Latest update

How are you satisfied with latest update? I am getting nice and steady 0.7 MB/s after switch to bittorrent. Thats an improvement. Also MiG-21 upgrade instruction could be little bit more specific. How am I supposed to locate all registry keys. Since this is payed product I expected to be, if not silver spoon, at least fed.

EDIT: Just finished download, game still freezes for short periods of time for me, so no improvement there, and that is my main concern.

DL speeds went down the drain for me, compared to previous method (and I'm not the only one it seems), but I'm not in hurry. While the update is downloading, let's get to question 2 - the registry clean-up batch file folks were using for the MiG up to that point should do the trick I suppose:
http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2267911&postcount=1

Thanks for the link Art_J. I wonder how bittorrent actually fares in situations like this. Since DL > UL for consumer internet connection, this is compensated by longer seed times, but here, I assume that uploading stops right after download finishes (does it?), so there is at any time grater demand for than supply of data.

I found only two instances of "Leatherneck" in registry, one in HKLM and one in HKCU. I looked at the reg file link above, it deletes the Leatherneck folder in HKLM (presumably leaving the HKCU?). I deleted both.

I have found only one on my box. HKCU/Eagle Dynamics is the new location according to changelog.

New el cheapo torrent based updater is utter pants

210.7 KB/s upload, 4.9 KB/s download. It's so kind of ED to volunteer my bandwidth resource to deliver their product to other customers but take the money you get for the product and buy some connection resources with it. I admire the ingenuity of P2P distribution, I really do but it should take the edge off hosting not replace it entirely.

Are there some ports I could be forwarding or something? I've got 180~ peers which seems like not enough.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2564472&postcount=61

Wait- how does this work. I'm a bit lost.
Starting the game should update it or I must download a new installer?

Start the updater and it will update itself.

Starting the game updates the downloader/installer first, than the game.

Wow, another ED innovation, taking a fast connection (150mbit/sec), make other people give their bandwidth and now I am uploading at 1.5mB/sec and downloading at 1.8kB. So awesome.

Seriously guys, why are you participating in the beta programme if it's so horrible?

I think they forgot it is beta...lol...just got to shake your head.

Dude, come on. They changed the download method and now I am getting dialup modem speeds on a 150mbit connection. I am uploading at my max speed but download is incredibly slow. 440 clients connected and I am getting really low speeds.

My neck is already twisted beyond repair...

Then why do you respond?

Muhaha...you can't win either way...the only winning move is not to play...so sayeth the WOPAR.

Sobek few weeks ago you said that already in general not write on simhq and bms forum.So why still here you are trolling?
Another skatezilla who can not keep his word?

That's uncalled for.

He's posting his opinion...not really the definition of trolling.

Keep my word? Did i make a promise to you and not keep it?

Quitter.

In for a penny, in for a pound, i say.

Did I say the beta was so horrible. The new download method is horrible, I haven't had any problems with the game personally

There's like a dungload of people coming onto this very forum telling you that the updater has a problem. Your reaction is to download the new updater and yack about how it's broken? "Dude", i'm sorry but if you can't see the comedy in that, i'm not really sure what to do for you...

First of all, I downloaded the updater BEFORE I came here to see if there were issues.

Could you please stop posting OT here and perhaps start your own thread? My original question was how are people satisfied, not why they still put up with it. Thanks.

The new downloader is being introduced as part of the open beta.



That's too bad then. Give it a day or two, knowing c0ff he's gonna throw an all-nighter to get it fixed.

Fair enough.

Last time i tried my dl bandwidth was maxed out, but that was before everybody and their neighbour started using it. Will be interesting to see how it pans out during the next few days.

the Torrent protocol is new and wip, there will be tweaking and changes made as ED gets more data and feedback.

What am I missing?

I did the latest update and see no evidence of a torrent being forced upon me.

It could be that they reverted back to http to fix the torrent method.

No, it is still torrent. You can see it in small letters when you are dl'ing. It kept me from playing last night.... Too long.

As for Mig-21, running the fix should be enough to fix the Reg entries. Just run it.

Im a bit confused. Why an update now if 2.0 is coming in less than a week?

There is no guarantee that we will get 2.0 in less than a week. They planned to release it around the end of Nov; deadlines have been missed before due to bugs - stuff happens.

There was also talk that 1.5 will be out of beta when 2.0 goes into beta, so it would make sense to fix a few bugs in 1.5 then focus on 2.0.

Really? Cpt Obvious just called! He wants his job back. ED miss a deadline? NEVER!!!

It's pretty subtle. The updater works on P2P principles initially (which regardless of how well it works could still be seen as improper even in theory). It doesn't ask or advertise the fact that it's P2P-based and it takes some level of computer literacy to even realize it's doing it.

The only way to not use the P2P distribution method is to run the updater which starts doing the P2P method. Then you have to tell it "cancel" which presumably cancels the update process. What happens instead of canceling the update is there is a hidden second method which asks if you want to try again non-P2P.

How fast or slow it is not really the complaint. You have to do P2P initially, it keeps quiet about it, and the only way not to do it is deliberately (by design) not obvious. They want to reduce their distribution costs and a great way to do that is to use someone else's bandwidth.

P2P is fine but you have to ask permission not steal and hope for forgiveness. "Dear customer, please select the new P2P distribution method. It provides an easy, safe, effective, scalable, and theoretically unlimited speed solution where users receive data from and transmit data to other users. Click OK to update using the new distribution system or cancel is revert to the old method." See how easy that is to be upfront?

Naw. They're just taking a page out of Micro$oft's book and doing what M$ did for Windows 10 distribution. And DCS did ask permission. They asked if you wanted to download the new installer. M$ simply selected the P2P method by default and it was up to you to find and deselect it after installation.

Slooooooooowwww

Here's feedback to take back to ED. This method is terrible for the sizes required to update this software.

-Jeff

^Thank You for your feedback.

I don't think that clients bandwidth will ensure acceptable download speeds for reasons that I mentioned in my previous post. Thus I think that their motivation is to use bittorrent as cheap, or rather should I say cost effective, load balancer. With old system you had to choose one download mirror if you downloaded from their www site, and that was probably what happened behind the scenes with automatic downloader too. With bittorrent, the load will be distributed equally among all of their servers, plus it will make easy to add other (low reliable) machines to the swarm, possibly hosted by affiliates and "good samaritans".

Tried to download the update in torrent. It was so slow that halfway through I decided to cancel. Then the option for HTTP came up. Slooow is right. I gave up another night of flying for the update. Once done, I ran the key registry thingie for the the MiG-21. Its all good now. However, my 1.5 said I had 8 installs left...

My torrent does not even download, do I need to have a torrent client open first?

No...however I'd cancel it and go with http anyway.

I was getting 127k download speeds via torrent and just under 4MB/s via http.

I just wish ED would test their crap first before laying it on us......I don't recall volunteering to beta test their installers - this is something that could easily have been identified before mass deployment.

Doesn't offer http in the auto updater, are you saying I need to go the ED forums? If so at what URL please, kind sir?

In order to test P2P networks you need a large number of clients. Such as those participating in the current Open Beta test.

Oh, wait...



If you cancel the update process it will automatically switch over to HTTP download.

Well for me, it did not.

It said there was an update, then that windows went away and did nothing.

Now when I check for updates, no new updates appear.

In order to test software that is deployed to a large number of your clients 99/100 companies would use test tools first and would not want to expose themselves as a company that are absolutely clueless when even a very small number of connections are having immediate difficulties.

Well I would submit that this torrent distribution should have been worked on long before DCS2 was due out.

It would not be cool to see a delay now because of something that should have been worked on months ago.

And that is why i use steam

*Participates in a beta test and gets annoyed when things get tested*

Nate

LOL...yep, there is that...

Nate.....there's no such thing as a beta test for ED anymore. Their definition of 'beta' is now a standard release. Always late, no finish date in sight, no intent to finish what they start

I've called them incompetent before and here we are still proving I'm right. Unless ED are trying to re-invent the wheel P2P isn't new, it is a proven mechanism of which there are many different working implementations in place. There are many ways to create/simulate 1000's of connections during testing and I'd doubt this beta has that many simultaneous downloads in the grand scheme of things either.....so its hardly the 'network' at fault.

How about ED test their software properly before deploying it to a live userbase? Yes, 1.5 is a beta (as are most of their modules), however you'd think they would actually want their customers to be able to get the software in the first place so they can start testing it.. These really are basic errors over and over again. What's so frustrating is that the potential is huge yet ED just continue to demonstrate that they'll probably never realise it.

I don't think Falcon4 is anywhere close to the definition of 'abandoned'!

BMS is Barely Falcon 4 at this stage.

BMS 4.33 might rightfully be called Falcon 6.0.

That has nothing to do with the definition of beta.

Also, it really boggles my mind why you're still here. Whenever I don't like a game, I don't go on playing it and complaining every single day. I didn't really like Fallout 4, you won't see me posting at any forum or news outlet about it.

He even complains about the 1.5 beta test version being used to... test the P2P distribution...because the 1.5 open beta isn't a real beta because...stuff.



Doesn't make a lot of sense to me but then if I had such deep misgivings about a game/company I simply wouldn't waste my time with it anymore.

I've pretty much given up on IL2: BoS for example. But you don't see me posting there every day how horrible everything about is. I got other stuff to do than waste my time with endless nagging on an internet forum.

Happy me.

Ah, you think it's a 'distribution problem'....or is that just an easy way to define both the network and the installer without actually understanding where the problem lies?...even though the network doesn't need to be 'tested', it's already proven. I reckon the problems with the P2P installer would have been found with an internal test - there really is no requirement to prove P2P with a live userbase when their target audience is so small. The cynic in me will suggest that the term 'beta' is simply a caveat whereby ED can throw out untested software without having to justify or fix problems in a timely manner.....some people seem to be buying into the 'beta' tag very easily and will provide ED with enough excuses just like you're doing when you defend their performance.

Interesting also, that you somehow see the method of installation as a beta test too! If the installer fails or is so slow that is unworkable are ED achieving their aim in beta-testing 1.5? I wonder if DCS 2.0 will be delayed until that installer is fixed, because ultimately if ED can't successfully deliver the content as an open-alpha.....then there isn't an open-alpha to test. Do you want to estimate the size of DCS 2.0? Do you then want to estimate the time it will take to download over 130Kb/s P2P link!

It looks like ED have only just worked out how to add a line of text to the dialogue box that explains that http can be used as a backup.....not everyone was aware of the failsafe option in the first place so god help them trying to deliver 20GB to everyone via P2P. Like I mentioned before, it's just another example of incompetence. They don't give me any confidence they are improving and still indicate that they continue to stumble from one mistake to the next.

DCS 2.0 being an 'open-alpha' at this point in time after all the delays is still pretty shocking....they have to realise that they need to start turning things around...their audience will not continue to show this amount of patience regardless of whether they have any competition or not.

Simple question for you.......DCS 2.0 is released within a couple of days (hopefully). Would you be happy to test the installer for a couple of weeks without being able to get DCS 2.0 even though the new engine is ready to download......just because its labelled an 'open-alpha' and it's all part of the 'fun'. I rest my case.

Quick answer is that a P2P delivery really isnt something that a 'professional' software company should be getting wrong.

Going off topic with this discussion, but how is the original developer even relevant?

Are you actually 'playing' the developer or their product/modified product?
Just look at EECH for example, RazorWorks are long gone but that doesn't even come into it, it's the talented community that has provided the mods which are still driving the immersion, it's absolutely outstanding what they've done and are still doing.

Similarly BMS doesn't exist without Falcon....it's irrelevant that the original devs may have long gone..not even sure what your point is. Falcon and the term abandoned means nothing when the end product you can get immersed in is BMS.

I'm sure if ED suddenly disappeared, but DCS was progressed by the community it wouldn't be an issue for you. By the same token, you'd be playing DCS and not Eagle Dynamics.

TL;DR

*Participates in a beta test and gets annoyed when things get tested*



Nate

EECH still lives?

Just got to day 3 on the BMS 4.33 F-18C carrier campaign in the Israeli theater, destroying a convoy using maverick missiles getting SPI handoff from TGP...with two wing mates carryiong 4 mav's also... it's a blast, sorry to post off topic, but I wonder how long it will be til we get the hornet and carrier ops in DCS ? ( with A/G radar? )

I support DCS, have most of the modules, got my serial # for the NTTR from early A10 purchase, I love the beta it looks beautiful and runs great... just getting bored with it.

PS anyone tried the BMS 4.33 AGM84 SLAM-er missile? Pretty crazy getting that thing on target

Oh kewl..4.33 bug cv ops in Israel...I'm on it...great idea, brother.

I haven't even mentioned the main 'game' with regards what it should or shouldn't be. I know it's a beta and I know what to expect but fannying about with an installer shouldn't be part of it.

My point is quite simply that;

1. The community shouldn't have to beta-test an installer. It really is a poor effort by ED to get that so woefully wrong when the functionality can be proven in a dev/test environment. Just because it's P2P doesn't mean a live user base needs to be the first people that test it. We cannot beta test the sim if ED cannot deliver the content.

2. Given the previous delays and the amount of time/effort already put into NTTR/DCS 2 it really should be past the point of open alpha. What's ED's road map?......do they even have one?...,.how long can we expect it to be before we get to the point of the engine baselined as a release candidate?

You might say 'none of your business', but I've reached the point that there is just no confidence in ED finishing anything and I'm reluctant to spend more money on new modules/maps if everything is going to change again in the near future or the engine never has a finish date in sight.

And thats fair enough too, however ED aren't really 'finishing anything either. There's a real concern that they slowly lose their fanbase and have a 'World' in which nothing is ever complete within it.

There's no wonder many people are raising concern that their resources deem to be spread over multiple platforms/maps and ideas but everything remains a work in progress whilst something new is announced.

I love the game DCS, The developer not so much because of the poor comm skills, their obviously poor project management skills and their general overall #%&*$# attitude to those who aren't kissing their ass on a daily basis.

I am a flight sim addict and to use an analogy, if I were an alcoholic and the only booze I could buy/get was the #%&*$# beer on the planet (Yes, I am looking at you BlackHorse) I would still buy and drink it, that doesn't mean it is good, same with DCS, I love DCS and am addicted to it, but that doesn't mean that ED is a very good company.

Mustang has summarised it perfectly. No-one is complaining because they don't like the game. People complain because the potential is huge and everyone wants ED to succeed instead of making these schoolboy mistakes at every corner........with the danger of falling short with something that could be really special.

I just finished ten minutes of the best heartily laugh I've had in a while.
I'm nearly breathless and in tears.

Thank you.

I needed that.

Wasn't that funny, brother. ;-)

It is true though. I complain, but that isn't because I hate DCS. It's because I loved it when it was during the DCS A10C Beta days and even for a while after release. I complain because of where they've taken the product now.

Agreed, I roll my eyes every single time I see something about dcs ww2.

NO, Ice. it most definitely wasn't aimed at you. :P

I know... just commenting on the Paradaz's statement...

Don't know how well versed you are in BMS 4.33 .. there's a few quirks , any questions just ask in the Falcon thread everything's pretty much covered there

We're not just talking 'updates' here. We're talking about finishing software or baselining it at a certain point. Its very different to how BMS is released and I struggle to see your comparison.

ED have almost everything they have produced in an unfinished state. The engine/world, 4/6 modules, yet there are all sorts of other things in the works and probably more announcements to come, not least the WW2 content and Hormuz map.

I look forward to DCS 2.0 in the next couple of days......hopefully its the catalyst to start getting some other bits and pieces actually finished off.

The latest BMS version is 4.33 but isn't the last one. Or at least the devs haven't mentioned it yet.

The difference between the BMS team and the ED team is night and day. BMS just came out one day with 4.32 and stuck around for a few months knocking out one patch after another until the game was in an acceptable state. And I do mean "knocking them out." One update was released that had quite a big downforce during finals and a few pilots would actually crash if they were right on the speed/glideslope and the bug would catch them unaware. That was fixed with an update almost immediately. Also, I mentioned "acceptable" state. The things that could be fixed were fixed, the ones that needed more time weren't.

Then the BMS team retreated into their cave to work on 4.33. The entire community knew that 4.33 would be released in "2-3 Falcon weeks" which translates to "it'll be released when it's released." No idle chit-chat. No promise of this or that. No self-imposed deadlines. No teaser videos. No "community updates." Only the team and the testers knew what was happening. True enough, "2-3 Falcon weeks" later (or about 2 years in real time), 4.33 came out and blew everyone out of the water.

Another difference is the people comprising the team and the project itself. I would assume ED employs full-time staff to work on the sim. BMS devs are un-paid and work on their free time. ED built their platform from the ground up and are rebuilding it, hitting every obstacle along the way and looking like blind, bumbling buffoons. BMS devs are working on a 14-year old engine and trying to reverse-engineer it and add modern features into it.

BMS is free. DCS isn't... not unless you're happy to just fly the Su-25.

And that is why the mind-set, the expectations, and the respect earned/given is so different between the two flight sim communities.

Good. Unfortunately, that could be an important point to others.

And that's part of the issue Troll. I remember buying the Shark in 2008 (the first of my four Shark purchases - Czech Version BS1, UK Version BS1, Upgrade version and then BS2 Full)...and it was labelled as a module that would be integrated into something much larger. I was there quite happily flying around in Crimea at the time.....

8-9 years later, I'm flying around in a Shark which still has some bugs that have never been tackled, in Crimea which is still a work in progress, within an engine that is a 'work in progress' that has been rebuilt from the ground up because the whole idea of 'integration' wasn't planned nor realised sufficiently.

Development is progressing yes....but ED had to take 5 steps backwards to take 3 forwards. Let's hope ED don't realise they actually need DCS 3.0 in 5 years time and before DCS 2.0 comes out of beta!

Wags advised it will be released Nov 30th!

What? No, it wasn't. That came a lot after BS1's release.

Actually, Integration of individual products into one product was conceived after A-10 was released. Prior to the "World" concept only MP compatibly was aimed for.

Nate

Yup, I know. Even the FC3 integration was a surprise.

Source/link please.

An extract from ED before the Russian release of the original Black Shark. (Post dated 15/10/2007 - http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=27097

"Q: Your press release indicates that Black Shark is the first in a series of DCS modules, with more aircraft/helicopters to follow. How soon will these new aircraft become available?

A: We are already developing the A-10A "Warthog" and AH-64A "Apache"� (with planned front-seat / back-seat multiplayer) and other western and eastern aircraft will follow with an approximate interval of every nine months. To announce these later aircraft now would be premature because plans can often change and lead to delays due to numerous factors such as our work

Q: How will multiplayer compatibility be ensured between players with different DCS modules?
A: The base DCS simulation environment will be continually upgraded and improved with release of new modules. However, as each new DCS base version is released, all DCS users can upgrade to the same base version to ensure compatibility. The only difference between players would be the selection of what aircraft would be player-controllable versus AI-controlled according to which modules were purchased.

Perhaps your definition of 'module' is different to everyone elses. It certainly doesn't look like DCS was ever intended to be a series of standalone sims each featuring a different airframe with the only commonality being the multiplayer mode.

No need for me to interpret anything, I know how and when "World" came into being, and the issues that it was designed to solve. Prior to World, each module was to be standalone with MP integration.

Nate

Module definition from a Google search:
each of a set of standardized parts or independent units that can be used to construct a more complex structure, such as an item of furniture or a building.
Takeaway here: while a module is part of something larger, it doesn't imply dependency.

Looking at that Q&A, I interpret "module" as a separate standalone release, but as part of a network of multiplayer compatible titles, much like Falcon 3.0, MiG-29 and Hornet: NSF were standalone games that were also multiplayer compatible and shared the same theaters. There was no mention in the Q&A of an integrated GUI/environment with hot-selectable varied multiplayer aircraft.

They also mentioned the game engine in development for Vista+, so you could reasonably assume that the BS1 engine wasn't going to be there for the long haul.

I may have purchased half of the Ka-50s you have, but I am very pleased that ED went to the integrated "world" concept with add-in (dependent) modules. I love being able to switch aircraft mid mission if the multiplayer situation requires it, as well as the flexibility of being able to do everything from one GUI in one program.

You're the first person that has mentioned 'World'.....I simply said it was labelled as integrated with something much larger.

Given that Blackshark was described by ED as a module, with other modules already in development together with a "base DCS simulation environment' is pretty obvious what my reference to 'something much larger' is. The 'base simulation environment' alone describes a single entity which everyone owns which supports the different modules.

I'm really not interested in your defence which attempts to describe it as anything other than that. It's on the ED boards and posted by an ED moderator for everyone to see. Trying to hide this behind the DCS World moniker is grasping at straws. You may well know how and when 'World' came into being, but that's nothing to do with it and you're the only person trying to steer this discussion that way because you know you're wrong.

Defence? Defence against what? I'm telling you what happened.

Nate

Re-read it Nate. Re-read my post, re-read the ED QA. I'm not referring to 'World', the QA is not referring to 'World' so why are you?

Not to bring it up..again..

But BMS is not Free, it requires a valid Falcon 4 Disc.

Until the F4 I.P. is replaced completely this wont change.

Ah Sorry Para, I see where you're going. This is BS1 and BS2 debate again isn't it? I'll Bow out so....

Nate

Absolutely not no, nothing to do with BS1/2. A single post by me earlier referring to nothing more than Blackshark being labelled as something much larger at launch with evidence given from EDs own forums has ended up with 5 or 6 posts with the usual faces attempting to denounce my post as nothing but hot air.

You knew exactly what I was talking about earlier, tried to hide it by making out I was referring to DCS World and now everyone can see that you have no reasonable reply and have therefore bowed out so that's the end of that one.

No ulterior motive on my part honestly - I misunderstood. But, again, I state that all products were to be standalone, but with MP compatibility between them. Think Black shark and Flaming Cliffs. That was the plan for future products too at the time and I know this directly.

Nate

Currently can be had for around �6 from GoG. Just �1 more expensive than a footlong Subway.




Sure. Bring it down to personal now.



Thanks for reinforcing my point!

I'm not pitting BMS vs DCS, I am simply stating that one group is doing this with a 14+ year old sim and another group is designing the sim themselves. I am simply stating my observation regarding the two groups.




Oh, really? Wow!! The TF-51D? Oh my gosh! Oh my goodness!! I have been wrong all along! TWO free aircraft in DCS World? Surely you jest? Lemme check the website.... no, you speak the truth!! I am ashamed at how I lambast DCS and the ED team! Will the DCS community ever forgive me for my stupidity?!






And I picked up on it to show how a PAID simulation that is built by the guys that are developing it is doing versus how a FREE simulation (okay, �6 from GoG if you must!) that is built by free-time-fuelled community modders is doing.

I really don't see the point you're trying to make Ice. You don't like DCS? You won't buy another module? BMS is better than DCS?

As for not pitting DCS against any other sim, I've distinctly seen two different types of fanboys in this subforum that constantly hate on DSC, EECH fans and F4 fans.

Oh you are wrong. Like Paradaz, I love the sim... or rather what it WAS. Despite what it looks like, I'm not here to flame or troll (no, not you Jorgen! ).

Back in the day, a 4-hout flight on the Hog was normal for me and it was bliss. I even ignored BMS when it first came out because I was so into DCS A10C.

Let me quote Paradaz's post:



I, too, see potential in the game. In fact, I've even enjoyed some of it. But when it takes "5 steps back to make 3 steps forward," well....

The point, as has been for a long time now, is that ED needs to get their act together. And what they're doing right now, that's not "getting their act together."

I appreciate all the small stealth updates DCS has made to the A-10C. There are lots of tiny improvements that no one has noticed to the most complete module yet well after all checks have been cashed.

How are they making 5 steps backwards to make 3 steps forward? You can accuse them for taking too long, sure, but I don't get the backwards thing. And I fail to see how all the complaining* is going to make the coders code faster.

* Which, funny thing, always seems to intensify when we're close to a release.

I'm just giving my interpretation as a possible example.

When you read this:



So it looks like we are going to have the community now fractured into 3 segments:

1. Those still flying 1.2.6
2. Those who fly 1.5 beta
3. Those that purchased NTTR that move to 2.0 Alpha

The Black Sea map will be converted eventually, bringing 1.5 and 2.0 flyers together...but it could theoretically take years.

I know they have their reasons why this is...it does appear like bad planning though for a "World" that's supposed to be modular and bring all owners together...and then fragmenting them into 3 groups.

IMO of course

It's common in various communities to stay at a lower level, given patch and version reliability. But I probably fit into the "latest version and I don't give a #%&*$#" category given I need to keep it updated.

In my own experience, this:

In DCS A-10C, one thing I liked was watching my bombs hit. Not only does it tell me how accurate my drop was, well, I like the purdy boom-booms too! I especially liked watching the CBUs as they deploy and hit their targets. When I could get 3-6 tanks/vehicles for one bomb dropped, that, for me, was literally the best "bang for my buck."

Sometime later, not only did they reduce the view distance, but I would get very bad stuttering as well when my bombs (or any bomb for that matter) would hit. That stopped me from watching the bomb on external view. Heck, that stopped me from even craning my virtual neck to check for secondaries. 5 steps back.

The last time I played this was... can't remember exactly, but I came here asking about the A-G capabilities of the SU-27. Maybe a year ago? Anyway, even then, I would know EXACTLY when my bomb would hit because I would get a stutter in my framerate even though I was on full burner away from the target and not even looking at it. And this was on a custom practice TE with nothing but me and my target. 5 steps back.

Another example is the .lua modding. I would mod the files to get custom snap views, move the comms window, etc. It got to the point that I would need a day or two after each patch to re-configure these files and on at least two occasions, I would have to go to a different file to get the same result because they moved that specific parameter from one file to another. It would take me longer during these times because I would have to ask for help on the forums. 5 steps back.

Bomb hits still kill fps,even in 1.5, at least for me.

There were 31 1.2 servers and 62 1.5 servers last I looked.

When 2.0/NTTR Alpha comes out...we might have an even 3-way split.

Yes, this is not a good thing. I don't like this New Install for NTTR. However, it is what it is. Unfortunately I am working Monday. Just coming from vacation does not look good for a sick day. I will have to dl Monday night and then hope for a sick day during the week.

Lets hope the modules install as they should (LeatherNeck!)

What was this thread about? Oh, yeah latest update... Its good. Ok, Im a fanboy.

Roger Out,

Well...once again, we find ourselves not really talking about the game...rather how the game is talked about and bringing SimHQ's rules and moderation into the fray.

Like most sites...SimHQ try's to steer away from it's rules and moderation in an open discussion.

I'm cleaning up the thread. For those of you with concerns...you can pm Murphy the site admin.

If anyone has anything further to add to the original conversation...feel free.

EDIT:- Sorry Force didn't see that last post, before I psoted.

Saw that too - really highlights the sense of entitlement from some. Pretty disgusting really.

Nate

the truth is, people are really complaining about nothing worth complaining.

I run a positive, focused and I hope entertaining website, did you ever see a moderator or someone associated with the developer saying anything positive about this - never ever.

conclusion - positive is taken for granted, any negative feedback detracts from sales.

so don't let any complains about moderation here bother you Force10, this is one of the if not THE most popular forum in SimHQ and that is why people come here, if it were otherwise, the developers would not come here at all.

I got banned from their forums for what they perceived as negative posts here, they don't care for anything positive we do.

Sure did! If you read it again, I was discussing BMS devs vs ED devs.



Me replying to your post tackling almost each line or point you make is me "completely ingoring" you. Just like I just ignored the statement you made of me ignoring you.



It's written on my posts here.

Thank you for confirming that for me, Boomer.

And that's new how? It should be expected that when a new map was released it would split the community. Arma is releasing a new official map, is anyone talking about the community being split? Even if it was released on the same platform as the Black Sea, anyone who had the NTTR would most certainly only play the NTTR. If he didn't want to play the NTTR, he would keep the 1.5/1.2 releases.



If these inconveniences are 5 steps back for you, well, I don't know what a game breaking bug would be.

Can't wait for NTTR so I can eject from these threads...

They would be 10 steps back.

I can work around bugs, I can work with limitations. But when I can do something before that I cannot do now, when something as simple as being able to WATCH my stuff hit is no longer possible when it definitely was working before, that irritates me.

I call it as I see it. I'm surprised that those comments made you not take me seriously. Am I really the only one giving examples of how ED devs are fumbling the ball so often? Or do you just choose to read my posts?



Careful there. Are you trying to say I don't understand english? Are you saying I'm not speaking english?

Okay, make it easy for this non-native english speaker. Give me one point. ONE. Let's see if if I can ignore it properly.
BTW, I noticed our exchange has devolved into this instead of trading points back and forth. But you say I ignore you. So indulge me. Give me one point.



Indeed I am. I make no secret of it. I am a dissatisfied customer. Like I said, just because YOU are happy with it, doesn't mean everyone else has to be as well.

Thank you for being gentle on your insult.

It is interesting that my reply, that didn't mention moderation at all, got deleted, and the very next post discussing moderation didn't.

Whiter than white.

Nate

Actually Nate...you had a quote from Troll in your post that was moved. When you move a post out...it takes any quoted replies with it...even if they were just snips.

I put it back for you. No conspiracy...just how the forum tools work.

That's cool - thanks for the explanation.

Nate