Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 6 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
#4342077 - 03/04/17 10:33 PM Re: Normandy Terrain ***** [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 430
Vaderini Offline
Member
Vaderini  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 430
You seem like a guy with a lot of friends -Ice!

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4342084 - 03/04/17 11:23 PM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: Vaderini]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Originally Posted by Vaderini
You seem like a guy with a lot of friends -Ice!

Sure do!

[Linked Image]




Now what was that point you were trying to make again? Oh right... there wasn't one.


- Ice
#4342085 - 03/04/17 11:32 PM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 29
JakeR Offline
Junior Member
JakeR  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 29
Originally Posted by - Ice
Originally Posted by JakeR
No argument here, just looking at it from all sides in this hard niche and get paid doing work in it.

Just looks like it would slow down the consumer side that's all, perhaps? Annoying Yes, ED doesn't say much, perhaps better off not to?


RPS: Would ED rather work on sims for the military or the public? I get the feeling defence departments pay more and complain less.

Originally Posted by Wags

Matt: We want to work on both! The developments are very much complementary. We have a development engine, which for want of a better term we call TFCSE (The Fighter Collection Simulation Engine). This engine is under continuous development and enhancement. Therefore the military gains an advantage of using technology that is state of the art, and the public get an entertainment title that has improved fidelity from our military experience (obviously limited to those are areas that are not classified!). We therefore can amortise our development costs across two markets, to the benefit of all. Military contracts are not a license to print money, as often they are required to be done on a “cost plus” basis, and I can assure you that they are very demanding as the simulation has to be perfect so as not to introduce “negative training”. In addition, gaining/winning military contracts is highly unpredictable, whereas for entertainment titles, we can plan a business over several years.


Interview: Matt Wagner On Black Shark


Black Shark was a long, long, LOOOOOOONNNNNGGGGG time ago.

Trust me, we've tried to look at it from all sides and that's why the ED defenders get trounced and instead of dealing with facts, start going off tangent and proceed to question and discredit the POSTER, rather than the points of the posted content. You can see examples of this everywhere, this thread included.

Even if we give ED the benefit of the doubt and go with that information above... what products have the military gotten over the past few years that have trickled down to civilian consumers? 2.5 is nowhere near completion, Nevada is so many years late that it's hard to imagine the military using it NOW, and the released modules are so broken it's hard to imagine a military contract to be tolerant of these shortcomings.



Yes I know it was a long time ago, and still my favorite and it's the most accurate and detailed heli system and flight simulation on the market.

You may find this interesting and will probably upset you too by the looks of it, about a third party trying to make it in the "make money" side of combat flight sim niche.

Originally Posted by Ells228

So, what's in store for 2017....
Well for me it will be a busy time developing our military projects, securing more military work for the year and those beyond, demonstrating our capabilities within DCS and of course showcasing DCS itself which is second-to-none when it comes to military simulators and the capabilities of the simulator that we all love flying or even driving in.
DCS itself has come on leaps and bounds with the latest installments and we can't wait to develop systems and functionality for what is yet to come <no spoilers>.

You will see vast improvements in technology for DCS; VR being a classic example of this and we are excited to announce some partnerships early in the New Year, so keep an eye out for announcements!!

I'll leave the consumer side of things to Pete in his text below and just want to assure you that we are working as diligently and as fast as possible to get new DCS products out to you whilst keeping the DCS quality mantra high.

THE POST






#4342086 - 03/04/17 11:48 PM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
Paradaz Offline
Senior Member
Paradaz  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
UK
I would take any announcement by that particular person/developer with the largest 'pinch' of salt you could ever imagine. They have a history of over-promising, under-delivering and not backing up anything they say. They also have the worst DCS module in history.......and that is saying something.


On the Eighth day God created Paratroopers and the Devil stood to attention.
#4342087 - 03/04/17 11:58 PM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 29
JakeR Offline
Junior Member
JakeR  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 29
Originally Posted by Paradaz
I would take any announcement by that particular person/developer with the largest 'pinch' of salt you could ever imagine. They have a history of over-promising, under-delivering and not backing up anything they say. They also have the worst DCS module in history.......and that is saying something.


Didn't they have problems with their team and need to rebuild (no excuses but still hard on them). That wouldn't be easy to find coders with an engineering degree I guess? ED hasn't got rid of them so they must be confident in their future with DCS still.

#4342090 - 03/05/17 12:11 AM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: JakeR]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Originally Posted by JakeR
Yes I know it was a long time ago, and still my favorite and it's the most accurate and detailed heli system and flight simulation on the market.

No arguments from me there!! I have BS2 and fully love (and hate!) that module!

Originally Posted by JakeR
You may find this interesting and will probably upset you too by the looks of it, about a third party trying to make it in the "make money" side of combat flight sim niche.

Talk is cheap. I'll believe it when I see it, and as I mentioned numerous times here, I would so **LOVE** to be proven wrong!


- Ice
#4342096 - 03/05/17 01:18 AM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: Vaderini]  
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 203
FartHog Offline
Member
FartHog  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 203
UK
Originally Posted by Vaderini

After you recommended I looked to his first post here, I went on and looked at his first 50 posts. He has made not a single well-argumented post, nor showing an ounce of nuance or reasonability.


Conversing with dullards like yourself simply doesn't appeal, I'm sure other people here are more obliging, I simply don't care enough about the game.

I enjoy what I post, it's the way I express myself, I know "tongue in cheek doesn't transgress well in forums" but that's who I am... it doesn't warrant any more time & effort than that, I have better things to do.

It's even more enjoyable when people like you rise to the bait...you make it all worthwhile lol biggrin

#4342099 - 03/05/17 01:54 AM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: FartHog]  
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 430
Vaderini Offline
Member
Vaderini  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 430
Originally Posted by FartHog
I simply don't care enough about the game.

*Posts here every single day*

Quote
I have better things to do.

*Posts here every single day*

#4342100 - 03/05/17 01:58 AM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
SimHQ **IS** a fun place to be! I'm sure he's here for the entertainment as well, some of which you are providing. We are a strange bunch. biggrin


- Ice
#4342102 - 03/05/17 02:09 AM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 430
Vaderini Offline
Member
Vaderini  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 430
Angry and frustrated, yes. Strange? No.

#4342104 - 03/05/17 02:12 AM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 203
FartHog Offline
Member
FartHog  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 203
UK
Originally Posted by - Ice
SimHQ **IS** a fun place to be! I'm sure he's here for the entertainment as well, some of which you are providing. We are a strange bunch. biggrin


Valderini is most definitely the strangest of the bunch, my post history shows I don't post for long periods of time, because there simply isn't anything new to post about.

Maybe he doesn't realise how the internet works, and once you have posted in a forum, you generally return when you receive an email informing you of a response...does he get out much?

#4342113 - 03/05/17 03:41 AM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: Vaderini]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Originally Posted by Vaderini
Angry and frustrated, yes. Strange? No.

Sure, sure. I see your need to project onto others... I'm happy to see you're still posting valid, thoughtful, and well argumented posts!!

And yet again...
[Linked Image]


- Ice
#4342123 - 03/05/17 05:02 AM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 29
JakeR Offline
Junior Member
JakeR  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 29
Originally Posted by - Ice
Originally Posted by JakeR
Yes I know it was a long time ago, and still my favorite and it's the most accurate and detailed heli system and flight simulation on the market.

No arguments from me there!! I have BS2 and fully love (and hate!) that module!

Originally Posted by JakeR
You may find this interesting and will probably upset you too by the looks of it, about a third party trying to make it in the "make money" side of combat flight sim niche.

Talk is cheap. I'll believe it when I see it, and as I mentioned numerous times here, I would so **LOVE** to be proven wrong!


It just seems to me if you look at the big picture and all of this grouped together, it would be the reason pretty much for the delays over the years with all the work that's been done, which is annoying and frustrating. Without this side and the consumer side ED would struggle staying in business with enough cash flow? Until they slowwwly get all the pieces in position, yes taking to long I know, better than going broke I guess?

Matt mentioned how demanding the military is and how the simulation has to be perfect. This would take a great deal of time away from the consumer side of the sim, I do think these contracts come first, before the consumer side, so they can potentially get more contracts in the future to offset the costs in more development.

I see a balancing act going on here to slowwwwly move forward and still stay in this business with enough cash flow. ED could look to some third parties and subcontract some of the work out to them when needed? Or that's why they joined ED to do their own military projects, as Ells mentioned they have their own now already and looking for more to offset the cost in development.

Originally Posted by Silver_Dragon
The profesional branch on Youtube
-Avia TD:
-Corsica
-Fort Rucker
-Baku
-Debre Zeyit, Ethiopia
Smartgraph LCC
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyTrzyQUIMh7iEtWkiZsE6w
And some Avia video on Dmitry Robustov Youtube
https://youtu.be/9kxCpW9lDYA
https://youtu.be/FJLMDfBrEDI
https://youtu.be/w8Q-EOTphG4




RPS: Would ED rather work on sims for the military or the public? I get the feeling defence departments pay more and complain less.

Originally Posted by Wags

Matt: We want to work on both! The developments are very much complementary. We have a development engine, which for want of a better term we call TFCSE (The Fighter Collection Simulation Engine). This engine is under continuous development and enhancement. Therefore the military gains an advantage of using technology that is state of the art, and the public get an entertainment title that has improved fidelity from our military experience (obviously limited to those are areas that are not classified!). We therefore can amortise our development costs across two markets, to the benefit of all. Military contracts are not a license to print money, as often they are required to be done on a “cost plus” basis, and I can assure you that they are very demanding as the simulation has to be perfect so as not to introduce “negative training”. In addition, gaining/winning military contracts is highly unpredictable, whereas for entertainment titles, we can plan a business over several years.



Originally Posted by Ells228

So, what's in store for 2017....
Well for me it will be a busy time developing our military projects, securing more military work for the year and those beyond, demonstrating our capabilities within DCS and of course showcasing DCS itself which is second-to-none when it comes to military simulators and the capabilities of the simulator that we all love flying or even driving in.
DCS itself has come on leaps and bounds with the latest installments and we can't wait to develop systems and functionality for what is yet to come <no spoilers>.

You will see vast improvements in technology for DCS; VR being a classic example of this and we are excited to announce some partnerships early in the New Year, so keep an eye out for announcements!!

I'll leave the consumer side of things to Pete in his text below and just want to assure you that we are working as diligently and as fast as possible to get new DCS products out to you whilst keeping the DCS quality mantra high.

THE POST






#4342155 - 03/05/17 01:06 PM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: JakeR]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Originally Posted by JakeR
It just seems to me if you look at the big picture and all of this grouped together, it would be the reason pretty much for the delays over the years with all the work that's been done, which is annoying and frustrating. Without this side and the consumer side ED would struggle staying in business with enough cash flow? Until they slowwwly get all the pieces in position, yes taking to long I know, better than going broke I guess?

Unless one is new to the sim and is still busy studying the startup procedure for the A10C, there's no reason NOT to look at the bigger picture. Some people have been waiting for the Hornet for 5 years now, all the while watching OTHER aircraft roll off the "production line." How long do they need to get the pieces in position? Especially as ED have been in business for a LONG time... remember when I said DCS Black Shark was a LONG time ago? ED have existed for 2-3x longer... maybe 4x? People say Flanker era, but I'm willing to grant them LOMAC era...

As for cash flow, well, the civilian side seems to be lucrative enough as it is, if not then ED would not bother with it at all. What some of us are saying is that if ED got their act together and released stuff that people want, they could then start printing their own money. DCS Hornet, DCS Tomcat, DCS Apache --- how could those module not make them tons and tons of cash?


Originally Posted by JakeR
Matt mentioned how demanding the military is and how the simulation has to be perfect. This would take a great deal of time away from the consumer side of the sim, I do think these contracts come first, before the consumer side, so they can potentially get more contracts in the future to offset the costs in more development.

Again, what products do we have lately that have been offshoots of military contracts? The trainer aircraft? Compare the money they made with those with the theoretical profits they could've made if they released a Hornet/Tomcat/Apache instead of the Hawk/Aviojet/Albatross? Also, can those who own those modules seriously say that these products are "military-grade" in quality? Are they close-to, at, or even-better than DCS A10C which we know was from a military contract?


Originally Posted by JakeR
I see a balancing act going on here to slowwwwly move forward and still stay in this business with enough cash flow. ED could look to some third parties and subcontract some of the work out to them when needed? Or that's why they joined ED to do their own military projects, as Ells mentioned they have their own now already and looking for more to offset the cost in development.

Nothing wrong with that at all, but ED has to be honest both with their customers and more importantly, with themselves. The picture they are showing us for the past years is that they're biting off more than they can chew and they're missing deadlines left, right, and center. After all of that, the product that comes out doesn't seem to be worth the wait either. Think about it... even if they released the Hornet anytime in 2017, it will be an EARLY ACCESS product, which will take ANOTHER 2-3 years before it's finished, if it gets there at all. ED needs someone at the helm that can steer their ship straight and keep them focused, otherwise they'll continue to be a laughing stock which is a pity because there ARE some great talent within their ranks.


Originally Posted by JakeR
RPS: Would ED rather work on sims for the military or the public? I get the feeling defence departments pay more and complain less.

They just said they want to do both. But can they?


- Ice
#4342298 - 03/06/17 08:44 AM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 29
JakeR Offline
Junior Member
JakeR  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 29
I agree for the most part that DCS is more of a procedural sim first and foremost for many years, that part comes from the early procedural simulations they mainly build for the military and other markets.

The mi-17 would be one example (we know of) of aircraft that was built first for a training sim that we get to fly now, wasn’t the L-39 Albatros the same, and built for someone? The map would have been good, no license or deal to get it too for the consumer? damn it.

I get the long betas and alpha builds with level and depth of the system modeling going on.
The weapons, weapon fragmentation and AI would be the big things that should be hi-priority, well I hope they are, these things are really the main things holding DCS back from becoming not just a very good simulation, and average “game” experience, but a great experience across the board.

You know they will get to a good level across the board, not just with great systems and FM’s, one day and you will be proved wrong Ice, you can laugh all about this from your bed in the retirement home when it's done, LOL.

I fly BMS for their F16 and the campaign missions to have a good “game / mission” experience and use DCS for the systems, flight models, VR and eye candy, the helicopters are very well modeled, I’m getting back into the choppers at the moment. I hope they get time to work on (or be allowed to) tidying up the weapons and AI at some point.

I always considered the trainer aircraft was for third parties to get started and learn the basics of systems and FM’s and get an aircraft in the shop and make a little cash, plus the systems, FM data and licensing would be easier to get a hold of (Not classified as much) and for a good price maybe? RAZBAM is an exception, they have the experience already with their portfolio in FSX, so straight to the M2000C for them.

I think the licensing have a lot to do with what can be done here? At the level and depth of detail ED can do things, this would require “proper licensing” to release these accurate simulations to the public.

This could be a reason other things have not changed in years? ED may have more very accurate info on some weapons and systems and cannot use the data they already have without crossing a line somewhere (Upset the Client) and are waiting on how much they can use for the public side (Red tape). Would this limit what they can even say in public too about it and why no updates? NDA's

So they're stuck? Build systems and simulations to this level of detail, can stop you building some of the sims you want to build for the consumer market and make good money? If you just make a “game” and guess at systems this is OK to do right with no license?

So stuck between building a sim “Game” and Military “Simulations” and what your allowed to release to the public. mmmm

Originally Posted by Ells228

Sorry guys, VEAO will not be developing the Apache for public release.
We are still aiming to develop a military version pending contracts and future military development for DCS.

Can't go into reasons due to NDA's sorry.

Thanks,
Chris.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2193455&postcount=644


Are we ever going to get an Apache AH-64 to fly in the sim?
https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=158039

So there could be an Apache AH-64 or F16 etc out there now, damn it. Was hoping Combat Helo was going to fill the void for a new AH-64 chopper sim, looks like it's not going ahead now. Someone should do one even at the combat air patrol 2 level would be good.









#4342340 - 03/06/17 03:54 PM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Jedi Master Offline
Entil'zha
Jedi Master  Offline
Entil'zha
Sierra Hotel

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Space Coast, USA
If you attack the poster and not the point, you are admitting you cannot counter their argument. Either because you realize it is valid, or you are incapable of forming a cogent counterargument. In effect, you are admitting defeat.

Just because someone types in all capitals, full of profanity, in numerous locations, that they had their legs chopped off by a drunk driver doesn't mean that their opinion can be discounted. Their inability to form their point effectively does not automatically negate it.

Trying to recategorize their arguments as pointless hysteria by ignoring them repeatedly until they get frustrated and THEN saying "oh look at the whiner!" is likewise an admission that the only way you can counter them is by cheating.



The Jedi Master


The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
#4342362 - 03/06/17 04:30 PM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: JakeR]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Originally Posted by Jedi Master
If you attack the poster and not the point, you are admitting you cannot counter their argument. Either because you realize it is valid, or you are incapable of forming a cogent counterargument. In effect, you are admitting defeat.

Just because someone types in all capitals, full of profanity, in numerous locations, that they had their legs chopped off by a drunk driver doesn't mean that their opinion can be discounted. Their inability to form their point effectively does not automatically negate it.

Trying to recategorize their arguments as pointless hysteria by ignoring them repeatedly until they get frustrated and THEN saying "oh look at the whiner!" is likewise an admission that they only way you can counter them is by cheating.

Exactly true, Jedi, and a sentiment I discussed in this thread. It's amazing how the symptoms manifests once they realize the position they're in. It's quite sad that they can't admit even to themselves that what the "other side" is saying is true.



Originally Posted by JakeR
I agree for the most part that DCS is more of a procedural sim first and foremost for many years, that part comes from the early procedural simulations they mainly build for the military and other markets.

But that's not the spiel they give when they market their products. Even so, that is not the only shortcoming of ED.

Originally Posted by JakeR
The mi-17 would be one example (we know of) of aircraft that was built first for a training sim that we get to fly now, wasn’t the L-39 Albatros the same, and built for someone?

And how many bought those modules? Versus how many would buy a Hornet/Tomcat/Apache module?

Originally Posted by JakeR
I get the long betas and alpha builds with level and depth of the system modeling going on.
The weapons, weapon fragmentation and AI would be the big things that should be hi-priority, well I hope they are, these things are really the main things holding DCS back from becoming not just a very good simulation, and average “game” experience, but a great experience across the board.

But the long beta/early access period is not spent on fixing the module or the weapons or the AI. How do I know this? Because issues with the missiles still exists. AI is still dumb. Module(s) with activation issues still have activation issues. Things that people expect to be high-priority, needs-to-be-fixed go for years without getting fixed... and then we see ED move on to different projects. Somebody tell me that the DCS patching process no longer feels like 2 steps forward, 3 steps back and I'll be impressed. New campaigns come out and new patch comes out to support the campaign. Seriously? That's like MS Word releasing the 2017 version and you'll need to patch Windows to accomodate it, then MS Excel comes out and you'll need to patch Windows again.

Originally Posted by JakeR
You know they will get to a good level across the board, not just with great systems and FM’s, one day and you will be proved wrong Ice, you can laugh all about this from your bed in the retirement home when it's done, LOL.

And I'll rule the world one day so you all better bow down to me now??!! No, it doesn't work like that. Get to a good level FIRST, then I'll be proven wrong. Until then, they're just making a mockery of themselves. I don't even want to be right; I'd so much love it to be proven wrong, but that's not really up to me now, is it?

Originally Posted by JakeR
I think the licensing have a lot to do with what can be done here? At the level and depth of detail ED can do things, this would require “proper licensing” to release these accurate simulations to the public.

So why did a 3rd party group get licensing to the Tomcat and not ED? And why just now? How old is DCS? How old is ED? Surely they know which aircraft(s) would sell like hotcakes.... but no, let's do trainer aircraft instead.

Originally Posted by JakeR
This could be a reason other things have not changed in years? ED may have more very accurate info on some weapons and systems and cannot use the data they already have without crossing a line somewhere (Upset the Client) and are waiting on how much they can use for the public side (Red tape). Would this limit what they can even say in public too about it and why no updates? NDA's

Weak argument.

Originally Posted by JakeR
So they're stuck? Build systems and simulations to this level of detail, can stop you building some of the sims you want to build for the consumer market and make good money? If you just make a “game” and guess at systems this is OK to do right with no license?

So stuck between building a sim “Game” and Military “Simulations” and what your allowed to release to the public. mmmm

Hmmm.... you're starting to sound like one of the other posters who used to post here.... wink

Originally Posted by JakeR
[quote=Ells228]
Sorry guys, VEAO will not be developing the Apache for public release.
We are still aiming to develop a military version pending contracts and future military development for DCS.

Can't go into reasons due to NDA's sorry.

Cop out.

Originally Posted by JakeR
So there could be an Apache AH-64 or F16 etc out there now, damn it. Was hoping Combat Helo was going to fill the void for a new AH-64 chopper sim, looks like it's not going ahead now. Someone should do one even at the combat air patrol 2 level would be good.

Could've, would've, should've.


- Ice
#4342383 - 03/06/17 05:20 PM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 277
xXNightEagleXx Offline
Member
xXNightEagleXx  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 277
+1 ICE and Jedi

#4342424 - 03/06/17 08:14 PM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 507
JG52Krupi Offline
Member
JG52Krupi  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 507
180
There are ways and means to point out your frustration at ED and the sims flaws... Derailing every thread in a campaign of hatred is surely not one of them?

Yet it is allowed to happen in virtually every single thread on the SimHQ DCS subforum, is anyone actually bothering to manage this forum anymore because it is utterly abysmal at the moment.

Anyway please can we go back to talking about Normandy now....

[Linked Image]

It looks like the autumn scenario is well underway yep


Last edited by JG52Krupi; 03/06/17 08:33 PM.
#4342427 - 03/06/17 08:26 PM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Jedi Master Offline
Entil'zha
Jedi Master  Offline
Entil'zha
Sierra Hotel

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Space Coast, USA
Well, when people who voice any dissatisfaction get shut down left and right, it's natural that the place where they don't is where they will congregate and it will seem unbalanced. The fact that so many who "don't want to see that" then stay away versus engage leads to a very lopsided forum, most definitely. The echo chamber of thought is now the preferred method of social interaction.

Like everything else on the planet, people have become uncomfortable with confronting opinions that differ from their own. They want validation that what THEY believe is correct, and they want to commiserate with others who feel the same way about "those people" who feel differently.

In many ways, I think the internet and social media have done more to divide the population than anything else. It used to be people who had extreme opinions were marginalized by virtue of the fact that few of the people they knew and lived around shared those opinions. Now it's so easy to go online and find a dozen voices willing to parrot the same rhetoric back and forth, so why should anyone bother to examine their beliefs or feelings? If I can find 15 people who agree with me, well, we can't ALL be wrong, can we? We must be RIGHT, and THEY must be wrong. If it seems like more people disagree with me than agree, well, they're PAID to say that, or it's a trick to make it seem like there's more than there are, or lots of people who agree are staying silent and it's just that their side makes more noise with fewer people.

Enter the 21st century staple of intransigence writ large. We're never wrong, they're always wrong.




The Jedi Master


The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
Page 6 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Moderated by  Force10, RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
10 years after 3/8/2014
by NoFlyBoy. 03/17/24 10:25 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0