A letter from Eagle Dynamics

Dear valued DCS World customers,

Over the past several months, we have read your concerns and frustrations regarding aspects of the growth of DCS World. In particular, the length of time that it has taken to create the unified DCS World version (DCS World 2.5) and our DCS World War II developments. We’d like to talk to you about both of these to help foster a clear picture of where we were, where we are now, and where we plan to be.

First of all, thank you all for your support and being with us for the past 27 years and sharing our vision of what we believe the flight simulation genre can ultimately achieve. From the very beginning, when Eagle Dynamics was established in 1991, our main priority was the creation of highly realistic flight simulations. At that time, there were just seven of us when we released our first project: Su-27 Flanker 1.0 in 1995. Over the past 27(!) years, we’ve come a long way from a simple computer game, to a professional-level combat environment simulator. Today, we have about 80 internal programmers, artists, managers, testers and producers. Additionally, we have 18 partners and 3rd party developers that are participating in our internal projects, as well as developing their own modules for DCS World. During our entire history, we have remained loyal to our initial dream of making the most realistic combat aviation simulations. Starting from one simple, Standard Flight Model (SFM) Su-27, we took our next step in 2003 with seven aircraft for Lock On: Modern Air Combat (LOMAC). Following LOMAC, we created our first Advance Flight Model (AFM) for the Su-25T in 2005. Next came our first Professional Flight Model (PFM) for the Ka-50 Black Shark and the A-10C Warthog in 2008 and 2009. For an aircraft like the A-10C, it usually takes about three years of hard work to develop a PFM.

In parallel to development of the software for these aircraft, getting the required permissions/license agreements (aircraft manufactures and government) can often be a big obstacle and time-consuming process. For both the Ka-50 Black Shark and A-10C Warthog, we spent two years of great effort to get such permissions! More recently, and with great difficulties, we finally signed the necessary agreements to allow the sale of our upcoming DCS: F/A-18C Hornet. The team has been working very hard on this project and we are at the point now where we are talking much more about it with regular updates. After a long period of developing needed technologies (flight model and radar), research, design (data on late-LOT F/A-18C), and legal matters, we are nearing the point in which we will be able to provide the Early Access version of the Hornet. Right behind the Hornet, we have other modern, combat fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft ready for development within the Eagle Dynamics internal studio. Our talented 3rd parties are also working hard on other great aircraft like the AV-8B Night Attack S/VTOL, F-14 Tomcat, FC-17, F-4E Phantom II, Mi-24P Hind, Bo-105, and others. Naturally, all 3rd party projects are only made possible with very active, hands-on, technical support and creation of APIs from Eagle Dynamics. So, please be assured that we have not given up our initial dream! Modern, combat aviation is alive and well in DCS World and will continue to be. This is our bread and butter.

One of the biggest factors in creating a great flight simulation is the graphics engine. This is also probably the most technically complicated. During our 27 years history, we have internally developed five generations of graphics engines. This is a massive effort for such a small company, whereas many other companies use “off the shelf” graphic engine solutions. We have evaluated other engines (MSFS, OSG, etc.), but we always returned to our own internal solutions because only they provided the capability and quality we demand for a modern, combat aviation simulation. The biggest needs has been the ability to render an environment that looks and performs great from 1 meter to 50,000 meters. This is where we believe our graphics engine is quite unique and powerful.

Graphics cards are developing so rapidly that many companies are not capable of keeping their technology current with new hardware. After eight years of intense work, we recently developed a very stable version of our graphics engine that is based on DX11, Deferred Shading technology, and Physical Based Rendering (PBR). We are also developing our engine to take advantage of the Vulcan API to further improve game performance. Having a great looking game is moot if it does not perform well. It’s important to understand that a graphics engine is not only a Scene Renderer, but the terrain creation tool technology is equally important. This is the main reason why we could not merge DCS 1.5 Caucasus and 2.1 Terrains for such a long and regretful time. To do this, we first need to convert all the terrains, missions, training, and campaigns that were developed over many years for Caucasus map to an absolutely new terrain data structure and adjust all applied programs. We’ve put a massive amount of work into this effort and it is almost complete. We plan to release DCS World 2.5 in the coming weeks!

Now, let’s talk a little about DCS World War II and why it does not delay our modern day combat aircraft and why it’s a valuable aspect of DCS World for us and you.

• The Fighter Collection (TFC), Eagle Dynamic’s principle partner, has one of the largest,
private collections of World War II aircraft. TFC has been requesting World War II aircraft for a long time, so we cannot ignore our partner. We and TFC agree that WWII combat aviation is a very interesting flight simulation genre, especially for customers that enjoy history and massive dogfights. TFC has supported this direction from the very beginning.

• World War II aircraft attract new customers that may have not otherwise been familiar with DCS World. Many DCS World War II pilots move to our jet aircraft that are within the integral DCS World. So, our World War II aircraft provide a good advertising environment for the DCS World concept as a whole.

• Many of our new programmers and artists are responsible DCS World War II. They are separate from our main project (like the F/A-18C) developers, and they are not involved with the modern aircraft development efforts. Otherwise, it would not be practical/efficient to develop aircraft like the F/A-18C with staff split between projects. Also, DCS World War II is a great “school” for new programmers before they take on extremely complicated Modern Air Combat projects.

• We could deliver modern, complicated aircraft faster than we and our 3rd parties are already doing, but growing a business needs more and more revenue to grow the team and make better products. We were very surprised to find that 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.

As you can see, DCS’s World War II series doesn’t compete with modern aircraft projects for development resources. In fact, it supports it! The same is true with the L-39 and Yak-52 projects. These two projects were also sought by government institutions, but we were also able to negotiate their release to you.

We very much hope this all makes sense for you and sheds some light on these matters.
We are reaching an important milestone of DCS World with the release of DCS World 2.5. This combined with an exciting list of new aircraft, new maps, and great new mission content, is furthering our dream from 1991. Thank you for being part of the journey with us!

Sincerely,
Eagle Dynamics Development Team

Wow.... talking about asking for an honest word from ED! I hope this is the first of many steps in the right direction!

I still see a few holes in the statement above, but I'll leave that alone for now.....


Proof is in the pudding!!

BTW --- Source

yep proof in the pudding for sure

They said that Hormuz was just about to be released 3 years ago .......

Dang !!! this had to happen just when I was about to leave the community !



a nicely written letter - I posted it at as well at

http://www.****************/

in the news section,

erm your URL is stared

it is a joke of mine that is how it reads at ED forum

for **************** read lockonfiles.com

maybe register spockonfiles.com and do a re-direct to yours ? lol

Ooops, the man has made a statement, and even though no carved-in-stone dates were given ("everything is subject to change" anyway, ain't it?) I feel they'll really push for release of the unified build before the end of the year, at all costs, no matter what . How polished it's going to be and how it's going to perform... Ha! That remains to be seen, but whatever... The sooner they drop the parallel two-builds path the better for everybody. Interesting month ahead.

well we did say weeks


could be 4 weeks ..... could be 400 weeks

Sounds like the criticism on every flight sim forum on the planet (except ED) has finally got to them.

I'll look forward to 2.5 but too little too late for WWII......that will be served very nicely by my new BOS installation.

Together with the fact the ED have done nothing in the last 27 years that would make me believe a word they say.

Lol... weeks?
For sure!
He wrote: "..we plan to..." and "...in the coming weeks..."! "Coming weeks" are alle the weeks from now on till the release. Wags is clever as always he is promising all but saying nothing.
So I bet ALL of my money there is a VERY big "holiday sale" coming in (F18 and the Harrier + DCS World 2.5.. very "cheap") and the "letter" is the big bait we/some people should bite..... as always!
Look at every past year since 2017 and you will see that there was always such a "bait" and they NEVER did what they were "planning"... not one single time!
Coming weeks? That's so funny.. all the guys jumping up and down not realising what Wags realy wrote.... lol
I believe it was about the coming weeks next year. If not, it were easy to say so ".. the coming weeks this year..."
Do NOT bite this bait!

yes, I thought the same, not adding "this year" is really weird if it's really being released in the "coming weeks"...it could be in the next 25 coming weeks then...

Great letter! I hope that they really are paying attention. However, I'm skeptical. Expect to see more people banned from their forums for constructive criticism. Expect more of the same from the mods. It's been 10 years since the heavy handedness started over there. How's that for a milestone?

I don't believe a word of it. Let's not forget "Everything is subject to change." These clowns have failed miserably too many times for me to believe 2.5 is in anyway near release. This probably has more to do with some of their player base jumping ship after the 1c/777 recent announcement.

A well-worded letter confirming what we already knew. Funny how some things take repeated repeating before it hopefully sinks in

Hahahaha!! And I thought I was supposed to be the negative guy in this forum!

"We were very surprised to find that the investment vs. generated revenue has been excellent for the World War II aircraft."
Heh yeah, thats because they screwed over the kickstarter backers. I remember all the "ED are taking a loss because theyve picked up the pieces of RRGs failure" BS . The truth always comes out in the end.
"Not financially viable" hahahahaha fuc#ing liars

liars

Exactly what I think has happened.

A few weeks, ops, next a few more years then 3 decades, heck I was 48 when DCS started now at 75 I'm still waiting . I backed the kick starter for WW11, so far I have 4 aircraft, a map, forgot when the kick starter started, but BOS has been around for less time and has delivered a whole lot more.

Being a single player BOS's AI in much better then DCS's WW11 AI and BOS's AI is not that good to begin with. In DCS if I'm not very careful a shot up smoking enemy AI aircraft can out run, out maneuver, out climb me and shot me down , in BOS not so. In December BOS will release the final Kuba map, 2 new planes and a new campaign system for a total of 3 maps to fly on with more to come next year, Where will DCS be??

I believe I will flying a P51, P47 and a P38 in a BOXX campaign long before I will even have a chance in a DCS campaign. Even if DCS where to release the P51 campaign with their new 2.5, with out major AI fixes it will be a no go for me.

That has nothing to do with the AI. The damage model for the AI operated aircraft is the root of that problem.

unfortunately that is indeed what is happening - and thanks to P3D as well.

but for maybe some FC3 skin updates I maybe plan to do in 2018 , I am not interested in 2.5 or any of the add ons or maps anymore.

and for that reason and their attitude , it leaves me with no reason left to continue spending my free time the way I did before with DCS .

it is time to fully move on to P3D and immerse myself in 1c/777.

I'm still holding out for Fighter Ops (NEXT GENERATION IN FLIGHTSIM TECHNOLOGY). How's that coming along (I don't have Area 51 access)?

Also Jet Thunder and Seven-G, should be getting close, right? Right?! I know, I know...two weeks.

Don't laugh, but Seven-G actually posts updates to his website about every 6 months ( or so )!

Amazing that they update this website more often than their own.

Lots of words from Wags, only thing is - I do not trust a single frekking word he says.

Hell yes.
I was witing for a statement to the 1CGS move but thought they'd realize they have nothing to do on the WW2 arena.
In general I hope all ED 3P's think twice before they continue on the DCS path.

My excperience to the letter (I do admit I have not tried BoS AI that much though) and I have so many frustrating hours in DCS editor flying Viggens often ending the late evening with "why the hell am I doing this".

DCS:Viggen is on my backburner (and when a Swede is turning his back on the first detailed swedish fighter ever to be released, something is very bad)


Edit: I see multiple spelling errors in my above posts but I am too tired eating breakfast here so you guys will have to live with them

Don't worry, your English is much better than my Swedish!

7G is South Korean based - they announced a beta a year ago or so after 10 years of development and then no more news, quite frustrating.

I have no doubt that we will see in the coming weeks lots of new releases and even 2.5 finally arriving, maybe even Hormuz very soon as well - fantastic, awesome, cool, incredible and I guess too late for many of us.



one of Jet Thunder's lead developers died and that seems to have been the end of it - a sad story if there ever was one.

Fighter Ops collapsed under the weight of a perhaps too ambitious goal of developing an all new flight sim.

Didn't know that about JT. Really sad on many levels; community lost a passionate dev, and an opportunity to experience some "uncharted territory" in the flight sim world.




Anyway, a very disappointing letter. More of ED committing to nothing while trying to get credit for everything.

That's the biggest difference overall between 777 and ED: For every major update to BOS over the past couple years (and there are many), they have SET, and more often than not, MET goals. The are able to set accurate timelines for delivery, which is one of the key factors separating a professional from an amateur.

Pretty much every paragraph I read, where ED out lines it's excuses for the glacial pace of development, I was thinking: "OK, so why is 777 able to do this so well but you can't?"

ED: "Developing a terrain engine is hard" - 777 seems to be doing great with the Digital Nature engine. Runs well, looks great at all altitudes, and has shown itself to be quite flexible.

ED: "We're a small company" - Yes, and 777 clearly rivals Google for development man-power....

ED: "We have clickable cockpits and PFMs!" - ....for a collection of aircraft and environments best described as an "island of misfit toys" left over from professional contracts and fractured third party devs. A plane with a "lesser" flight model* and non-clickable pit, that I can actually fly and fight with, beats out a plane I can't fly (DCS hornet) or living in a static environment, any day.

ED "We're working on it!" - yes, but 777 is delivering on it.

Sorry, haven't been paying much attention to any other sims lately - what's the "1c/777 recent announcement" mentioned a few posts ago?

As always, wake me up when the slackers at ED finish F/A-18.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topi...enplatte-flying-circus-tank-crew-and-mo/

Exactly the reason why some of us will never bother with 777.

I play BoS and DCS and RoF. I like them all, they're fun.

That is all.

Agreed.

The only thing that separates the ED situation from 777 is the following:

- The WWII stuff is clearly at lot easier to develop.
- ED has to build upon and update older content released long before IL-2 BoS was even released. For example, the KA-50, the dozens of campaigns and other things that have been released along the way.

Looking back on it, the developmental approach ED took was too big for them to chew.

I like the ED concept for DCS World, although I think it would have been best to develop simplified aircraft with shorter development times. Last thing I'd want is the focus to shift to WWII, which I have very little interest in.

And so where is ED's WWII stuff compared to BoS?



And who told ED to take that big of a bite?

I also fail to see how "build upon old content" is in any way a factor.... this isn't like BMS where the old content was done by totally different people under a different company. While you could argue that people who made the old content in DCS may no longer be working for ED, fact still remains that the old content was developed under ED and the new content is being developed under ED. Surely there's some documentation somewhere.... so how is old content in ED's case a factor?

As for the rest of the content of this thread......

Not true, BOX has better flght model and ground handling than DCS.
An.Petrovich the chief programmer of BOX was the man who give the first AFM to ED (with su25 and su25T).
He give them the "know how"
and today he develop flight models for BOX planes

The big problem seems to be the way the 3rd party imploded so early into development. I don't recall if any of them were directly hired to work for ED, but that situation was certainly a mess and likely a large reason for the excessive delay. Maybe not the only reason, but in large part. But there certainly have been a number of WWII planes and a map/AI content released. No idea how it all is because I only have the P-51D.



The difference is ED has to update old content and make sure it is compatible. On the other hand, 777 may build new content but there is a larger potential profit for new content. I'm sure there are still people buying that old KA-50, but probably not very many. But it does have to be updated.

Again, this is certainly a downside to the DCS World concept. When you have modules that apparently take 2-3 years each it becomes difficult to keep everything updated due to the length between releases. WWII planes or simplified modern aircraft seem like a more ideal module type for this business model. It doesn't seem sustainable to me, but maybe something will change in the future...

Currently it is sustainable due to the fact that modern era CFS are pretty slim. There is no real competition. So whatever is released is snapped up by the desperate. The WW2 aircraft are no longer sustainable due to 1c and their much better all round theatre, development time, customer relations/dev diaries etc. Hence wags letter.
777 are constantly updating. Theyve just released new FMs accross the board. They have introduced impressive VR support consistent 90fps. 64 bit upgrade to their engine. They have shown and are about to release better draw distances, lighting. They have done all this while still releasing their aircraft and theatre within the timeframe set out. There are no excuses from 1c/777 because they do not fail to meet their deadlines. ED are full of BS excuses because they suck at what they do. Im not talking about aircraft, some are ok, I'm talking about management, public relations, development time, lies and no real direction. If somebody brought out a modern third wire series there would be another one of these letters from wags.
Edit. I was sorely tempted by the harrier much more interesting than the hornet or the F14 but i just cannot bring myself to part with any more money while the management #%&*$# show continues
Edit 2. Plus i have combat air patrol 2 which i should spend more time with.

Snobbery at its finest.

So what?

Personally, I enjoyed my time with ROF even though the FM was a bit questionable. What difference does it make if someone thinks that the product is beneath their standards?

I won't eat at most fast food establishments but nobody, that I know, considers me a snob for it. It is my dining choice and, as it happens, it does not interfere with theirs.

Snobbery works both ways, and you have just demonstrated that fact.

I seem to recall that more than a few people would, and have, referred to you as a sycophant (I would not, but it is out there) and that is also unfair.

Just because you and someone else have different opinions does not make either of you correct or incorrect.

2.5 released in what state ? ..other than the GFX and meshes how improved will it be ? How many bugs will it have that will remain unaddressed and ignored for the next 6 years ?


"Dear valued DCS World customers,"

Over the past several YEARS, we have read your concerns and frustrations regarding aspects of the growth of DCS World and done absolutely nothing about it. We will continue to employ shills and minions to man our forums and cull out the slightest criticism of our simulation...that's how much we care about what you think...nothing has changed.


It will take more than a few paragraphs of lies, false platitudes and excuses to swing me round...the proof is definitely in the flavour of the pudding.

...still would be nice to treat myself to a Warthog and Track IR this Xmas and fire up the (still unfinished) A10 again.

Care to elaborate on that?

In a nutshell!!!
They have done nothing to address the concerns and frustrations. They have noted them, banned folk for voicing them, ignored them and then gone right back to business as usual. Lies and incompetence.

Every year, around this time, since i remember there is an announcement of a release just around the corner. Whether its EDGE, Normandy whatever. It never happens. Its become an ED Xmas tradition. Its a sales pitch. Buy our stuff because X is just around the corner. 2.5 will not appear for at least 6 more months. There will be the inevitable delay. Its a pitch to sell the harrier.

If that is your perception then I apologise.

I do not think of 777 as inferior in the slightest. On the contrary, I am sure that they do some things better than 99% of other developers out there.

What I intended to convey was that what involves me in DCS is the clickable cockpits, the switchology etc etc etc and the fact that I am able to virtually fly a modern machine with the Flight Model as close as dammit to the real thing as possible as attested to by real-life SME's.

If I wanted to be immersed in a real-life war environment where more emphasis is placed on story/environment/battle re-enactments then I'd probably be better off with 777.

Horses for courses.

I have only a little knowledge of the WWII fiasco but again, it all boils down to ED's management. Just as they've branched out into 3 dev branches, they've also branched out into different aircraft eras.... nobody there to blame except whoever makes decisions in ED. One could argue that BoS/BoM/etc. is more comprehensive in terms of aircraft, theatres, and assets compared to ED..... and at an insanely lower cost compared to ED's offerings. Is it study-sim level? I don't know, but I wager there's not very many systems to model in a WWII aircraft compared to modern ones.



And the old content vs new content is again down to ED's management. All arguments about "make sure it is compatible" is moot as the "World" concept has been ED's baby for a long time now so they should have had the foundations for this....



So are you saying that ED has not considered the dev time for modules when they build their World concept? Who is at fault for that then?



I was tempted to support CAP2 on the recent Steam sales, but if whatyou are saying about 777 is true, I have the premium copy of BoS and I just might give that another try!! I've always harped about having difficulty doing cockpit work when using a VR headset..... but there's not much to do in a WWII bird so this may just be perfect! Thanks for that heads up!




Something not being up to standard and being a snob are two different things. As you've said, you can dislike something but not be a snob about it....




Do it!! Have a read of someone who went from an X52 to a Warthog --- Click HERE!!

Waiting to see how bad 2.5 is first, any news on how they've improved it other than convert a map?

new FLIR system ? Improved ATC...anything ?

Oh, your purchase decision is tied to DCS? There are other sims to try. I would also say that firing up DCS A10C and getting a TM WH to fly it properly is a no-brainer.

I want to see how good the shiny new FLIR system they've been promising for years is first, and if this newfound concern for valued customers is enough for them to finally fix the mark-point system in the A10...amongst other things that I can't remember that have been broken for eternity in the DCS world.

I'd rather read a potential change-log of something to look forward to than whiny PR clap trap.

So... been lurking the DCS forum to decide whether it was worth the investment.... NOPE..I was actually looking forward to F/A-18 Hornet until I realized it was gonna be another unfinished product.... how they've managed to survive this long as a company with these bad of business practices is beyond me... anyone continuing to spend their hard earned money on this company .. well... yeah, have fun with that

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...808C852FF7C8055B5439808C&FORM=VRDGAR

In the interest of fairness, I would say this depends on your expectations and which module you would buy. While I would be first to discourage you from most of ED's offerings, this "worth the investment" bit is simply not fair to modules like FC3, DCS A10C and DCS BS2. Assuming a novice flight simmer who isn't looking for a dynamic campaign and would not mind scripted missions and training scenarios, I would say that those three modules are worth what you pay for them. I would say they are unfinished, but they are complete enough for most simmers.



What's wrong with the markpoint system? I used to use it to be able to fire 6 Mavs in one pass....

Try deleting them.




edit:

The company that values it's customers were made aware nearly 7 years ago.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=70719

Touché! I never tried to do so... I'm assuming this is possible in the real A10?

You serious?

They cannot be deleted. This accords with the procedure in the real aircraft.

This has further been confirmed to be the case by various A-10C crew-chiefs and SME's over on the DCS forums if you have a careful look.

They can be over-written but they cannot be deleted.

To clarify, I put "lesser" in quotes, because some folks have this (IMO, false) assumption that ED has lesser flight models. The idea was that even if you credit them that this were true, the platform still has evolved faster and delivered on it's promises more than DCS.

Hmm, seems I'm wrong, from what I can gather, the delete button wasn't implemented until a later suite of the A10, it's a bit of a confusing mess, a lot of people including me were under the impression the delete function was missing.

Most of the comments in the DCS forums just state you can't delete them, they don't give the reason why. A guy over on reddit says"You can see a Markpoint clear button on the CDU of later suites, unfortunately ours does not have it."
So obviously that manual page I found in the DCS forums is from later suite.

ED don't seem to update older modules so I guess that's as good as it gets, if they did we would have a delete button.

A10 pilots saw a need for it, so do sim pilots.

Maybe it's in a non-public version of the A10...who knows ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



No I do stand up.

ED had permission from the DOD to create an A-10C, Suite 3 sim. They do not have permission to add features from later Suites so that is why it has not been added.

Where did ED state this ?

Somewhere on the forum back in 2010 or 2011 and several times since.

Not that it matters now.

I now have the knowledge the A10C is suite 3 and the current one is suite 8...this is not a good feeling, especially after reading this :

http://media.jrn.com/documents/A-10C_Capes_Nov_13.pdf

...guess I'll have to settle for the shiny new FLIR system. :/

A few months ago i would have joined the haters and bashed ED to pieces, saying I would never buy anything from them again. I was at a point where I just hated everything about DCS and the slow process off getting to 2.5 and other problems.

But a few days ago i decided to try DCS again in lack of something else to play, and i fired up a plane i once bought but never used and tought i would never be intrested in, the f-86 sabre. Joined the korean server, after the first intense dogfight with a mig15 I was mindblown, what a rush, most intense moments i ever had in a flightsim, made me forget about the old ugly terrain and all other things that had bothered me about DCS. Im now back to being a fanboy, buy everthing they sell, the sabre sucked me back into this sim again and im hooked.

I even started enjoying normandy ww2 and bought the spitfire, just hope they can solve the problem with MSAA and deffered shading.

Now i kinda regret that I got myself banned from the ED forum.(wasnt their fault, I was asking for it😜)

Long live ED and may DCS grow and prosper for many years to come, hallelujah😎

I so wish people would not be so simple

Some of use really really LOVE playing DCS .... but think that some of the business decisions ED makes are very bad
It is not a simple black and white type thing

Thats awesome. I'm glad you're finally getting your moneys worth and enjoyment out of he sim. That is after all why we buy these products. The end result of going out to work day in day out. To spend our money and to be able to enjoy our time off. If I could I would gift you my unused modules so you could enjoy those too.

yes - one of the very good things about the new licensing is that we can gift our modules - that is something I am looking forward to.

That is good news. Be prepared for a give away.

that was a very common complaint in our community - I can understand not allowing 3rd party websites selling modules, but people who bought modules should be able to give them away as a gift.

I am happy that you've found your fire for DCS again. I wonder why you say "lack of something else to play" though? I guess you prefer the Korean War era aircraft?

I also fail to see how enjoying the F-86 means buying everything they sell? Surely enjoyment of one module does not mean you'll enjoy every module....

Absolutely. I always feel like the customers were/are being penalised for being loyal to DCS. Thats just not right. My personal feelings so dont take that personaly anybody.

Why does it matter to you how he spends his money? Or what he flies? Or what Sim he flies to the exclusion of others?

Common decency dictates that you’ll take his word for it and not question his intent. Really man, that tone is just argumentative.

Àaaaaaaand here he is right on cue.

Welcome to you as well. This is after all a discussions board where more than one participant to every discussion is allowed, yes?

Or is there a secret club of posters? Outsiders not allowed?

Yes you are correct this is a proper discussion board

For an example of what is not a discussion board try this link -> https://forums.eagle.ru/
In this place threads get closed for no good reason, posts get deleted for no good reason,
threads get locked when it doesn't tow the party line
it is kinda like an echo chamber

quoting MY full post so there is context

Believe me when I say I am happy hes finally enjoying his purchase. There is far too much defence of The developers while the customer is somehow demonized when they voice displeasure. This is supposed to be a community, you cannot build a community while ostracising those who voice justifiable complaints. I wish everybody would get value for their money, that is what builds a community, that and empathy. the truth is, wether you believe it or just refuse to acknowledge it not everybody does feel they have recieved value for their hard earned money. That is not their fault. Happy flying kaboki.

Why does it matter TO YOU what questions I ask?

To clarify, all I'm asking is that he explain the logic of his statement. He liked the F-86, okay, fair... but how does enjoying the F-86 lead to buying everything ED sells? I ask for the logic in the statement, not the justification of the expense.

Common decency --- I took his word for his statement that he enjoyed the F-86, I did not question why. Maybe you should learn how to read properly and not inject "tone" into everything you read and do not like.

Common decency --- why not take my post as asking questions and not question my intent of asking questions? Pot calling kettle black?



You respond to me a few times and all of a sudden you're an expert on "discussion" boards.... I'd like to see how long you can keep this up before resorting to the "it's not what you say, it's how you say it" excuse to start ignoring challenges again.



Obviously not. You're here, aren't you?



I thought you said you'd stop flexing.... guess not? Also.... /starwars voice/The irony is strong on this one!/starwars voice/



Johnny, the rules obviously only apply to us and are expected from us.... but not from others. Careful what you say now or you'll be called out on it!!



Interesting.... I wonder why you've not felt the obligation to respond to my other posts?



Hit a nerve there, Viper? Maybe you should start exhibiting credibility, truthfulness, decency and brains and we can all have a proper discussion.

I will agree with you that BS needs to be called out, but as you said, prepare to be dissected and holes pointed out. The irony is that after making that statement, you have yet to stand up to being dissected and having holes pointed out.



OMG, this again?? What are we, kindergarten?

Good work there Viper, got my thread locked with your shenanigans

It was just a temporary lock.

I did some cleaning in this thread, also, I just elected to forgo putting a temporary lock in place while I did it.

Carry on, folks.

Cleanup appreciated, CyBerkut!

Lack of something else to play means im just worn out on all my other games, and also my other sim Il2 bos suddenly wont accept my hotas warthog...

Now i prefer korean aircraift, before i was more into the more modern ones but i found that the korea era had alot to offer than i had imagined(still fly modern combat too). I also bought the p51 long time ago, but never really was into it too much and only lately been starting to like ww2 on DCS. Thats why i now decided to just buy everthing in DCS, because I know sooner or later im gonna get intrested in those modules even if im not right now.. Actually i have pretty much all modules already except the arcady fc3 planes, wich I never will buy, I feel they belong to a different game...

Heck, Im even gonna buy that yak haha, hope all this gave you the explanation you needed, english is not my native language so i sometimes have difficulty explaining things... In short, all modules I have bought have really never dissapointed me in the past, so i guess any module I buy in the future probably would have the same level of quality I always got before with DCS modules. Offcourse there are some modules I dont buy, like the hawk, i always read the reviews and wait a little so the modules mature a little out of early acces. Every thing from ED, Belsimtek, razbam, leatherneck has for me been excellent products. That VEO..somthing im very sceptical about😜

Thank you for your explanation.

I still don't see the connect between "I like the F-86 in DCS" and therefore I will buy everything on the DCS stable. Do you like Russian helicopters? Do you like American helicopters? Do you like aircraft trainers? These are all very, very different from your F-86, yet you still went ahead and purchased them. It's like saying "I like the Need for Speed game by EA" so I go and buy other EA games such as FIFA, Star Wars Battlefront, NHL, and The Sims.

However, it is your money so I hope you enjoy those modules