My annual check in. Are we there yet?

Ok. I can't keep up with all the alphas, betas etc. it's just too much.

Can anyone tell me if the stock standard game can now run Normandy and nevada?

Or is that still alpha or beta or something?

Last I bothered I had two versions of this game installed.

It's really impossible to keep up.

Cheers

Come back this time next year and we might be at that point.

Maybe two years from now...

Maybe next millenium ?

They've introduced a $15 GPS so you can navigate between the various installs easier.

Bumfluff, you're missing all the fun here ...

Jens

ED are still in reverse. They're further away from their objectives now than they were this time last year.

It might not be so long until the merge arrives. Some caucasus comparisation shots from a person you do not like here , but:
https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=193214


This might be a point to discuss, though we have yet to see another companie who is doing the sim-stuff ED is doing.
`

1. What were the exact specs of the PC on which this was run on? What were the framerates? Even SiTh doesn't seem to know.
2. The Black Sea is the Black Sea. Sure, there may be more trees and finer terrain elevation mesh, so the visual experience may be new... not sure about this "completely new experience" bit though.
3. So what if it's free? You can't do much on the map without buying the modules. It's like going to a restaurant and being thankful that the water is free....
4. It's not really free either. We got that map when we bought LOMAC, then again for FC1/2/3, then again for BS1, then again for DCS A10C. They've just removed the map, paired it up with an Su-25, and offered it as a free demo. Assuming they'll continue to do the same once 2.5 is released, then it's not really free... it's part of the marketing strategy. It's like going to a car dealer and they throw in some stuff for free.... you know those things were built into the final payment for the car and are not really free.
5. Profitable? Dragging out a project over 3-4 years is not the fault of the customer and I doubt anyone can make a convincing claim that this is a "profitable" way of doing things.


The one guy that dared speak up was immediately banned/suspended after posting.... looks like things haven't changed yet in the ED forums.



Also note on that thread that nobody seems to be asking hard questions.... all praise be unto ED!!

So what if we are being ripped off, lied to, and treated like stupid? Nobody else is doing what they're doing so we should be thankful they're treating us like doormats!

He wrote that map performance should be the same like NTTR and Normandy. So if NTTR runs good on your system new Caucasus should also run well.


Trees are now obstacles, they also blocking line of sight for AI units. So yes, for some ppl it is new experience. Sure a new looking Caucasus map isn`t a substitute for a DC.


People where afraid of to have to pay for that map. So they make clear it comes without an extra charge. Sure, you buy that base with the modules.


Yes, DCS is the base for all their modules, so normaly they should cover the costs for developing the base with their modules. Again, the say free just to make sure all ppl know they will get it without being extra charged for it.


Yeah, don´t know why it takes so long. It might be because the people (who bought A-10C) waited for NTTR so long, so they finished this map before. Then they had to bring out Normandy map, otherwise WWII would`t make much sense.


I absolutely disagree with how they handle the forums. I cannot understand why they shut off all the negativ postings.

There isnt a company who is doing modern era combat aicraft with such flight dynamics, damage modelling, clickable cockpits and so on. I really would like to have some competition on this sector. There must be reason not doing the same sim content like ED is doing, though.
I would think it is about the cost for such a development. I really would like to see a remake of EECH or Falcon. Why no one is doing that?
I love to have aicraft modules which behave like the real world counterparts (in what is possible on personal computer, you know).

That guy (Sh*tSpawn) lurks on every forum that has anything to say about DCS and abuses his power. He'll get his one day.

And Vincent was actually very civil and well spoken in his reply. Followed the rules. And was spot on. ED acts like Santa and is doing this work from the kindness of their heart. Pfft...
Over at another forum, some kid was asking about the next sale so he could buy a new aircraft, because he didnt want to pay $60. No mention of wanting to buy NTTR or Normandy. Seems to be a trend.

+ 1

I won't defend ED's forum management, but in all fairness this wasn't this post that got him banned. There is another deleted post on the next page and the forum rules violated are cited in the deletion. We still don't know how ticky-tack the ban is, but it wasn't the quoted post that did it.

Oh yes, the most amusing Sith's reply in that thread was the one about Normandy being "on par" with NTTR perfromance-wise (except for known units-related bug), when both ot these maps, even with player being the only unit, are so blatantly far away from each other in this aspect it's not even funny. That's on everyone's computer... except his apparently . Oh well, some dark sith power magic here I guess! The question whether the updated map will be closer to NTTR or Normany (clearly not both at the same time) remains very much valid then.

That being said, positive feedback about gfx quality is justified I'd say. The Caucasus map just released for Il-2 BoK raised the bar A LOT, both quality and fps-wise. Suddenly the old, DCS rendition of the same area looks to be in a dire need of a in-depth make-up and the visual side (at least) looks promising on all the WIP shots. So it must, being a free "demo" for newcomers thinking about trying out DCS for the first time.

That wasn't what I was asking though. One guy even wrote "Which of those 2? The frame-rates I get in NTTR are pretty much the same compared to current Caucasus, whereas the frame-rate in Normandy is less than half of that."


So it's not really a "completely new experience" but more like "an experience you'd expect from RL tactics and common sense"..... something like "it should've been this way in the first place."


I think they may be afraid that asking people to pay for the new map will be like asking people to pay for Black Shark 2... if this is true, then at least ED learned ONE lesson!


Fair enough. If so, then people should stop saying "free" like it was worth something but then ED was kind and generous and thus offered it for free. If it's just to distinguish Black Sea 2.5 as "free" compared to Nevada, SoH, and all other "pay" maps, then people should stop using it like it's proof of ED's generosity and we should all be thankful.


It took so long because of feature creep, no prioritization, no road map. Then SiTh makes it sound like we should buy modules so that ED stays profitable enough to be in business? Nope! If ED's bad decisions and project delays means they have to close up shop, then it'll be a sad day for the simming community but the fault lies squarely on the shoulders of those in management of ED. It's not the customer's responsibility to keep a company afloat, it's the company's responsibility to offer a good product at a good price at a good timeframe to keep itself afloat.


Because of snowflakes and abuse of power.



I'm sure some would see this coming from a mile away, but BMS.
It doesn't do multiple aircraft like DCS, but for flight dynamics, damage modelling, clickable cockpits, dynamic campaign, and sense of immersion, well, I'd like you to try it to make your own mind about it and compare it to DCS.

The Falcon Collection is currently £7.89 on GoG. BMS is free. You get three dynamic campaigns included. There are at least 2 other stable theatres available to download, Balkans and Israel, and other theatres that are in various stages of WIP. Did I mention £7.89? That's about half-a-Garmin!

There is a reason some people say DCS is an airframe simulator and not a combat flight simulator.



Probably low ROI? People have argued that it's only ED's military connections and funding that allowed it to stay afloat.



On this we see eye-to-eye.

If not this Friday, then next Friday, there should be another sale!


Where? How do you know there's a deleted post?


Answering the question without really answering the question... such great skill!

I'm sure some would see this coming from a mile away, but BMS.
It doesn't do multiple aircraft like DCS, but for flight dynamics, damage modelling, clickable cockpits, dynamic campaign, and sense of immersion, well, I'd like you to try it to make your own mind about it and compare it to DCS.

The Falcon Collection is currently £7.89 on GoG. BMS is free. You get three dynamic campaigns included. There are at least 2 other stable theatres available to download, Balkans and Israel, and other theatres that are in various stages of WIP. Did I mention £7.89? That's about half-a-Garmin!

There is a reason some people say DCS is an airframe simulator and not a combat flight simulator.

Yes, Falcon 4.0 is good example how to make business.

And your statement is a good example of dishonesty. Or is it ignorance? Because this "Falcon 4.0 killed MicroProse" bit has been discussed and disproven many times now.

But even so, I'll bite --- are you a flight sim enthusiast? A customer?
Or are you a businessman looking for ways into the flight sim market? Even if you were a businessman, is ED's way the way to "make business"?

Another way of putting it:
Are you looking for a good simulation with good flight dynamics, damage modelling, clickable cockpits, dynamic campaign, and sense of immersion?
Or are you looking to keep paying game dev's salaries?

I just enjoy flight sims, DCS, Falcon BMS, Rise Of Flight and IL2BOS. Not in any particular order. I feel like all those sims have been worth of my money.

Not even connected to your first post, not even answering any of the questions.

Between posts 12 and 13:

I guess they will not give away numbers at the moment. And you know why, because that probably would initiate another debate with many posting rights suspending. I guess they just trying to squeeze out as much FPS as possible with these trees and the line of sight for the units.


But you know "real" trees are a huge problem for flight sims. From what I remember RoF was the first new generation sim which had collidable trees. Does BMS have collidable trees?


Sure it took so long for whatever reason we dont know. As a company you just do not close up the doors and say goodby to your customers. They wanted to survive in the niche marked. And it seems some people want to play DCS, otherwise they would not buy the modules. The guys from 777 (BoS) regulary reminding the ppl to buy their products otherwise they could not continue. BMS / Prepar3D and so on might be an option for some ppl, though for me as a helohead there isn`t that much left. Yes, I buy modules and play DCS as there is no alternative for me.


I also saw that coming, I´m lurking here long enough. I do know BMS (was happy when they anounced it, with new graphics and flight model), played it some times. Had to use Target to make my Warthog and Saitek pedals working (has that changed, that some have to use external programs to bind all achses and knobs) Not really found the entry to it to play it longer, because of...gasp...graphics. If they only would make the ground, trees, buildings and so on looking better. And I can not fly helicopters there. I like the idea behind Falcon, an strategy game with a flight sim on top. I really wish we would see something the like in the future. Same reason I would like to see a remake of EECH (I dont count that remake of it with better graphics, an addon then left us alone with it.


Dont know about that.
To stay afloat, could that be a reason why ED is changing the direction from time to time? For example they saw the potential customers for WWII, plus the P51 initially was a side project of one (or some) guys at ED. They know they have to make some money while developing a new graphics engine and more maps.

....and then ED releases the official statement on why old mate was banned.....

Though there is no new version of Falcon 4.0 for whatever reason it might have. People have to mod it in their freetime (BMS) to hold it current, right?


From a business standpoint it seems to work. It might be that some ppl doesn`t care how they make their business or they take it as it is and enjoy the sim that is coming from ED.
Personaly I´m on both sides of the fence. I do not like the way of some things they are doing, including the harsh restrictions on their forums and the reaction of those Moderators. For example how can we discuss the advantages and disadvantages for other sims in comparation with DCS when it is not allowed anymore? They say that there would be to much bashing of DCS, comparing apples with oranges and so on. Potential new customers could get a wrong opinion of DCS. I don`t know why ED could not defend himself by good arguments, why they did this and this and the reason behind?


DCS have good flight dynamics, damage modelling, clickable cockpits. We do know that DCS isn`t really capable for a dynamic campaign like Falcon have. For immersion there are many user made missions (and campaigns) which can place / remove units on the basis of the last mission. So it takes account of what you did in the last mission. Yes, DCS strongly depends of user made missions and the things ppl can make out of scripting.
To make the point. We do enjoy what DCS brings to us and for that content we pay. It would not matter if I would not buy, say for example the Huey, just to stop my support for ED. Yes it´s currently hard to express an negativ opinion on their forums, though not buying a module I want to play would not change a thing on the matter how they make their business.

Sorry for quoting post to Mokkeri.

Apparently, this does not show up unless I am logged it... had to log into the forums to see it. So.... after making such a post in #8, Vincent then devolved into such profanity, discrimination, and trolling that he had to be banned? I'm sure that was legit



They won't give away numbers because they either run a really beefy setup to get good framerates or they run it on a reasonable gaming setup but low framerates.... the only reason I can see that they don't give out hard numbers is because no matter how they spin it, they'll look bad and they know it. As for debates and suspension, that is no fault of the customer.... that is due to their silly forum rules designed to protect snowflake developers and big headed moderators.

"Under and i7 7700K on stock clocks, 16GB RAM, GTX 1080, and Windows 10, we were able to obtain the following screenshots and videos and as you can see, especially from the videos with FRAPS running, the sim holds a respectable 80fps at 1440p with all the settings cranked up at maximum. Weaker systems will have to make compromises but as we can see, 60+ fps should be very achievable with a few settings on High instead of Max." --- releasing results like these, with hard numbers, will work wonders and I would respect ED more if they did so. Releasing still images and guesstimating performance is nothing but laughable.



So again, not really a "completely new experience" but more like "an experience you'd expect from RL tactics and common sense"..... something like "it should've been this way in the first place."

I don't fly enough helos and don't fly low enough to worry about collidable trees, but blocking LOS and maybe even blocking IR returns should be interesting. It adds and iteresting aspect to flight and combat... but not really "completely new"...



Sure, we may not know for 100% certainty, but I'm sure there are educated guesses that have at least a good amount of truth in it.



As a company, you do not silence your dissatisfied customers like ED does, **ESPECIALLY** in a niche market where word-of-mouth and snowball effect can be amazing marketing/advertising tools.

Yes, you play DCS but I'm sure if they close up shop and for some reason your modules are no longer available for you to play, I'm sure you can find alternatives... might not be as good in FM as DCS, but I'm sure you'll find alternatives rather than not fly at all. Also, while you do play and enjoy DCS, that is totally different and removed from the "buy more from us otherwise we'll go bankrupt and close shop" mentality/agenda SiTh seems to peddling.



Hahahaha... my reputation precedes me...

If you have any issues with TARGET, I have a profile for binding the stick and throttle together. No need to add pedals to it, BMS can work with Saitek pedals no problem. Combine that with a touchscreen and you have Helios and I have a profile that brings the entire F-16 cockpit controls to your fingertips, plus more! As for the graphics, I agree with you... many times when I taxi out to the runway, I miss the DCS airbases. However, when I take off, well, I'm too busy to really be looking at the pretty landscape. Like I said, if you've got time to look at the pretty graphics, then you're not really flying a COMBAT flight simulator

If your main point is flying helos, then fair deuce and BMS has nothing to offer you. Maybe EECH? I did love the old Gunship! sim where the trees were collidable but were also arranged in a "box" so you can fly "inside" a clump of trees and use that for your pop-up attacks.... the trees also "protected" you from return fire! But your initial statement was "There isnt a company who is doing modern era combat aicraft with such flight dynamics, damage modelling, clickable cockpits and so on" and BMS has that PLUS better DC and sense of immersion.... at the cost of lower graphic quality. Here, we return to my point --- do you want COMBAT and immersion or do you want pretty screenshots?



Any business or management graduate will tell you that project delays and having questionable direction as a company is a recipe for disaster. If you were interested in modern combat aircraft, how much support would you give a company that does modern aircraft, then WWII, then terrain, then GPS? How much support will you give something whose direction you have no clue about? How much support will you give them when they can't even deliver their products on a timeframe that they themselves have set?

Sure, there are potential WWII customers.... but you don't go chasing after them while leaving your current modern-aircraft customers confused about what just happened.



And if you've lurked here long enough, you know that there is no new version of Falcon 4.0 but that is not the fault of Falcon 4.0. That was not what Mokkeri was saying though. The BMS team modded it and brought it to modern-day standards where they could --- TrackIR support, 64-bit, etc. --- with no fanfare, no fees, no drama. Heck, the BMS team even worked out a deal with the new Falcon IP holders!! These are a group of people doing this mod in their free time....



From a business standpoint, what do you make out of ED's constant deep sale practices? How much of this is "being in business" vs. just trying to stay afloat? Anyway, I was just countering Mokkeri's ridiculous "good example how to make business" statement here...



We can discuss advantages and disadvantages here on SimHQ. Want to compare DCS and BMS? Go ahead! Do it here or over in the Falcon sub-forum.

Why can't we do this in the ED forums? Because they can't take it. They want their new customers to "drink the Kool-Aid," to get the wrong opinion of DCS, an opinion that is skewed in ED's favor. They want DCS to look like something it isn't, they want to maintain their facade and will tear down anyone who threatens this fragile front. They've even resorted to trolling other forums in order to enforce bans on their own forum.... what other company does that? It just shows you how desperate they are to maintain the ignorance of their already-small customer base.

I'd respect them so much more if they acted more mature... allow the open bashing of DCS, concede on points that they cannot win (ie, DC, sterile environment, etc.) and work on points that they have going for them (more modules, better graphics, etc.). I'd respect them so much more if they and their fans acted like adults instead of little whiny snowflake children who can't take an honest criticism. I'd respect them so much more if they were honest with their roadmap, if they were honest with the reasons for delays, if they were honest with faults.



Indeed, you won't find me knocking down ED on FM, damage modelling (God knows how many times I've limped home on a damaged A-10C!!), and clickable cockpits. You won't find me dissing DCS A10C or DCS BS2. If you are honest enough to admit DCS cannot compete with Falcon on a DC front, I can be honest enough to say that for new players, the "sterile" environment of DCS, the repeatability of their missions, and the limited variables of a scripted campaign actually works as PROs for ED, not cons. It's like learning to swim with arm floaters and on the kiddie section of the pool.... nothing wrong with that at all. DCS does have it's place, it does have it's market, and there are people out there that are perfect customers for ED.



Oh indeed! If a younger -Ice came to me and asked about a good ground attack aircraft he can cut his teeth into, but had enough room for him to grow, I will recommend DCS A10C in a heartbeat. Even at full price ($40), it's is well worth the money. Just don't think that you need to buy other modules to support ED or worse, feel like it's your obligation to keep ED in the black.



I'm confused why you need to apologize for this? No need to apologize at all

Sith just wrote that he had 60 fps the whole time. He may answer the question on what system he had the 60 fps. We will see. Yes, video of it or something else to see how performance really is would be better. But I guess we can ask for it at a later time when the map is released or near release.


Really hanging on the sentence "completely new"? All current players of DCS can make their own mind about "completely new", for all others it`s just a map. It doesnt mean complete new features like a living battelfield, does it?


I´m certainly with you on that. Yet, it seem`s they can do. How long is another case.


No, really I think that DCS is unique from what they put in their modules. There are no alternatives for me at the moment. So I do not want them to close the doors, though buy only modules I want to use.


Thanks, I do have a profile for TARGET. It may be that I care for good visuals and I´m more a ground pounder then a fighter jet jockey. I like to look at the various objects in DCS while flying. As I said before, BMS with the graphics and dynamics of DCS would be a sim heaven for me. I just can`t stand the dated visuals of BMS, sorry.


EECH, Gunhsip! I flew them all. Sometimes think of having another look at it. I often browse all sources looking for new helicopter combat flight sims. Even played Apache Air Assault for my helicopter fix. I then come back to DCS and think why we can`t have a modern attack helo and a dynamic campaign.
But you can have COMBAT and immersion in DCS. Can recommend the F-5 dynamic campaign to you. Some guys modded it for other aircraft. I would think, there is all you need for combat and immersion. You have friendly and enemy flights doing their tasks while you flight to your target. You get a external debriefing view of your performance and the status of the airbases, EWR sites and so on. Destroyed objects will be removed or triggered as destroyed when the next mission starts. You can fly this campaign in SP or MP (coop only). Though as I can see your are done with DCS and ED and you are not willing to give this campaign a try, right? Sure, all that stuff is written in Lua and makes use of external programs like notepad to view the debriefing. If that kind of stuff where available build in, it would be a better experience.


I´m with you on that. But again, I like the modules they produce. Why should I stop to buy and fly it? As long as there is progress and continue in development...


But thats the point. A group of enthusiasts doing it in their free time. They have regular jobs and can make their living out of that, while the guys at ED have to make modules they can sell. From where should come the money for developing new tech, for changing the DCS World base? Why not trust them if they say, for example the change from BS1 to BS2 cost them money? I do not see these guys becoming millionairs. It´s far from that, I would say. Don`t understand me wrong, I´m not saying give them your money because they need it. Buy the module/s you want to play and wait for the other things to come. Yes, it takes so much time and I´m impatient myself, so playing other games in the meantime.



What about giving the possibility to buy modules people not own yet? Many where asking for more sales, not just the summer sales and so on.


Dont know why they made the decission to run the forum like it is now, I will try to ask a guy who is in the know. On the other side I think it takes much time to maintain the forums and to react on every post people make. Some people make opinions out of other peoples opinions, so they could be lead in the wrong direction without actually playing DCS. New customers can see what DCS have to offer and what not with the free to play aircraft.


Understood. I also don`t get it why they dont highlight the points where they are strong. Some time ago people where asking for more aircraft. Now we have way more aircraft from ED and third party able to add new content. On the other hand things like new ATC, Clouds/Weather and so on are still be worked on (hopefully) but there are no news about. For what purpose they made a poll if people want a DC or like the current campaigns is out of my understanding. At some point in the past Wags mentioned they would like to make a DC, now they answer like the missions and campaigns we have is the way to go.


I absolutely admit that DCS cannot compete with Falcon on a DC front. And no one is saying the opposite? I really understand that for some ppl DCS is not what they want or what they hoped for. They just can stop playing DCS and looking for alternatives. As I said for me personaly there is no alternative for flying helicopters in a combat environment. And I still hope for more helicopters and for a more dynamic environment. I guess the guys who like to fly fast movers and do air to air fights most of the time can`t understand why there is so much effort to make the ground look better and so on. Though DCS is a sandbox and I guess they want to please all type of gamers with that environment. Do you care how a ground vehicle looks like in BMS or how it would be to sit in a tank driving around? I guess no, because you like the living battlefield and you are in the air the most time. What I want so say is, that I believe DCS want to be the one stop solution for all who like combat simulations. And they cannot do all things at the same time.


Agree, though why not let people spend money on whatever they want? I do not know where the thinking is coming from to buy more modules just to keep ED staying in business. I would be happy if they would make a poll what ppl want and then make this happen in a reasonable timeframe.

All in all if they would at least make do a more friendly communication, admit mistakes, have a clear roadmap and stop with being so harsh on their forums ED would get a better reputation, right?
As a sidenote, I have trouble to answer in time and I really need much time to answer with the quotes.

....so are we getting 2.5 this year or not ?

Yes we do.
And everything is subject to change

Long Answer: Absolutely, but just bear in mind that 'this year' could be any year in the next 10 years depending on when you ask the question, and if anyone from ED were to answer that question they have their own definition of quantum time which is fundamentally different to everyone else.
Short Answer: Two hopes

I think we'll get something big by the end of the year. Harrier and F-18 seem likely. F-14 I'm not too sure. I think the Su-33 will come out fairly soon as well because they put it up for pre-purchase, so that must be right around the corner.

I have a feeling 2.5 may not make it, as well as other modules or big updates. Personally I am really wanting an updated weather and cloud system. The clouds in DCS are ugly and if I am not mistaken still from the LOMAC era. Long overdue for an overhaul. I know they're looking to improve explosions to which would be a nice change.

Module wise I am looking for the F-18, Straits of Hormuz and Harrier. RAZBAM redeemed themselves in my eyes as they decided to continue implementing improvements to the M2000C, focusing on the manual and cockpit.

I'm really looking forward to the F-18...but there needs to be a carrier and carrier ops with it. If it's just an a aggressor in Nevada forget it.

It's cool, I'll be flying FalconBMS until something comes along that's better.

Yes...a big disappointment.

Perhaps....However the Harrier to me has my interest over the F-18

personally, I would rather throw my support behind a brand that delivers quality over quantity.....

A Harrier will have me re-installing DCS for sure. CAP 2 just isn't doing it for me.

Hi Chucky,

What are the issues with CAP2? I've been watching it, but haven't tried it.

Regards,

I'll probably end up skipping altogether the Hormuz, Harrier, F-18E and F-14A - but I am looking forward to the P-47D (I have it thanks to the kickstarter) because of the skin making possibilities.

In fairness to CAP 2 I have not played it for some while. I'm sure it's in a different state to when I last played it. The current Steam rating is 62%,so not great but then it is in EA.

I'm not sure why it didn't grab me if I'm honest,being that it's more 'casual' and not hard-core. I'm not a hard-core flyer usually but for a Harrier I'm willing to learn,hence the interest in the DCS Harrier. Hopefully there are other SimHQ'ers (Damson maybe?) who can fill you in on the current progress of CAP 2.

personally, I would rather throw my support behind a brand that delivers....

Just to add a small detail

My mistake....thank you for clarification

let me rephrase my previous comment...."Throw my support behind a brand that delivers and finishes a product"

cheers for pointing that out FartHog

I wasn't pointing anything out, my comments perfectly fine as it is...maybe if I took away the last two full stops...I'll try again....

Personally, I would rather throw my support behind a brand that delivers.

...there ya go.

Oh? Link? Not surprised with giving half-complete answers. I would be surprised if we get a video to prove performance prior to release.



Well, that was the answer you provided!



Indeed, for a rotorhead, I can completely see your points.



Fair point. People have different priorities and if you're used to NOE flying in helos or staring at the ground or low-level flight in something like the A-10C, then yes, the DCS terrain does take higher priority.



And I'm sure you've heard me often enough wondering why nobody would make an AH-64 module... that, alongside the F-14 and F-18 modules, would be like printing money.

Why would I need the F-5 for combat and immersion? Does it not exist for the F-15? Or the A-10C? Or the Shark? I am not "done" with ED as you can see I am still here... but I'm really not keen on bashing my head against a wall either



Of course if you like their modules, go for it! Bottom line, it is your money and you vote with it. The point I was making was that by withholding your "vote," that is the best way to express displeasure in a way ED will feel and understand.... but if the module is good, then by all means take it!



What does "free time enthusiasts" vs. "full time developers" have anything to do with it? A good product is a good product no matter where it came from or whether the guy who made it is full-time or not. The BS1-BS2 fiasco, I can give them the benefit of the doubt... this "extending 2.5 development" just makes no sense at all, especially when we know they won't be charging for this by itself. Their roadmap, their business decisions, their delay after delay after delay --- all the while releasing non-core stuff as the core stuff gets pushed further and further back, that's the issue. So much fanfare for new stuff, so much fanfare for little steps in their core product, so much drama everywhere else...



Fair point! But do we really have to have a nearly-weekly sale? See my exchange with Exorcet here where I showed that ED has had sales in 28 out of 35 weeks. Since the 1st of Sept, we had a break on the 8th of Sept (although bundle deals are still ongoing from 1st Sept to 11th Sept) and then we had another sale on the 15th of Sept.



Doesn't matter. You can see the effect of their decisions. Some forums only ask people to post in a mature manner.... you can't make this claim for the ED forums. Heck, I personally have 40% warning on ED forums despite not posting there for years! How did I get 40% warning? For posts made on non-ED forums! Where else have you seen such forum rules? Others have even ended up being banned on the ED forums despite not posting there....

As to new customers seeing what DCS has to offer with the free map and aircraft, that's totally a lie. Sure, you can see the map, you can see the graphics, you can see the cockpit. But buy something like the DCS A10C module and you get a very good experience. Buy something like the L-39 or the Hawk and you get the opposite! So the free map and aircraft don't really do much aside from just be a demo of what DCS **CAN** offer. What it actually offers is module- and campaign-dependent.



Bingo!



Indeed!! However, this does not mean we also have to stop lamenting on the struggles and stupidity that is happening in ED.



Totally agree with you there! We have seen the potential of DCS a very, very long time ago. Nobody will deny the potential of DCS. What is frustrating for some of us is how ED seems to be unwilling or unable to tap that potential. Until this potential is used wisely.... well, the ball is in ED's court.



I never said anything about stopping people from spending their money as they see fit. All I'm doing is really giving an alternative view, one that you won't see in the ED forums.



True! ED can take a lot of steps to remedy the situation in so many ways.... yet they don't.



Don't worry, this isn't a race!