I had a heck of a time in the Huey, until I flew it without weps and with only about 50% fuel. A couple of missions have the Hueys set up this ^^^ way -- Vulcans & Sharks and Bridge At Zugdidi. With the time in the Huey in these two missions, now it isn't that hard to fly when it is loaded. I still have trouble slowing it down enough to get a light touchdown, usually I come in like landing an A-10 and the skids slide along the ground for a mile or so

WC

Skidding along the ground for a mile or so in a Huey is a great landing.

I employ the slow hover/transform into lawn dart tactic

Yep...that's more my style too. Command likes it...when they run low on munitions they give me orders
to "land" near the enemy.

CTD has put development on hold.

Bummer, guess we won't be seeing a multirole fighter until VEAO's released their Eurofighter then.

^ just great...

As disappointing as this news definitely is, it does a wondeful job of highlighting what an utterly pointless waste of time the preceding pages of arguments about "ED are ahead / No, CTD are ahead" really were.

I'd love to believe that this might result in people taking a deep breath and spending their limited time on this planet a little more constructively, but I somehow doubt it.

Lol, good luck with that, this is the internet. I bet at 80% of post are a waste of time, we are just here having fun.

License lost (or was it actually never given to them?), forum moved to a relatively hidden place, project put on "hold", forum deleted, no explanation given...

Yeah, this is on a great path.


Kinney, Mil-Sim, IRIS, RRG, Virtual Patriots and now Coretex. It's actually quite hilarious to compare the number of 3rd party developers that bit the dust, to the number of 3rd party modules that were released.

How can a license be put on hold or canceled because of a problem with the owner of the actual aircraft?

I'm going to word this poorly and it's the wrong forum, but stick with me.

There was an A-4 in development that got canceled because of a problem with the manufacturer of the A-4. Yet the A-4 exists (as an A-4) in any number of sims from BMS/Falcon to Thirdwire to FSX. So how does it become a problem to recreate in DCS?

Thinking on the F/A-18 here, WRT any number of F/A-18 in-sim modules, ala VRS, Acceleration, Jane's, and so on...

I realize that this might not be the problem with this particular project, but the question is still valid.

They never held a 3rd party license, that they had their own subforum was a result of miscommunication.




A testiment to how hard it is to deliver an airframe at that level of accuracy.

In the case concerned, there never was a license.



Do any of those developers operate in the military market? VEAO do, so do ED. There's your explanation.

Well... That's not true.
Different teams had different reasons and I don't remember any of them being "it's too hard".

I remember one of them saying it was a lot more difficult than FSX before going back to FSX.

A Razbam dev recently said that dev tools and such in DCS were poorly documented in comparison with FSX.

Which is precisely what happens when a developer doesn't tell their future customers how things are coming along. 20 pages here of crap.

BTW, curious (shall we say) how the "CTD development has stopped" thread on the ED forums disappeared from last night...

They never had a License.
All the 3rd Parties you listed dissolved as a result of their own decision.




Regarding A-4s
The A-4s in those other sims do not have every system re-created to a detail that requires a license to use it.
(FSX Maybe Depending on Studio),
ThirdWire had issues with Lockheed at one point and removed the C-130 and F-140 from the Game until resolved, they had a License to use the A-4.

As far as F-18E Goes,
Jane's F/A-18 was released around the Same Time the F-18E/Fs were introduced to the Navy after testing and wasnt even at IOC until some years later.
Pretty sure a lot of BUG Pilots here at NAS Oceana said the systems in Jane's look and feel like the Superbug to an extent, But are definitely not 100% re-created, and some systems are left out or dumbed down,

And that's not even mentioning, USN/RAAF/Boeing have Upgraded the SuperBugs Since 1999, several smaller upgrades, Block II Upgrades and Block III Upgrades.

A Majority of which is still classified, Without a License from Both Boeing and The USN or RAAF,
Re-Creating every system Correctly would be impossible, even if you had SMEs that could help you make the aircraft feel correctly.

How Old is FSX Again?

Considering a Majority of the work can be easily carried over from FS2002-> FS2004-> FSX-> FSX-SP1/SP2 -> FSX:ACL-> FSX w/ TacPACK -> P3D 1.x and P3D 1.2

They've been open to 3rd Parties for DECADES, alot of the guides are written by former ACES Studio Members. They had the Same teething problems back in the day. As did Thirdwire at first when SFP1 Was released and we all had to figure out the coding and stuff by ourselves w/ Minimal to no documents from Thirdwire outside of how to setup models in 3DS Max.

Younger than the ED Flanker 1 and 2 circa 1995 that (AFAIK) started the DCS franchise. Both of which I have and provided countless hours of entertainment. Then of course FC and FC2/3, which I have.

Can we draw that lineage connection to DCSW? Can we? Can we? LOL...well I just did anyhow.

Then you can take Microsoft FS all the way back to the early 80's lineage wise.