Originally Posted By: David_OC
The development of falcon could go back and start in perhaps 1980? That is one huge journey! 36 years there!
OK lets say 1982 and took two years to code, still 34 years.

Evidence? I have a guy in my basement saying ED was started in 1915, so there!

Please, please, please for the love of God and all things sanity-related, EDUCATE YOURSELF before making any more statements. Even if Falcon started in 1984 with the original F-16 Fighting Falcon, it does not mean work on current-generation BMS is 32 years old. Tech was different at that time, capabilities and expectations were different.

Let me put this simply for you: While the history of Falcon can be traced back to 1984, the "title" has been worked on by so many companies, modders, and IP holders that each "phase" could be taken as a separate entity. In comparison, ED, started in 1991, has worked on Flanker, LOMAC, and DCS.

If your neighbor, your mechanic, his best buddy, your dad, uncle, and a random guy off the street has worked on your 32-year old car, it will be reasonable to expect your car to run funny. If you bought a second car and had it serviced from one dealer for the past 25 years, you'd expect them to know the ins-and-outs of your car by now. Why is the 32-year old car a better-performing and more-enjoyable drive than the 25-year old car? Why is it that when you bring your 25-year old car to the dealer for them to fix the broken windshield wiper, they give it back to you and the door locks are no longer working? Sure, your 25-year old car has better upholstery, you've upgraded to digital radio, heck, it even has parking sensors! All of which break down randomly after you bring your car to the dealer.

The latest "bells and whistles" does not make a better product, unfortunately.


Originally Posted By: David_OC
NTTR was redone by ED to very new level, well it speaks for itself today in the latest update.

It damn well should be!! 5 years late and still in Alpha!


Originally Posted By: David_OC
WW2 was completely taken over by ED to complete and is honoring the kick starter agreement.

False.


Originally Posted By: David_OC
As far as I'm concerned there are no real time set limits with any flight simulation coding, the work goes on and always can be better, grated you could do what F4 had to do and get something out the door, even tho it practically didn't work when released.

As far as I'm concerned, I'd like products that I buy to be useful in my lifetime. "The best flight simulation ever" is totally useless to me if it gets finished in 80 years' time. There **IS** a time limit, especially if you have started selling the product.


Originally Posted By: David_OC
You could just setup and sell crappy system and FM model planes in FSX or X-Plane and many do.

duh You can figure this out for FSX/XP10 but not for ED? One-sided much? You can be a fanboi, David, but please be an honest fanboi.


Originally Posted By: David_OC
ED has stuck it out and taken the long hard road for their future and are so close to a new chapter. How many planes and helicopters are in EDs shop now Paradaz? How many campaigns?

Quantity does not equal Quality. biggrin


Originally Posted By: David_OC
Why would Razbam or Leatherneck join ED?

Why would other crappy developers join FSX?? To make a buck.


Originally Posted By: David_OC
Do you think ED is making traction and going froward in the sim market place or going backwards? When it comes to systems and FM's ED and the 3rd parties sets this bar in the flight sim field very very high.

HAhahahahahahahahaha...... ED is going backwards, clearly. They've got a LOT of work to do before they start going forwards. Releasing an impressive v2.5 would be a good start. Then comes the tricky part --- keeping on going forwards.


Originally Posted By: David_OC
Again this is ED's timeline here not a MicroProse money spending game changing power house.

You are mistaken here. ED clearly does **NOT** have a timeline. I think their slogan is "it'll be finished when we get 'round to it.... suckers!" In the meantime, here's a new module and campaign for you to buy!!


Originally Posted By: David_OC
ED would perhaps build a campaign more like Kevin Klemmick – Lead Software Engineer for F4 said

"I would do a mix of scripted/generated missions, so that the player still feels like they’re involved in the world, but there is also some variety thrown in to keep things interesting."

This is plausible for ED or 3rd party to do and I believe would be the best way to go moving forward.

Very nice of you to include this. We can clearly see ED has gone this way. Users can script their own missions or use the mission generator to make a quick mission. This is a FACT that is evident to anyone. Now comes the question: Is this the better way? For training purposes, yes. For "a player feeling like they're involved in the world," no.

Is it the better way? The demand for a DC clearly shows it is not.


Originally Posted By: David_OC
Falcon F4 is one extremely expensive piece of fine SimArt. MicroProse spent 11+ million, how many more man hours did open falcon, SuperPak 3, bms throw at F4 to get it to where it is today? Would F4 be worth 20+ million today or more?

Please stop this strawman argument. How much of the 11+ million went to the DC? How much went to other assets like 3D and textures? How much went to advertising and manufacturing?

In comparison, how much has ED spent on their products over the years?

If you insist on just presenting one side of the story, you will be called out for the deception and lies you spread.


- Ice