Oh

MY

GOD!!!





Really ED?





Please somebody explain to me why I need to map my pitch/yaw/roll/thrust three different times? What's the use for the General axis commands if it doesn't overwrite other aircraft-specific mappings? And after all these years, ED still maps EVERYTHING to every input device.

There is absolutely no need for this. Even for the simmer who flies 5 aircraft, I don't think he'll be swapping around his pitch/yaw/roll/thrust axes! His toe brakes for one aircraft will most likely be the same for the other aircraft! His speedbrake switch will most likely be the same too! Why not just have ONE setup for all aircraft then have aircraft-specific overrides? Oh joy!

And why is the Su-25T cockpit full of low-res images?

I've always found this strange as well. Would much rather set up a general axis and only set up AC specific if needed...

If this provides different curves, for the various axes, this might may reflect the differences in the flight models of the planes and the relative sizes of the control surfaces.

I would have thought the specific plane setup would supersede the general settings, rather than the other way around.

The reason is, at least in part, because ED has never enforced any consistency between the controls from the various vendors. ED just lets each team do whatever they want because it is easier for them, somehow.

I'm not even complaining about avionics-related stuff yet. This is just pitch/yaw/roll/thrust, something EVERY aircraft has by default, yet I have to map each one for each aircraft?




Isn't that what I said?

I don't fly ww2 yet, but I intend to use a different joystick for ww2 planes (KG13) than for modern planes (warthog).
I hope dcs let me do it with this way of handling flight controllers.

Even if it's a hassle for some, it's quite minor against some other flaws of the game.

Some people use different throttle quadrants for different aircraft and collective controls for helos.

Some people might use a stick with throttle together with a separate throttle, what axis to use then for the throttle, etc. It's rather complex to come up with a best guess for the axis assignments.

See, I can understand different profiles for different joysticks, so one for your WH and one for KG13.... but one WH and needing different profiles for each aircraft? Really?



And is that population of ED's customer base significant enough to justify this stupid implementation? Or are you just looking for a reason to justify this stupid implementation?



Yes of course! So let's go ahead and map pitch/yaw/roll/thrust on the joystick, on the throttle, and on the rudder! Genius!!

The rest is rather minor but this is the most annoying thing that DCS has ever done with controls. I have a trim wheel with only one axis and no buttons and it still gets stuff mapped to it that it cannot even do.

but ..... but .. why would you not want to have pitch for your aircraft assigned to .... left toe brake .. makes perfect sense to me

HOW DARE YOU COMPLAIN!!! It's rather complex to come up with a best guess for the axis assignments!! How is ED supposed to know what to default-assign to a trim wheel?!!?!!? Try making sense, man!!!



Yes, and map rudder controls to the left throttle lever.

I never understood the "general" control context. What does it do? What is it for. A cascading fallback system would be useful if not a source for more confusion and frustration. You'd have to be able to define a "no input" option distinct from a blank square to block the general filtering through when desired. I don't think it works that way though. Maybe it applies the general controls only once on new module install?

Auto-binding axes is poor behavior on the part of DCS. It only helps those users with a single joystick device that can't be asked to spend 60 seconds in the controls screen. For everyone else it creates more work than not binding anything at all.

Nevermind. You are right. A dozen aircraft times ten seconds to clear the assignments is no big deal. I will, most likely, live long enough not to miss those two minutes.

See? You can easily fix ED's fkups yourself! Why ask ED to fix them for you? They're busy over there trying to figure out how A-A radar works, that's groundbreaking technology nobody's ever, EVER done before. Just you wait when they crack A-G radar too! People everywhere will rejoice! Look at what they're spending their time on now --- SKINS!! Only ED can do skins! We should be thankful they're doing this for us or we won't have any other sim to fly! What are we all going to complain about then?!!?!!?

Besides, you might want to map that trim wheel to trim, but another pilot may want to use it to navigate the radio menus! Much complex! So wow! Very future!!

I have to disagree with ICE now, i dont like many thing in dcs but what im see this far about coming A/A model it really is light years more complex than any sim out there for now. And modern fighters is all electronic warfare for me , so im happy to get realistic radar model. Even if it takes time.


And im finally overall happy with dcs (never belived that i would be) , im now played in dynamic caucasus Mp PVP server , and its really awesome. Helo guys transport troops to capture objectives, in same time when i give them air support in my cas aircraft and then there is our fighter pilots flying CAP , and all this runs 24/7 server , supply system , limited resouces, limited lives. Finally someone made living battlefield in dcs. Unit count is over 4xxx thousand for now. And it runs fine even in VR

And its far from AIR quake

There is ewr sam networks , human GCI etc..

Sure, you're happy with DCS, but you've not really given any reasons why.


First part -- what are you saying? Not sure I understand.

Second part -- yes, things take time. But 4-5 years down the line and they're STILL working on A-A radar and not all modes present? C'mon. I'd like to get a realistic radar model, but I'd also like to get it in a realistic time frame. How long are YOU willing to wait?



Citing something the COMMUNITY works hard for to cover ED's shortcomings is hardly a testament to any competency on the part of ED.

Who coded the helo to do what they do? Who scripted in the CAP flights? Who scripted in the supply system? Who made the battlefield a "living" environment? ED? I hardly think so

As to being AIR quake, that's a server limitation. Open up another one and AIR quake is totally possible, so again, is that ED's work or that of the community?

Do not confuse dissatisfaction for ED's performance with the capabilities of the DCS community.

OK Ice, you probably have more experience than I, so what other company (entertainment) have achieved your standards outside of the real military software?

OK maybe DCS boast or imply capabilities they havent been able to deliver, but before being too critical, what software is superior?

I'm happier to listen to deficiencies in comparison to other software than just complaints that no other software has achieved either!

Not trying to be sm*rt*ss here, just interested in your view of the alternatives!

I've read where some call ED incompetent, competent means they cant achieve a standard commonly achieved by others, OK, so what software is accomplishing what ED cant? One must also taken into consideration size of the company and their resources, not just the word of a one man marketing department, that gets 3rd parties to produce slick graphic promotional videos!
Yes, broken promises are annoying, aggravating and deceitful, such is marketing today! Is it not uncommon for companies to to deliver on their promises!

Hopefully, eventually the company will deliver, if not them, then who? Without dreams, dreams dont come true!

Why im happy :

DCS finally runs good ( big cities made fps dive (And VR it was really bad).

Now trees are useful (i like fly helos lot) they block vis/radar.

And big thing Number one: spotting targets in VR (and monitor) is 10xtimes better what it was. Finally can see where is fight / spot ground and air units etc.. ) all other things are useless if cant see #%&*$#



There is good Mp servers even now (yes not ED make those but anyway) , something more continous least.

No worries at all, mate. I welcome open questions

There are two things you need to understand:
1. ED is judged harshly because it's a commercial product. When you get people's money, expectations change. BMS can release updates according to their timeframe and fans cannot do anything about it; the BMS devs work on the project on their own time and share their work. In that situation, the community SHOULD be grateful as they can simply decide NOT to share their work and THEY (devs) will still be able to enjoy BMS but the community will not. DCS is different. They ask for money upfront but seem to have no rush and no direction in their development. Should the community be grateful? Maybe, but the exchange of money for goods changes that. A lot. Strictly speaking, the "gratitude" is expressed in terms of the money exchanged.

2. ED is a victim of ED's hype. ED cannot deliver what ED promises. Who sets the deadlines? ED. Who promises the features? ED. Who makes the software? ED. If ED can deliver on the hype and on a timeframe with slight delays, the situation would be different. Not being able to deliver, chronic delay issues, and the culture in ED forums all work against ED and really, it's all ED's doing.



My expectations for ED are different from my expectations of other sims. While BMS meets criteria ED does not, ED itself fails to meet it's own criteria. I left DCS not because BMS is better (although personally it is), I left DCS because I've had enough of DCS.



It does not matter if no other software is superior. You order and pay for a 8oz steak and get a porkchop. You complain to the manager. He says "before you get too critical, our next competitor serves a BBQ for that price, so we are superior to them." Will you then withold your complaint?

So what if FSX, BMS, P3D, ARMA, etc. had issues when they came out? Those are issues that FSX, BMS, P3D, ARMA, etc will have to deal with and it does not excuse ED for having issues as well. However, with those sims, they get better over time. ED does not seem to learn from their past, and instead get better and better at finding excuses. If they have not been able to deliver once or twice, sure, we can probably let that slide. If they have faltered during the initial phases, fine, we can call that teething pains. Once the issue becomes a chronic problem, well, you will see how things can then be different.



Did you pay money for slick graphic promotional videos? Or did you pay money for a good simulator?

Strictly speaking:
competent - having the necessary ability, knowledge, or skill to do something successfully
incompetent - not having or showing the necessary skills to do something successfully

It is not in relation to what others can or cannot do, it is in relation to what YOU can or cannot do. ED cannot even do what ED says it can do. Would you call that competent? After 4-5 years of supposed development, ED cannot even release the Hornet with an A-G radar. ED cannot even release it with a fully-functioning A-A radar. ED cannot even release it with the full suite of A-A armaments. Competent? If you can come up with a counter as to how this can be called anything other than incompetence, I'd like to hear it.



I'm not particularly well-versed with them, but the IL-2 BOS/BOM team was mentioned before. My main example is BMS as I'm more familiar with that. The BMS dev group is a group of people who develop the game in their spare time; they have OTHER jobs that pays their bills and BMS is a hobby for them which they release to the public for FREE. They've had to reverse-engineer everything, they have to work with the limitations of a late '90s code. There are a lot of things they cannot do due to hard-coded limitations. However, BMS updates FIXES the game, not break it. When they do release an update that unexpectedly breaks something else, as was the case in BMS 4.32 Update 4 IIRC, they quickly release another update that fixes that issue. This is a rare occurrence in BMS, but in ED, this is the norm.

In comparison, ED employs full-time development staff whose specific job is to develop the game. They have access to their own code and can re-write from the ground up should they so wish. They claim their code is also up-to-date, so no old 90's tech here. So why are there so many, many issues with DCS? Why do DCS patches break previously-working components in a regular manner? Why does a new campaign require a patch for the DCS software as well?



And so they get a pass because others are doing it as well? You are happy to pay 100% for 40-60% of a product? If that's the philosophy you live by, then go right ahead, I cannot convince you otherwise.



Yes, hopefully, they deliver in time for you to enjoy it, in a state that was promised to you when you paid for it. ED would probably get a pass if they were new at the game but they're not. ED would probably get a pass if, when the product arrives even late, it is something that blows everyone's socks away but it does not. They had a perfect opportunity with 2.5 release and blew it. ED would probably get more slack if they were honest and open but they are anything but.

I hope you're not holding your breath for anything ED promises to deliver.


Let's stop making excuses for ED based on other software's issues on release or claiming ED is doing something other software can't. The first bit is just muddying the waters and trying to shift the blame, the other is a blatant lie.

For you. Are you saying other people who complain about performance issues are lying? Are you saying THEY should be happy as well even with their problems because YOU are happy?

So the game runs good on your PC. Great! Go forth and enjoy. But to come here and try to negate/minimise other people's complaints because YOU don't have issues is just rubbing salt in a fellow simmer's wound.



Which doesn't seem to be reflected in fellow simmers who have VR.



That is a leaf in the DCS community's crown, not ED. The good MP servers are there despite ED's fumblings.

The definition of 'competent' does not make a comparison to anyone or anything else....it is simply the showing of necessary skills to do something successfully. And this is where ED fail, not only that they make the same mistakes over and over again so aren't learning from these and continue to be completely unsuccessful.

You tell me me where they have been successful, and for every single bullet you make I'll provide 10 examples where they have completely failed.......have a look at the 'release' of 2.5 for a perfect example, and then have a look at every other release they have ever made. They are clearly incompetent.

Definition of INCOMPETENT

So how does one determine if something is done successfully or well without some sort of comparison? The comparison is implied.

Without a comparison, every task could be considered successful....not!

Really? So if ED state that the 'release' version of 2.5 will be made 1-2 weeks after the open beta phase, do you really need to compare that with another company to determine whether ED are successful or not? I'll give you a clue, they were unsuccessful because the 'release' version of 2.5 was riddled with bugs and problems and almost 2 months later they are still nowhere near. You seem to think that without a comparison then every task could be considered successful?........so you clearly think that 2.5 has been nothing short of a success? Please go ahead and describe your reasons!

Do you need to be able to make a comparison to anyone else to determine whether software is 'modular' if the core game needs patching everytime something gets added?

Do you need to compare other companies to determine whether the breakout of DCS 2.0 into 2 separate dev streams is a good idea, just so they have something to release with limited functionality.

I could go on......

If I were to make comparisons of ED with other software companies it would be even more embarrassing on EDs part. They are incompetent in their core work, unable to integrate and test properly and unable to meet their own projected dates (and have been for over 10 years)....if you can think of a better definition than 'incompetent' then I'm all ears.

Sorry, I concede, I cant help you.

Well, we've explained our side. I'd love to hear your side as to how you can say ED is competent, with or without comparison to others.


Let me put it this way. You cook a steak. You burned the hell out of it, the outside is literally charcoal. But since there is nothing else to compare to as far as *good cooked steaks* are concerned, would you consider your burned-to-hell steak successful? In the presence of absolute vacuum, probably. So yes, the comparison is implied. Yes, there has to be a *good cooked steak* as baseline with which to compare YOUR cooking attempt.

So now let us operate under the idea that we know what a *good cooked steak* should look like. Also, there are now 5 of you who are cooking steaks, all aiming for that baseline. All of you burned your steaks to a crisp, but yours is the least burned. Would you call yourself competent at that point since although you failed, yours was the least crappy of the 5 steaks?



The point I'm making is this --- do not compare ED's release to others. We know what a successful release is. We know what a good product is. Compare ED to that. Heck, compare ED's release to ED's own promises and show me where you can call them competent.

I like software that works and promises that are kept too, but I dont rely on promises and hype, that's why I seldom buy, no! not seldom never buy, software until it has time to age, like about 3-4 years.

I only own one DCS clickable cockpit SIM, the A10-C and the way I use it, I have no issues at all........your mileage my vary.

So you are basing EDs success and competence on a single module and the way you utilise it? How on earth are you trying to justify (and defend) EDs overall ability based on that?

My milage and opinions are based on a lot more content and associated disappointment.

The thing is DCS A10C was released in a very good state. Not perfect, but it was very good even during Beta stage. Unfortunately, ED seems to have dropped the ball since then. Hence the current outrage

I wonder if you were going to present your side regarding how ED can be considered competent? Or were you merely asking us to show you how ED is incompetent?

My understanding was the A10 software was developed for training real military pilots, (especially the avionics), but in the contract they reserved the right to make a simulator to be marketed as a game/flight sim.

https://www.quora.com/How-realistic-is-the-flight-simulation-DCS-A-10C-Warthog

If true, I suspect they are very competent, but these projects are huge and avionics complexity increases with each succeeding generation, in the case of more recent aircraft, they probably dont have access to the technical spec, they may have gotten for A10-C, so they may have to make it up as they go.... memorable words


I will not make any attempt to address your grievances, as I have no first hand experience with them!

The technical spec of aircraft in part, is irrelevant.....especially when ED cannot deliver on time, cannot integrate properly, cannot test properly and cannot provide software, patches and releases without major bugs being present that stop or hinder the community from actually playing it in the first place.

You should take the WAGs job, you'd be great!

No-one could possibly do a worse job than Wags....anyone else would have been fired for gross incompetence years ago.

You will notice that none of us are complaining about the A10C and none of us are complaining about ED of 8 years ago

The fact that they did great work in the Hog only serves as stark contrast to their own performance now. I would also like to clarify that there is no question about the talents of the people working for ED, but what good is a solid hull and a sturdy mast if the captain decides to run the ship into rocks?



You may not, but remind me again why you've not bought any new modules?


P-51 - Sept 2012
Combined Arms - Dec 2012
Huey - April 2013
FC3 - April 2013
Mi-8 - Sept 2013
Fw 190 - Aug 2014
MiG-21 - Sept 2014
Bf 109 - Dec 2014

That's quite a few modules that has time to age 3-4 years, are you picking any of them up? Or have you listed to other people's grievances?



I honestly thought you were here for a discussion, mate. Seems like I was wrong and you're just here to troll.

I prefer more sophisticated electronics of modern planes, I do have FC3 but that's not interactive cockpit and therefore I dont fly it much. (Dont have any issues with it either)

Troll! Yikes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not here to troll, we just have different experiences, and different attitudes regarding the purchase and expectations of new software.

I suspect there can be no discussion as you feel burned, I can understand your apparent bitterness, and possible frustration......the exact reason I dont buy newly released software.

You used to have a really good attitude, but lately, at least in this forum seem quite bitter....too bad!

Your positive, comments and assistance have been appreciated by many, me included.

Clearly we have different experiences and different attitudes. Yours are based on one aircraft module dating back to 2010, our are based on the full fleet of available modules, terrains and let-downs from 2008 to present.

You ask a question, you get a reply, but you do not answer questions on that reply post to you. The discussion is one-sided, and all you come back with is snide remarks. You don't acknowledge any points presented and instead move the goalpost all of a sudden.

Burned? Or are you making a strawman? You don't have to be burned by ED to acknowledge their incompetence which you have failed to either acknowledge or provide proof of the contrary. Again, a one-sided discussion. Trolling.



And you are not the first one to shift the discussion from ED to a personal attack at the poster. I had a bit of respect for you from our previous interaction but as you've chosen to go down the way of the troll.... too bad!

The narrow view is very funny.

DCS runs great in my system therefore it is great and all others who are complaining are liars!
I only have one module and runs great therefore DCS knows what they're doing and all other who are complaining are bitter, burned customers!
I am having so much fun in this MP server and there are a lot of scripted stuff that makes the theatre come alive therefore DCS is awesome because this theatre was like this out of the box!

My 1st sentence was an observation, or my interpretation of what you have been saying, not a criticism. Trolling is your interpretation of what was said certainly not my intention.
My 2nd sentence certainly couldnt be construed as trolling!!

From Wilipedia:


How can I discuss, what I havent experienced? You want me to agree with you, based only on what you say......whats the point? I have no problem with seeing things from a different perspective, you dont have to agree with me, that's OK, but dont expect me to agree with you, we dont have to agree! Doesnt mean I feel the necessity to bash, everything you say to a pulp! I expect the same courtesy from you!

This is a personal attack? Pull up your pants man!

I agree with this poster

There a lot of things I do like about the DCS control mapping layout but there is clearly room for improvement. The different ways of manipulating a similar control device for certain 3rd party aircraft doesn't help either. There were a few things I didn't like myself but I don't recall which. I think I may remember them when the update is released and I have to move / update my Alpha control configurations into the release branch.

Now you try to be fun .. no wonder that you got banned even BMS forums :/

No-one is saying everyone has to agree with each other.....only that defending ED on a very limited knowledge set based on the A10 module will not go far when discussing their incompetence. It's not rocket science.

The 2.5 open beta and lack of 'release' version 2 months after they stated would be 1-2 weeks is an easy example to make....however 'Slippery_Rat' obviously won't be taking this into account because it's not 3-4 years old, settled with plenty of bug fixes in place. Unfortunately, this isn't what competency is measured against.

quote from the 2.5 thread.

would you say control mapping is one of those things that are 'nothing too serious'?



what does that have to do with control mapping?

It's not from what you say but rather from what you've done. You ask about a topic not to learn about it and make up your mind, you ask to draw people out and then make fun of them. Did you really participate in a discussion about your initial questions? Or did you just want a response that you can throw half-assed comments at?

with the intent of provoking readers into an [emotional] response
You just wanted to start something and were not really interested in a true discussion. Troll. Here's a much closer definition:
Source - read the 2nd one.




Are you only really limited to discussing what you've experienced first-hand? If so, then you DO have a problem seeing things from a different perspective. It's called empathy.

You don't have to agree with me, but if you disagree, say so and say why. We've asked you multiple times to state your reasons for calling ED competent. Now you either believe ED to be incompetent and thus agree with us, or you believe ED to be competent, at which point you'll have to state your reasons. Otherwise, this whole exercise was just trolling from your part.

I answered your questions in a detailed manner; I expect the same courtesy from you. Let's see if you can see my perspective on this matter.






Nothing at all, but they have to grasp at SOMETHING, don't they? Find any counterpoints? Nope, but let's go ahead and take a personal jab at someone! Classic!





Then explain to me how that statement had anything to do with discussion regarding ED? Betcha can't!


It's quite interesting to see how people hide when you are discussing a topic of substance, but then they come out of the woodwork and take a shot once things get down to the "attack the poster" level. They have nothing to say about the issue being discussed, but they have a lot to say about the one doing the discussion. Trolls.

It works just fine, it wont take many seconds to clear default settings. (There is clear column button) Then i just map my own in.

Its same in BMS and many other games , dcs is not only one.

I have custom Suncom F-15 Throttle and Virpil T-50 , custom made pedals. How would any game know how to set up commands to like i would like to have em ?

So yes. From my point , dcs control setups is good. Easy to use and easy to customize axes , make sift buttons etc.. , there is many biger problems than control setup in dcs.

But seriously, what does the "general" section of the control mapping do?

ED put that in to create colorful discussions in threads such as this one. Other than that I can not see a reason for it

Ah, you can stay on topic after all.

Getting back to what the OP initially proposed in this thread, I feel the irritation of how ED implements module control a very minor issue.

In defense of ED's approach, it allows for great flexibility, something some users appreciate.
To me, more flexibility is preferable to lack there-of.

What's flexibility got to do with:

"What's the use for the General axis commands if it doesn't overwrite other aircraft-specific mappings?"

Oh? BMS maps pitch/yaw/roll/thrust into the joystick, throttle and rudder? I don't think so.



So since the deficiencies of ED can be fixed by the end-user, then it isn't a problem? What about ED fixes their deficiencies so that the end-user doesn't have to?




How is mapping the same thing three times over and over (and more if you have more aircraft) considered flexible? Do you use your X axis for roll in one aircraft and use it for pitch in another aircraft? Maybe use the throttle for engine control in one aircraft and use it as rudder control in another aircraft? If so, flexible, yes. Makes sense, no.

There should be one UNIVERSAL setup for core controls like this, which under common sense would be GENERAL settings, and then just have overrides for specific aircraft just in case.... but again, for core controls like pitch/yaw/roll/thrust, I don't see how it'll differ from one aircraft to the next, whether you're in a P-51 or a Hornet.

And act as if nothing happened

BMS does do automatic mapping but it requires an explicit definition set up in a file for a particular controller GUID.and even then it only works for the single primary controller. You never get the multi-bind issue like in DCS (in fact you can't even if you try). If there is an automatic axis bind in BMS it's because of deliberate and specific human effort made to enact it.

DCS sees a GUID it is unfamiliar with and applies a generic auto-bind to it. The default behavior is to put X to roll, y to pitch, z to rudder, etc. without any consideration for anything else.

Flexibility and convenience are usually polar opposites. I would say DCS is flexible (especially if you go LUA editing) but it isn't convenient. The more adjustment that is possible the more effort is required generally to exploit that potential.

I fly x-plane too, but so far I havent found the ability to create curves for all input devices.

The result is, I'm unable to control the speed of camera movement.....ie not able to define a curve, so using the controller, it moves too fast for precise movement.

The ability to define a curve allows the user to compensate for this behavior by altering the controller response curve.

X-plane 10, allows calibration of the primary stick but not peripheral devices.

Complaining about camera controls and complaining about control mappings are two different topics altogether. I wonder what XP11 issues (esp. for camera control) have to do with DCS?

Are they!

Its all about mapping controls, software doesn't differentiate the purpose.

What about competency?

The flexibility to set controls is something I appreciate, maybe not you.

So why not, accept that some appreciate this feature, but you do not, and leave it at that.

I'm sure ED have bigger concerns, and are happy to let users resolve this for themselves. It's not an issue which determine whether someone will purchase the software and while maybe a irritation to some, many will see it as insignificant.

Given the potential of tasks at hand, hardly a priority or concern!

Would you be happy to see ED go bankrupt? No further development?

I suspect not!, as those purchasing newer modules, are truly the losers!

I also suspect they are acutely aware of their predicament better than you, consider your options.
Either way, it wont effect me.

Sorry, I'm here to enjoy flight simulation, not making screenshots or videos. Complaining about XP11 camera controls in a discussion about DCS flight controls? Are you just trying to find excuses for DCS? How about this --- how many times do you have to map pitch/roll/yaw/thrust in XP11? Do you have to do it separately for the Cessna then again for the Beechcraft Baron? Do you have to do it for the 737 then again for the 747 then again for the MD-82?

How about this --- does XP11 map pitch/roll/yaw/thrust to the rudder, throttle and joystick?

Flexibility in setting controls is != stupid control assignments. If you appreciate stupid control assignments, if you appreciate having to un-bind controls on each aircraft, then just say so and I'll leave it at that.


Well, let's just say that if ED cannot even fix a minor concern like this one, I wish them all the best with their bigger concerns.



Imagine you are ED. You have 5 big bugs that will take you months to squash and you have 20 small bugs that will take a week. Do you ignore the small bugs? In ED's case, yes, and that's why we're here.



And in what way would I be responsible if ED were to go bankrupt? I'm not the one making silly decisions. I'm not the one who is unable to meet deadlines. To be honest, maybe it's better if they do go bankrupt. All these silly unfinished modules and perpetual betas, the heavy-handed moderation and censorship in their forum, the silly prices they're now starting to charge for modules, I can't see any of these being good signs for flight simulation as a hobby.

Please don't even think of going down the "if ED goes under, who will make modern-aircraft flight simulation??" excuse. If there's a gap in the market, I'm sure someone would fill it and given ED's performance, I'm sure they won't have trouble surpassing the bar that ED has set.



Way to go insulting the rest of ED's customer base!



So what? They're aware of their issues, they're aware of their financial situation, they're in control of the decisions they make. Yet they still make a fool of themselves. 2.5 release was a prime opportunity to show us what they can really, REALLY do, what they can deliver. They fumbled on that one really bad. "1-2 weeks from beta to release?" Where is that now? Just goes to show that ED still haven't learned of their past mistakes. Also goes to show that ED themselves aren't aware of their own issues. If they were, they'd know that their software is far from a 1-2 week beta-to-release timeframe. So they either knew their software was far from release status yet still said "1-2 weeks" or they didn't have a clue about their software's release status and just made a "1-2 weeks" statement. Take your pick.

So are they REALLY aware of their predicament? Or are they living in la-la land? I can show you how it seems like they live in la-la land. Can you show me how ED is aware of their situation?

You are funny!

We are diametrically opposed, but thats OK with me, I enjoy your rationalization!, and I'm not a DCS fanboy, as I already said I only have a couple of modules!
Am I insulting or demeaning you....no, at least not my intention! I already defined my position several times, yet you choose to push me to respond to your issues, think about my responses, I'm being diplomatic here trying to avoid the troll label!

What can I say, just enjoy yourself!

No doubt a user will come up with the fix for the memory leak as the focus on live streams of the F-18 takes priority

I can't wait to spend 6 hours remapping all the controls. By the time I'm done I don't wanna fly any more.

I do apologize for the troll label, I guess I should've cut you a bit more slack

However, let me put it this way - I take your points and provide a counter, and you respond by "you are funny". Is that how you do a discussion? Try to make a point and then abandon it?

You may not be a fanboy, but you are here trying to make excuses on their behalf, trying to compare XP11 camera controls with DCS flight controls. Talk about apples to oranges comparison! What do you have to say about the apples-to-apples comparison of XP11 flight control mapping with DCS flight control mapping?

You've yet to address most of the questions addressed to you. If you truly wish to have a diplomatic discussion and avoid the troll label, address those questions and we can have a discussion on the valid points and we can put to rest the silly ones. You may have stated your point/position several times, yet you've failed to answer questions to support/defend your point/position. If all you do is try to make a point and then run away when your point is scrutinized, well, that's not really a discussion, is it?

Now **THAT** is funny! And will most probably be true.

I've always maintained that while DCS should have a lot of controls available, they mostly shouldn't have binds by default. Who uses LWin-RShift-LCtrl-RAlt-K for closing the switch cover on the power test switch for the seat heater?

Who needs the power test switch for the seat heater bound to anything anyway???