiple reasons.
I see your reasoning too, these are perfectly valid points, IMHO, this could effect me too once onshore if my internet went down.
Just to clarify, I can go offshore for weeks (I am not in the military) and nobody but me would touch my flight sim PC with all its add ons DCS or otherwise.
So lets assume for arguments sake this scenario ...
I play DCS and with latest AV8B Harrier module up until Midnight, go offshore for 3 weeks the next day, will I be OK to play again with no restrictions with new Harrier copy protection once I'm home?
Above is a hypothetical situation, I'm more dynamic, but it represents how I use DCS and would use the new Harrier module.
I really hope there are no major problems or headaches for me or any users, been looking forward to this Aircraft, this module for quite some time.
I understand I'll be able to use the Harrier in DCS World 2 OpenAlpha in coming weeks too ... right?
Yes,
When you return from the offshore you will simply login to your DCS account and it will run fine. If you come home and your internet is down, I guess you could have a temporary problem.
I must admit there is some logic to the concerns that someone going away from a steady internet connection with a semi-portable or laptop computer could experience a lock-out and not be able to play the game. I'm not positive that will happen, and the instances of something happening like this in todays environment would be rare, but it IS a valid concern that should be addressed.
The Harrier is expected to be released in the "stable" environments (1.5.* and 2.1.* and eventually 2.5) in the next few weeks.
It's obviously pointless coming back with a reply every time that this DRM is the best thing since sliced bread......as long as you have got an internet connection and can re-authenticate after a period of time. Not everyone has that luxury for multiple reasons.
At time of purchase the consumers agree and are well aware that the product requires internet activation.
Fact.
It’s plastered all over, everywhere.
Important to note that it does not specifically state that it’s a once-off only activation. It is obviously not.
Now they further agreed to the following, and I quote:
“3.2 You acknowledge that the Program has not been developed to meet your individual requirements and that it is therefore your responsibility to ensure that the facilities and functions of the Program as described in the Documentation meet your requirements.”
Can you see that the consumers agreed that the onus is on them, the consumer, to ensure that they can activate the product as and when required via an Internet connection, as described, when they purchased the product?
Last edited by 159th_Viper; 12/01/1703:42 PM. Reason: Clarification
Joined: Mar 2003 Posts: 3,922Paradaz
Senior Member
Paradaz
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
UK
Originally Posted by 159th_Viper
At time of purchase you agreed and were well aware that the product requires internet activation.
I thankfully haven't agreed to anything, as I refuse to buy anything that is unfinished from ED and their 3rd parties due to their INCOMPETENCE shown in all previous early-access titles (most of which are still unfinished many years on)
You're now also talking about internet activiation which is something completely different because anyone can 'activate the product' however that doesn't stop the same product from ceasing to function 3 days later without a connection being present in that time. If you are uncomfortable or don't believe that then re-read this thread from the start and you'll see at least one person that didn't know about how this DRM is working...that is fact. Once you've done that, re-visit the ED forum message board because there are many more people who didn't realise and still don't understand how this DRM is working.....that is also fact.
On the Eighth day God created Paratroopers and the Devil stood to attention.