homepage

Luthier out. ED is in.

Posted By: Sim

Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/07/14 06:44 PM

Quote:
June 2014 Update

We would first like to apologize for the long delay in projects updates. Since the last update from Luthier, there have been some significant changes in how this project will be developed and managed. No longer will RRG be developing this project and Luthier has ceased his involvement in the project. Eagle Dynamics though will be continuing its development and honor all Kickstarter backer commitments. There is nothing more we can say about this change and it is not open for discussion.

We will be restructuring the DCS WWII: Europe 1944 forums to reflect this.

DCS WWII: Europe 1944 is still planned as a single-package option, or users can purchase individual components to integrate into DCS World.

Myself and Groove plan to provide monthly updates.

As a basic outline, here are our current development intentions:

August 2014 – Fw 190 D-9 Dora
October 2014 - BF-109K
December 2014- Spitfire IX
March 2015 - P-47D-28
May 2015 - Normandy Map with period AI units
Other features like the Me.262A-1 and AI-only B-17G are also in development we but do not have a delivery data estimate at this time until these other features are further along.

In the meantime, Groove and our moderator SiThSpAwN are working to make sure that all backers, based on their level of backing, receive their entitlements.

We fully realize that you probably have many unanswered questions. We are in the process of answering those internally first, and once we do, we will update you.

In this update, we can share some updated images of the Fw 190 D-9 and Bf-109K cockpits. In future updates, Yoyo and other members of the development team will provide greater details about the various features.

Thanks,
Matt


http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2085212#post2085212
Posted By: komemiute

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/07/14 06:54 PM

Holy cow... Luthier better change planet after this...
Posted By: tempusmurphy

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/07/14 07:00 PM

hi reputation was iffy before this (with the clod debacle) ... now would anyone believe him
Posted By: sharpe26

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/07/14 07:13 PM

shouldn't it be the P47-D30 btw?
Posted By: Penguran

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/07/14 07:50 PM

Ohh boy, ohh boy.
DCS is in for rough times and even more delays.
Posted By: AggressorBLUE

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/07/14 08:25 PM

I'd be a lot happier if this included an option for a kickstarter refund. I'm not yet sure if I'd exercise that option or not, but I think it's a fair request.

At this point, the main issue I have is that they simply didn't give enough details into why this happened. I can understand Luither leaving, as if nothing else that's just one person, and people get burned out, go to different opportunists, etc. An entire team leaving however, is not something that "just happens." I'd say a few more details are warrented at the very least.

But, I'm sure the rest of the forumsphere will enjoy speculating at wild about what happened. Have fun with that wags!

PS: "There is nothing more we can say about this change and it is not open for discussionn." Heh, that's cute. You must be new to the internet...
Posted By: bogusheadbox

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/07/14 08:32 PM

This is just pants. I did not kickstart this as I had reservations about a standalone ad on by said party.

They should abandon the stand alone fiasco and just release individual planes to be integrated into world and edge.

Its all dodgy here and the fact they are not telling us means something went well sour somewhere.

Typical.

Maybe will will have BS3 upgrade to pay for the extra development.


Posted By: Silver_Dragon

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/07/14 08:32 PM

A interesting update, wags update them.....
Quote:
Because there are some shared resources between projects (like cockpit systems programming), there will be some impact to our other projects. However, because much of the former RRG team is now employed by Eagle Dynamics, the impact on other Eagle projects will be minimal.
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/07/14 08:33 PM

Originally Posted By: AggressorBLUE
I'd be a lot happier if this included an option for a kickstarter refund. I'm not yet sure if I'd exercise that option or not, but I think it's a fair request.

At this point, the main issue I have is that they simply didn't give enough details into why this happened. I can understand Luither leaving, as if nothing else that's just one person, and people get burned out, go to different opportunists, etc. An entire team leaving however, is not something that "just happens." I'd say a few more details are warrented at the very least.

But, I'm sure the rest of the forumsphere will enjoy speculating at wild about what happened. Have fun with that wags!

PS: "There is nothing more we can say about this change and it is not open for discussionn." Heh, that's cute. You must be new to the internet...


If you have access, you should make sure the announcement hasnt been updated at all as far as how resources are being handled.

*sniped*
Posted By: komemiute

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/07/14 08:33 PM

Originally Posted By: sharpe26
shouldn't it be the P47-D30 btw?


I see it. 2015, first half. March.

Refund, I'm afraid will not be possible as I'm not sure ED has access to the kickstarter funds... also, just because they picked up the bone this doesn't make them financially responsible for other people mistakes.

Luthier MIGHT be able to... but he's learning spanish somewhere else, so...
Posted By: sharpe26

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/07/14 08:52 PM

Originally Posted By: Penguran
Ohh boy, ohh boy.
DCS is in for rough times and even more delays.



If anything, the brakes seems to be off now on one of the major third party projects (which is now no longer a third party one)
Posted By: EtherealN

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/07/14 08:54 PM

Originally Posted By: AggressorBLUE

But, I'm sure the rest of the forumsphere will enjoy speculating at wild about what happened. Have fun with that wags!


You already did some of that speculating yourself, though. wink

Originally Posted By: AggressorBLUE
PS: "There is nothing more we can say about this change and it is not open for discussionn." Heh, that's cute. You must be new to the internet...


Hint: we cannot commend further at this time, thus there is no point in discussing it on our forums. You can discuss freely on other forums though, quite obviously.

Originally Posted By: bogusheadbox

They should abandon the stand alone fiasco and just release individual planes to be integrated into world and edge.


I invite you to re-read the announcement. smile

Also, integrate it into EDGE? RRG's project was using EDGE already, and EDGE is not relevant to aircraft modules.
Posted By: komemiute

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/07/14 08:55 PM

Yep. If they really incorporated the RRG team, as Wags put it, any delay should be minimal.

For sure I'm going to change my 4 selectable planes... no more 262, I'll trade it with the Dora...
Posted By: bogusheadbox

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/07/14 09:11 PM

Originally Posted By: EtherealN


I invite you to re-read the announcement. smile



So what does "single-package option" exactly mean. Are you still doing the DCS ww2 standalone sim ?
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/07/14 09:20 PM

Originally Posted By: bogusheadbox
Originally Posted By: EtherealN


I invite you to re-read the announcement. smile



So what does "single-package option" exactly mean. Are you still doing the DCS ww2 standalone sim ?


The original plan called for a seperate DCS WWII install, or you had the option to just install all the "pieces" into DCS World.
Posted By: EtherealN

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/07/14 09:24 PM

Originally Posted By: bogusheadbox
Originally Posted By: EtherealN


I invite you to re-read the announcement. smile



So what does "single-package option" exactly mean. Are you still doing the DCS ww2 standalone sim ?


From the OP in this thread:

"DCS WWII: Europe 1944 is still planned as a single-package option, or users can purchase individual components to integrate into DCS World."
Posted By: Mustang60348

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/07/14 09:30 PM

Sounds like ED hired his team out from underneath him.
Posted By: SlipBall

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/07/14 09:37 PM

I think its unfortunate that another year minimum has been tacked on to this project
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/07/14 10:24 PM

This is the Updated Article:
Quote:
June 2014 Update

We would first like to apologize for the long delay in projects updates. Since the last update from Luthier, there have been some significant changes in how this project will be developed and managed. No longer will RRG be developing this project and Luthier has ceased his involvement in the project. Eagle Dynamics though will be continuing its development and honor all Kickstarter backer commitments. There is nothing more we can say about this change and it is not open for discussion.

Because there are some shared resources between projects (like cockpit systems programming), there will be some impact to our other projects. However, because much of the former RRG team is now employed by Eagle Dynamics, the impact on other Eagle projects will be minimal.

We will be restructuring the DCS WWII: Europe 1944 forums to reflect this.

DCS WWII: Europe 1944 is still planned as a single-package option, or users can purchase individual components to integrate into DCS World.

Myself and Groove plan to provide monthly updates.

As a basic outline, here are our current development intentions:

August 2014 – Fw 190 D-9 Dora
October 2014 - BF-109K
December 2014- Spitfire IX
March 2015 - P-47D-30
May 2015 - Normandy Map with period AI units
Other features like the Me.262A-1 and AI-only B-17G are also in development we but do not have a delivery data estimate at this time until these other features are further along.

In the meantime, Groove and our moderator SiThSpAwN are working to make sure that all backers, based on their level of backing, receive their entitlements.

We fully realize that you probably have many unanswered questions. We are in the process of answering those internally first, and once we do, we will update you.

In this update, we can share some updated images of the Fw 190 D-9 and Bf-109K cockpits. In future updates, Yoyo and other members of the development team will provide greater details about the various features.

Thanks,
Matt
Posted By: Ghost0815

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/07/14 10:41 PM

I would say, nobody will give any money to any 3rd. Party Developer in the near future.

Just a question: if i have backed all aircrafts, will i get access in August to the Fw 190D-9 under DCS Wolrd?
Posted By: EtherealN

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/07/14 10:48 PM

Ghost, yes. (As long as it is actually finished at that time.)

Please verify that you have access to the backer section on our forum. If this is not the case, please PM Groove ( http://forums.eagle.ru/member.php?u=4015 ) and he will sort you.
Posted By: Ghost0815

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/07/14 10:55 PM

Thanks for the fast answer.
I just post here, because, Matt write: No discussion!
Posted By: Bumfluff

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/07/14 11:03 PM

Good riddance luthier.

His involvement was always my main reservation about this project.

Now he's gone I don't really care about the money.

I think we are owed an explanation of what happened but.
Posted By: sorcer3r

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/07/14 11:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Silver_Dragon
A interesting update, wags update them.....
Quote:
Because there are some shared resources between projects (like cockpit systems programming), there will be some impact to our other projects. However, because much of the former RRG team is now employed by Eagle Dynamics, the impact on other Eagle projects will be minimal.


goodbye modern warfare? wave
Posted By: EtherealN

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/07/14 11:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Ghost0815
Thanks for the fast answer.
I just post here, because, Matt write: No discussion!


We won't discuss what lead to this state of affairs. But we will most certainly "discuss" (so to speak) what you need to get what you have paid for. smile
Posted By: EtherealN

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/07/14 11:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Bumfluff
I think we are owed an explanation of what happened but.


Please understand that however much we may want to "talk", we are unable. Sorry.
Posted By: Pizzicato

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 12:04 AM

Originally Posted By: SlipBall
I think its unfortunate that another year minimum has been tacked on to this project


That assumes that Luthier was ever going to deliver the project on time in the first place. That was always a major question mark - even more so now.

The good news is that we now have a significantly better chance of actually getting our hands on this sim AND at an ED level of quality.

All in all, I see this as a massive win.

My only reservation is the extra strain on ED's finite finances. Hopefully they're not overextending themselves.
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 12:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Mustang60348
Sounds like ED hired his team out from underneath him.


Sounds nothing like that...
Posted By: Pizzicato

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 12:29 AM

Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
Originally Posted By: Mustang60348
Sounds like ED hired his team out from underneath him.


Sounds nothing like that...


Ha! Yeah, I was going to say the exact same thing. biggrin
Posted By: Bumfluff

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 01:06 AM

Wondering what has happened to the kickstarter cash?

Is DCS now picking up the cost of funding this whole project to protect their good name?
Posted By: TychosElk

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 01:15 AM

Given that the Kickstarter cash was supposed to fund development - i.e. pay wages etc - I suspect most of it has been spent.
Posted By: Bumfluff

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 01:23 AM

Originally Posted By: TychosElk
Given that the Kickstarter cash was supposed to fund development - i.e. pay wages etc - I suspect most of it has been spent.


Has it?

Given what's gone on I don't think some transparency would go amiss.

What wage did Luthier pay himself out of the funds raised for example?
Posted By: TychosElk

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 01:39 AM

Have you ever seen developers discussing such things in public?
Posted By: Nate

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 02:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Bumfluff

What wage did Luthier pay himself out of the funds raised for example?


The only person to ask is Luthier....

Nate
Posted By: Pizzicato

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 02:29 AM

Originally Posted By: TychosElk
Given that the Kickstarter cash was supposed to fund development - i.e. pay wages etc - I suspect most of it has been spent.


According to Luthier, the cash was actually supposed to be used for an extended period of polish. That made sense to me in that $150,000 is a pretty trivial amount of money in game development.
Posted By: Bumfluff

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 04:51 AM

Originally Posted By: Nate
Originally Posted By: Bumfluff

What wage did Luthier pay himself out of the funds raised for example?


The only person to ask is Luthier....

Nate


Well that's what I'm asking. Do we know if DCS is effectively funding this project out of their own pocket?

I trust that if there are irregularities here the appropriate avenues are being pursued.
Posted By: Penguran

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 06:59 AM

Originally Posted By: sorcer3r

goodbye modern warfare? wave


Look at it from the bright side, you'll be getting dozens of WW2 warbirds in the next year or so.

Ohh, you don't like them? You've been supporting ED for a long time and have been buying every product so far, even the stand-alone rehashes of FCx, even if you don't fly them, just because you've hoped for a new DCS modern jet?

Well too bad mister, better learn to love propeller planes, because you'll be getting a lot of them.

Posted By: sorcer3r

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 07:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Penguran
Originally Posted By: sorcer3r

goodbye modern warfare? wave


Look at it from the bright side, you'll be getting dozens of WW2 warbirds in the next year or so.

Ohh, you don't like them? You've been supporting ED for a long time and have been buying every product so far, even the stand-alone rehashes of FCx, even if you don't fly them, just because you've hoped for a new DCS modern jet?

Well too bad mister, better learn to love propeller planes, because you'll be getting a lot of them.




Fortunately as a virtual viperdriver I do not have to wait until DCS will produce something modern again.
I also have never bought a FC aircraft or other aircraft which I am not interested in (P51). DCS going ww2 just means that I can save my money while enjoying my f16 sim. wink
Posted By: witchking

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 08:27 AM

Remember the PFM flanker update is on its way. So don't be hasty about ED going into WW2 aircraft only. We also have the Mig 21 on the way.
Posted By: Penguran

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 08:52 AM

Originally Posted By: witchking
Remember the PFM flanker update is on its way. So don't be hasty about ED going into WW2 aircraft only. We also have the Mig 21 on the way.


New flight models are not new content. F-15, Su-27, A-10A, Mig-29 and Su-25 have been around since 2003 and they use the same avionics as they did 11 years ago. They are not new or interesting in any way. The stand-alone titles of FC planes are the fifth (5!!) incarnation of the old Lomac planes. In 11 years, we didn't get a single new modern air-frame in this series. Just remakes, derivatives and upgrades of the same old line-up.
Now they've been teasing us with F-18C for 3 years and now we get to hear that they'll focus on WW2 birds first...
That's horrible.
Posted By: Nate

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 09:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Bumfluff
Originally Posted By: Nate
Originally Posted By: Bumfluff

What wage did Luthier pay himself out of the funds raised for example?


The only person to ask is Luthier....

Nate


Well that's what I'm asking. Do we know if DCS is effectively funding this project out of their own pocket?

I trust that if there are irregularities here the appropriate avenues are being pursued.


Nobody knows to be honest, but there have been no hints or allusions to improprieties, financial or otherwise.

Nate
Posted By: komemiute

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 10:39 AM

I'm just worried about one little detail... my backing of the KS granted me 4 flyables of my choice between those available.

Now that this shift happened, how economically viable is for ED to maintain someone else's vow?
Not to bash but Blackshark 1 & 2, anyone?
I'm really sorry if I sound mean... I'm just concerned... a bit.
Posted By: Hawg11

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 11:18 AM

""There is nothing more we can say about this change and it is not open for discussionn." Heh, that's cute. You must be new to the internet..."

LOL! That made me chuckle. hahaha
Posted By: Bumfluff

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 11:59 AM

Originally Posted By: Nate
Originally Posted By: Bumfluff
Originally Posted By: Nate
Originally Posted By: Bumfluff

What wage did Luthier pay himself out of the funds raised for example?


The only person to ask is Luthier....

Nate


Well that's what I'm asking. Do we know if DCS is effectively funding this project out of their own pocket?

I trust that if there are irregularities here the appropriate avenues are being pursued.


Nobody knows to be honest, but there have been no hints or allusions to improprieties, financial or otherwise.

Nate


Thanks
Posted By: theOden

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 12:09 PM

First a divorce and now this, Luthier is having some difficult times going.

Anyone knows if he still "works" in the project or is he all cut off?

Now, I'm the first to applaud if Luthier leaves this industry in all honesty (a bit harsh I know) but as we share the flightsim devotion and that he's a way bigger fan of this than most of us I sure hope he's ok out there whatever he is up to now.
Posted By: trindade

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 12:47 PM

Originally Posted By: theOden

Anyone knows if he still "works" in the project or is he all cut off?


"...and Luthier has ceased his involvement in the project."
Posted By: SHar82

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 02:21 PM

Glad I didn't give money for this project, Luthier was the weak point for me as well... and now, it just explain why...
Posted By: bogusheadbox

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 02:44 PM

Originally Posted By: komemiute
I'm just worried about one little detail... my backing of the KS granted me 4 flyables of my choice between those available.

Now that this shift happened, how economically viable is for ED to maintain someone else's vow?
Not to bash but Blackshark 1 & 2, anyone?
I'm really sorry if I sound mean... I'm just concerned... a bit.


Its a valid concern komemiute.

ED's previous efforts involving community awareness and insight has been quite lacking. So I wouldn't hold onto your breath about any luthier deal being granted until ED categorically states such.

Good luck on that one.
Posted By: Skoop

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 03:30 PM

Battle for Stalingrad anyone ?
Posted By: Pielstick

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 05:36 PM

Meh.

When DCS:WW2 was announced and throughout all the publicity around the Kickstarter, the one thing that really struck me was Luthier completely failed to acknowledge what happened to CLOD under his leadership. That set alarm bells ringing for me and I thought ED must be pretty brave (or stupid) to partner with this guy given the debacle that was CLOD.

I was almost ready to put some money down on the Kickstarter but I'm glad I didn't now. Between this and the stuff that happened with Bezcl I think the crowd funding well for DCS projects has become poisoned.

On a wider DCS note, I've been critical for quite a while now about the pretty esoteric, ill-fitting hodge podge of modules that have been released so far. The platform desperately needs a multi-role fast mover and a fresh, new theatre.
Posted By: Skoop

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 05:46 PM

^exactly, I'll take a multi role or even better an apache so I can stop flying blue black sharks for crying out loud. I can barely fire Dcs up lately just bored with the current cast of aircraft, they need something good to spice it up like a-10c was. Oh well I'm pretty content with the new il2 until something finally happens with Dcs to draw me back.
Posted By: Flogger23m

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 05:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Penguran
Ohh boy, ohh boy.
DCS is in for rough times and even more delays.



As I can not view the link, does this mean the main DCS devs are working on it? If so, I hope it does not delay the Su-27 flight model and MiG-29/Su-33 updates. Or any of the other modern stuff...

And this is the second project to have issues (first being MiG-21) which is not a good way to start. At least Belsimtek seems to be able to deliver.
Posted By: Snoopy_476th

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 05:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Flogger23m
At least Belsimtek seems to be able to deliver.


Belsimtek delivers because they are a partner which basically makes them ED. Here is the actual post. Don't expect anything from ED modern for a long time if ever. The F/A-18, don't believe the hype they aren't actively working it IMO.

Originally Posted By: Wags;2085212
June 2014 Update

We would first like to apologize for the long delay in projects updates. Since the last update from Luthier, there have been some significant changes in how this project will be developed and managed. No longer will RRG be developing this project and Luthier has ceased his involvement in the project. Eagle Dynamics though will be continuing its development and honor all Kickstarter backer commitments. There is nothing more we can say about this change and it is not open for discussion.

Because there are some shared resources between projects (like cockpit systems programming), there will be some impact to our other projects. However, because much of the former RRG team is now employed by Eagle Dynamics, the impact on other Eagle projects will be minimal.

We will be restructuring the DCS WWII: Europe 1944 forums to reflect this.

DCS WWII: Europe 1944 is still planned as a single-package option, or users can purchase individual components to integrate into DCS World.

Myself and Groove plan to provide monthly updates.

As a basic outline, here are our current development intentions:

August 2014 – Fw 190 D-9 Dora
October 2014 - BF-109K
December 2014- Spitfire IX
March 2015 - P-47D-30
May 2015 - Normandy Map with period AI units
Other features like the Me.262A-1 and AI-only B-17G are also in development we but do not have a delivery data estimate at this time until these other features are further along.

In the meantime, Groove and our moderator SiThSpAwN are working to make sure that all backers, based on their level of backing, receive their entitlements.

We fully realize that you probably have many unanswered questions. We are in the process of answering those internally first, and once we do, we will update you.

In this update, we can share some updated images of the Fw 190 D-9 and Bf-109K cockpits. In future updates, Yoyo and other members of the development team will provide greater details about the various features.

Thanks,
Matt


Posted By: Flogger23m

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 06:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Penguran
Originally Posted By: witchking
Remember the PFM flanker update is on its way. So don't be hasty about ED going into WW2 aircraft only. We also have the Mig 21 on the way.


New flight models are not new content. F-15, Su-27, A-10A, Mig-29 and Su-25 have been around since 2003 and they use the same avionics as they did 11 years ago. They are not new or interesting in any way. The stand-alone titles of FC planes are the fifth (5!!) incarnation of the old Lomac planes. In 11 years, we didn't get a single new modern air-frame in this series. Just remakes, derivatives and upgrades of the same old line-up.
Now they've been teasing us with F-18C for 3 years and now we get to hear that they'll focus on WW2 birds first...
That's horrible.


We did get the Su-25T and A-10C which are rather different versions. In the case of the Su-25T, the difference is rather large. I just hope they update all of the FC3 aircraft in a timely manner so that module can be done.

I am also annoyed about the lack of modern aircraft and the time frame split between the various 3rd party teams.
Posted By: near_blind

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 06:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Snoopy_476th
Don't expect anything from ED modern for a long time if ever.


That seems just a tad melodramatic.
Posted By: Snoopy_476th

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 06:40 PM

Originally Posted By: near_blind
Originally Posted By: Snoopy_476th
Don't expect anything from ED modern for a long time if ever.


That seems just a tad melodramatic.


You have your opinion, I'm allowed to have mine.
Posted By: bogusheadbox

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 06:44 PM

Nevada ?
Posted By: Remon

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 06:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Snoopy_476th
Originally Posted By: near_blind
Originally Posted By: Snoopy_476th
Don't expect anything from ED modern for a long time if ever.


That seems just a tad melodramatic.


You have your opinion, I'm allowed to have mine.


He's allowed to have his opinion about your opinion.
Posted By: Nate

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 07:18 PM

Update - no need for melodramatics......

Quote:
8 June 2014 Update

We have been reading the discussions here and we will try to answer your questions as soon as we have concrete answers for them. The exception will be the circumstances which led to this change in product management and development. Sorry, but that simply is not going to happen due to legal agreements.

One item I can shed some light on is where the Kickstarter funds went. All of the funds have been spent and they helped develop the Bf-109, P-47, Me.262, Spitfire, and Normandy map. However, given the massive amount of work, those Kickstarter funds were only a drop in the bucket of what is needed to flesh out this project. The vast majority of funds needed to finance this project have and will continue to come from Eagle Dynamics (not Kickstarter). To give you a feel… just the Eagle Dynamics developed and funded flight model for the Bf-109K has already cost us about 120k USD (that does not include external model, cockpit model, cockpit systems, etc.). Developing such products is not cheap!

As mentioned yesterday, this project will only have minimal impact on our other internal projects given that much of the former-RRG team is now working for Eagle Dynamics. As such, projects like the F/A-18C, Su-27 PFM, and new maps are still under active development. As a policy, we now do not discuss internal projects now until they are nearing beta level (the exception being DCS WWII due to KS obligations). So, just because we are not talking about them, hardly means that they are not being worked on.

Today, I have also included a VERY early copy of the DCS: Fw 190 D-9 flight manual. Please note that this is hardly final and is very much subject to change over the next couple of months.

Thanks,
Matt


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Nate
Posted By: near_blind

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 07:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Snoopy_476th
Originally Posted By: near_blind
Originally Posted By: Snoopy_476th
Don't expect anything from ED modern for a long time if ever.


That seems just a tad melodramatic.


You have your opinion, I'm allowed to have mine.


I'm just saying forever is an excessively long time. I'd be shocked if a company that has spent the 20 years creating terrain, vehicles and objects for a modern/cold war environment never created another module for said environment, and instead focused entirely on a WWII environment for which they have a single aircraft.

But you are correct, each is entitled to their own opinion smile .
Posted By: Penguran

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 08:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Flogger23m
Originally Posted By: Penguran
Originally Posted By: witchking
Remember the PFM flanker update is on its way. So don't be hasty about ED going into WW2 aircraft only. We also have the Mig 21 on the way.


New flight models are not new content. F-15, Su-27, A-10A, Mig-29 and Su-25 have been around since 2003 and they use the same avionics as they did 11 years ago. They are not new or interesting in any way. The stand-alone titles of FC planes are the fifth (5!!) incarnation of the old Lomac planes. In 11 years, we didn't get a single new modern air-frame in this series. Just remakes, derivatives and upgrades of the same old line-up.
Now they've been teasing us with F-18C for 3 years and now we get to hear that they'll focus on WW2 birds first...
That's horrible.


We did get the Su-25T and A-10C which are rather different versions. In the case of the Su-25T, the difference is rather large. I just hope they update all of the FC3 aircraft in a timely manner so that module can be done.

I am also annoyed about the lack of modern aircraft and the time frame split between the various 3rd party teams.


Time frame split and lack of different flyable modern airframes is annoying a large chunk of the community.

Also, Su-25T and A-10C still fall under: "Remakes, derivatives and upgrades of the same old line-up."
They are by no means a new airframe that hasn't been included in LOMAC since 2003.
They use different systems and were a breath of fresh air back in the day, but they're very stale now.
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 08:50 PM

Originally Posted By: near_blind


But you are correct, each is entitled to their own opinion smile .


Yes, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how wrong they are smile
Posted By: Snoopy_476th

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 09:45 PM

I only left the testers team about 4 weeks so I guess a ton has changed. If so that's great but based on 3 years as a tester I highly doubt it.
Posted By: newguy

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 10:13 PM

I did not back this project for the simply fact of what has happened. Like others got burned on CLOD and simply would not back another project by this guy. To the DCS team though, I've been waiting on Nevada longer than there's been a WW2 kickstarter movement. If you want to do right by your customers then take care of the ones who have been waiting so long, ww2 should be a minimal priority until you fulfill your prior obligations. Just sayin
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/08/14 11:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Snoopy_476th
I only left the testers team about 4 weeks so I guess a ton has changed. If so that's great but based on 3 years as a tester I highly doubt it.


Testers are pretty much at a closed Beta level... there are many layers above that I am sure. If you thought we were more informed than that, you were mistaken.
Posted By: Snoopy_476th

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/09/14 12:00 AM

Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
Originally Posted By: Snoopy_476th
I only left the testers team about 4 weeks so I guess a ton has changed. If so that's great but based on 3 years as a tester I highly doubt it.


Testers are pretty much at a closed Beta level... there are many layers above that I am sure. If you thought we were more informed than that, you were mistaken.


Just because I don't agree with ED and voice my opinion doesn't mean I'm an idiot. I know multiple layers exist and I was a dedicated tester for 3 years and one of the handful who participated in MP testing on a regular basis.

I typed a lot longer response but why waste my time, certain individuals will argue that ED is right no matter what ED does.
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/09/14 12:15 AM

No one claimed you were an idiot, my response was only to you claiming you had some insight into certain ED projects such as the F/A-18C, I think the fact that you were a tester warrants a response because certain things you say can mislead people. Bottomline is, Testers probably dont know half of what ED is working on currently.

Originally Posted By: Snoopy_476th
Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
Originally Posted By: Snoopy_476th
I only left the testers team about 4 weeks so I guess a ton has changed. If so that's great but based on 3 years as a tester I highly doubt it.


Testers are pretty much at a closed Beta level... there are many layers above that I am sure. If you thought we were more informed than that, you were mistaken.


Just because I don't agree with ED and voice my opinion doesn't mean I'm an idiot. I know multiple layers exist and I was a dedicated tester for 3 years and one of the handful who participated in MP testing on a regular basis.

I typed a lot longer response but why waste my time, certain individuals will argue that ED is right no matter what ED does.
Posted By: eno75

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/09/14 03:06 AM

Why is it I feel like I've just witnessed fratricide?

Everyone is frustrated right now and on edge (okay, I kind of meant that as a pun). A couple things need to start working and people need to get busy focusing on their strats and tats and all will be well again.

Of course a few will survive the wave of success and still rummage around desperately for something to complain about- but we need to spend more time making / playing and less time typing / dwelling.

(Me included, just so you know!)
Posted By: Sluggish Controls

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/09/14 03:54 AM

Howdy All,
Just out of curiosity, can someone throw me a bone on why so much negative vibes ref. Luthier ?
What has he done / not done ? He is the Nick Leeson of the flight sim development community?

Cheers,
Slug
Posted By: Mastiff

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/09/14 04:00 AM

maybe another 3 years will see Edge and then the FA18, because I still think they can not get the ground radar working. I still believe this is the reason for FA18C being delayed even longer.

How Simple VRS Tac pack got it right, unbelievable and in the fraction of time it took or is taking ED.

"http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2085212&postcount=1"
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/09/14 04:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Mastiff
maybe another 3 years will see Edge and then the FA18, because I still think they can not get the ground radar working. I still believe this is the reason for FA18C being delayed even longer.

How Simple VRS Tac pack got it right, unbelievable and in the fraction of time it took or is taking ED.

"http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2085212&postcount=1"


do you seriously know how long the Superbug and TacPack have been in development,

I'm gonna ask you to quit while you're ahead, and stop with these ludicrous delay estimations.
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/09/14 04:45 AM

You dont know what you are talking about, EDGE is scheduled for 1.3.0. As for the F/A-18C no delays have been reported, as far as we know its been normal development time, compared to what it took to do the A-10C, its about on track.

Originally Posted By: Mastiff
maybe another 3 years will see Edge and then the FA18, because I still think they can not get the ground radar working. I still believe this is the reason for FA18C being delayed even longer.

How Simple VRS Tac pack got it right, unbelievable and in the fraction of time it took or is taking ED.

"http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2085212&postcount=1"
Posted By: Pooch

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/09/14 05:14 AM

Tac Pac? Bad example. I remember first hearing about it and its release sounded right around the corner. Its why I bought the VRS F-18. 2 years later, Tac Pac still hadn't come out. By the time it did I was kind of over it. I've hardly ever used it. Big waste of money for me.
Posted By: sorcer3r

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/09/14 07:12 AM

Originally Posted By: eno75
Why is it I feel like I've just witnessed fratricide?

Everyone is frustrated right now and on edge (okay, I kind of meant that as a pun). A couple things need to start working and people need to get busy focusing on their strats and tats and all will be well again.

Of course a few will survive the wave of success and still rummage around desperately for something to complain about- but we need to spend more time making / playing and less time typing / dwelling.

(Me included, just so you know!)




Sounds like applauding the sinking of the Titanic. Ok, that's a dramatic comparsion but if you see what happened to the MP community in the last years and what did (not) happen in the developement of dcs then I think "applauding" sounds to me a bit out of place...
Posted By: HeinKill

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/09/14 07:17 AM

Wonder what happened to Oleg Maddox involvement. He told me in an interview he was part of the project in an advisory capacity (or in his own words, 'mastermind') but there has never been any public evidence of that. With Shevchenko gone, it seems even less likely he remains involved.

It's all such a terrible, messy, predictable shame, but the commitment to release the WWII warbirds and map is great news for the future BUT ED have still got it all backwards!

Releasing the aircraft first as modules is a dumb idea, when there is no map to fly them over and no WWII game world for them to exist in. ED should get the map out first, with a quick mission builder, online enabled, and the P51 and Dora flyable...then gradually introduce the other aircraft.

If they persist in releasing the aircraft first for all those people who want to fly WWII warbirds over a modern Eastern Europe battlefield, how will they price them? 40 USD a module like the P51? DCS WWII would cost you 200+ USD that way.

At the current 'sale' price of 15USD six aircraft would cost you 95 USD - which is OK...about the same as Battle of Stalingrad, except BoS also gives you a map to fly them over, a quick mission builder, online servers etc etc

Sorry I just think ED needs to rethink the whole 'modular' aircraft release concept when it comes to this project - map with P51 and FW 190 first, other planes later please!

H
Posted By: sharpe26

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/09/14 08:07 AM

Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
You dont know what you are talking about, EDGE is scheduled for 1.3.0. As for the F/A-18C no delays have been reported, as far as we know its been normal development time, compared to what it took to do the A-10C, its about on track.



Still for this summer, right?
Posted By: Para_Bellum

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/09/14 09:23 AM

Once again disappointed by something Luthier/Ilya was involved in. This was the last time.

Still have high hopes the fine chaps at ED will solve this mess.
Posted By: rollnloop.

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/09/14 09:31 AM

This thread is in desperate need of banjo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o155aceP3ws
Posted By: msalama

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/09/14 11:51 AM

Quote:
15USD six aircraft


Six completely modelled AC (i.e. ASM/PFM) for 15$ a pop? Hey, pass me whatever it is you're smoking, because it has GOT to be top grade. And besides, comparing this to BoS? Apples and oranges m'man, because Bos is altogether more gamish / arcadish an environment.

But as it comes to the bass-ackwards release schedule, yeah, I agree with you there. Us getting the framework + a couple flyables first would indeed be better.
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/09/14 02:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Sluggish Controls
Howdy All,
Just out of curiosity, can someone throw me a bone on why so much negative vibes ref. Luthier ?
What has he done / not done ? He is the Nick Leeson of the flight sim development community?

Cheers,
Slug


He started with Il-2 and his first major project was Pacific Fighters, which was supposed to be done totally 3rd party...but ran into difficulties and Oleg's team had to team up with them to get it finished and patched.
Then he joined Oleg's team until Oleg left at some nebulous point in CloD's development (ie we don't know EXACTLY when) and he took over...and CloD came out horrible.

Now this.

I cannot comment on luthier's skills as a coder/programmer/sim maker. I've no evidence of anything he's done right or wrong, to draw a conclusion. I don't know if he made mistakes that caused delays, or it was people working for him that screwed up, only they know for sure.

HOWEVER...I think it can be simply stated his management skills are sorely lacking. He can have all the best intentions in the world, but I don't think he should run any project nearly this size. After this, you can bet the odds are he won't.




The Jedi Master
Posted By: HeinKill

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/09/14 04:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
Originally Posted By: Sluggish Controls
Howdy All,
Just out of curiosity, can someone throw me a bone on why so much negative vibes ref. Luthier ?
What has he done / not done ? He is the Nick Leeson of the flight sim development community?

Cheers,
Slug


He started with Il-2 and his first major project was Pacific Fighters, which was supposed to be done totally 3rd party...but ran into difficulties and Oleg's team had to team up with them to get it finished and patched.
Then he joined Oleg's team until Oleg left at some nebulous point in CloD's development (ie we don't know EXACTLY when) and he took over...and CloD came out horrible.

Now this.


You forgot this little gem...

http://bobgamehub.blogspot.dk/2014/03/remembering-project-galba.html

H
Posted By: theOden

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/09/14 04:19 PM

Originally Posted By: rollnloop.
This thread is in desperate need of banjo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o155aceP3ws

Ohhh the Banana flashback hahahaha.
Posted By: kestrel79

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/09/14 09:12 PM

I'm not suprised this happened with Luthier. They should really come out with a documentary movie on all this sim drama. So many unknown things that are always kept secret.

Glad these planes will still see the light of day with ED working on them now.
Posted By: Sobek

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/09/14 09:40 PM

Originally Posted By: kestrel79
They should really come out with a documentary movie on all this sim drama. So many unknown things that are always kept secret.


That would probably be the end for ED's initiative to get 3rd parties invested into DCS. In business, if you kiss and tell you are going to run out of people to "kiss" fast.
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/09/14 10:34 PM

Originally Posted By: kestrel79
I'm not suprised this happened with Luthier. They should really come out with a documentary movie on all this sim drama. So many unknown things that are always kept secret.

Glad these planes will still see the light of day with ED working on them now.


I think "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" is loosely based on the sim industry if I remember correctly :P
Posted By: Para_Bellum

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/10/14 09:52 AM

Originally Posted By: Jedi Master


HOWEVER...I think it can be simply stated his management skills are sorely lacking. He can have all the best intentions in the world, but I don't think he should run any project nearly this size. After this, you can bet the odds are he won't.


The Jedi Master


Well said. I'm petty sure Ilya is a great guy with a real passion for flightsims but his skills at project management and communication seem lacking quite a bit, to put it politely.

When the DCS WWII kickstarter started he made big promises concerning regular updates. Probably well knowing that a lot of people were highly sceptical about new projects since CloD. IIRC it didn't took more than 4 weeks until he already broke them.
Posted By: addman

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/10/14 11:54 AM

I don't want to come off as a wise-*ss but I could never fully grasp that there were people actually willing to fund a project led by Ilya after both the Pacific Fighters fail and the CloD debacle. I guess a lot of the backers were unfamiliar with his previous "work"? This is why I don't do crowd-funding, paid betas yes, sure. Just give something substantial for my money instead of empty promises and thin air. How much did he actually manage to raise? 158,000$ was it? *POFF*!
Posted By: jeanba

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/10/14 11:57 AM

I want my dollar back !
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/10/14 12:08 PM

However, let's face it. To compare this $158k to Star Citizen's I think $45m now? There's no doubt that far fewer people are into this. Maybe if it had made $500k...



The Jedi Master
Posted By: paf_eaf310

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/10/14 12:30 PM

What does this mean to paypal-backers?
I would ask on the ED-forums, but the forum doesn't let me register there.
Posted By: Para_Bellum

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/10/14 01:24 PM

Originally Posted By: paf_eaf310
What does this mean to paypal-backers?
I would ask on the ED-forums, but the forum doesn't let me register there.


I'd guess it will be handled like the other Kickstarter pledges, i.e. ED will fulfil them.
Posted By: SAPPER

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/10/14 01:50 PM

Originally Posted By: msalama
Quote:
15USD six aircraft


Six completely modelled AC (i.e. ASM/PFM) for 15$ a pop? Hey, pass me whatever it is you're smoking, because it has GOT to be top grade. And besides, comparing this to BoS? Apples and oranges m'man, because Bos is altogether more gamish / arcadish an environment.

But as it comes to the bass-ackwards release schedule, yeah, I agree with you there. Us getting the framework + a couple flyables first would indeed be better.


BoS arcadish/gamish? Sure it's not a study sim. But so long as flight physics and models are autentic, it's wrong to call it gamish.
Posted By: HeinKill

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/10/14 02:34 PM

Originally Posted By: msalama
Six completely modelled AC (i.e. ASM/PFM) for 15$ a pop? Hey, pass me whatever it is you're smoking, because it has GOT to be top grade.


Ha! Sure, I have been known to bananadance

But not when I wrote that one.

To turn it around, how many would pay $240 for 6 WWII warbirds that can only be flown over a modern Eastern Europe (or Nevada?!) map?

It will be v interesting to see what pricing policy ED goes with for the future WWII releases.

15 USD (the current sale price of the P51) is of course unrealistic, but would I pay 25 USD per kite, for a total of 150 USD?

Ouch! Maybe.

If it included a free key to the final game with Normandy map!

H
Posted By: EagleEye[GER]

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/10/14 02:42 PM

Originally Posted By: rollnloop.
This thread is in desperate need of banjo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o155aceP3ws


rofl I remember very well:
Banjo http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=314241&postcount=1

I almost foreseen that development with Ilya at controls. I´m so glad I did not backed that project.
Posted By: msalama

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/10/14 03:02 PM

Quote:
Ouch! Maybe.


The way I'd like to see this go is approximately this:

First, the Stang is out there already, so Red (yes, Red, has got to be Red in this context) has a good fighter already.

Second, release the FW for $50, and an extensive map and AI (including aircraft) pack for free.

Third, release comprehensively modelled (i.e. ASM/PFM) flyables for $50 a pop.

Fourth, release a CA-type ground module for $50.

Fifth - and this comes later - get all those stingy bastages who whined about the price (since they don't understand how expensive and time-consuming it is to make study-level sim models) by running a sale.
Posted By: Ami7b5

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/10/14 03:42 PM

Originally Posted By: msalama

BoS arcadish/gamish? Sure it's not a study sim. But so long as flight physics and models are autentic, it's worng to call it gamish.


This.
And 777 guys DO deliver in contrast to... you know...
Posted By: HeinKill

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/10/14 04:40 PM

Originally Posted By: msalama
Quote:
Ouch! Maybe.


The way I'd like to see this go is approximately this:

First, the Stang is out there already, so Red (yes, Red, has got to be Red in this context) has a good fighter already.

Second, release the FW for $50, and an extensive map and AI (including aircraft) pack for free.

Third, release comprehensively modelled (i.e. ASM/PFM) flyables for $50 a pop.

Fourth, release a CA-type ground module for $50.

Fifth - and this comes later - get all those stingy bastages who whined about the price (since they don't understand how expensive and time-consuming it is to make study-level sim models) by running a sale.


Thassaplan.

Quick, copyrite it then go over to Kickstarter and start raising funds!

H
Posted By: msalama

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/11/14 02:48 AM

Quote:
Sure it's not a study sim.


And thus, not directly comparable with study-level sim modules as it comes to cost and/or time of development. So as I said, apples and oranges.
Posted By: SAPPER

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/11/14 05:26 AM

If you take into consideration how much time an advanced flight model takes for beeing developed over at EDs and assossiates. Or how long it takes to make a 6DoF cockpit. And that BoS is not releasing one at a time but several. It's not that diferent in the end, it all comes down to man hours. So not apples and oranges but very much the same.
Posted By: msalama

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/11/14 11:46 AM

ED models all but classified systems for their aircraft. This means lots of manhours for preliminary research and verification, and all that before you write any FM and/or systems code at all. And indeed, 777 releasing not one but several AC at the same time actually points to their craft being simpler - and thus faster - to make, now doesn't it?

So yah, apples and oranges still.
Posted By: msalama

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/11/14 11:53 AM

And oh, before the fanboi accusations start, I'm not really flying DCS at the moment. Too fed up with the bugs and its overall incompleteness, y'see. It's just that WHEN it works it works beautifully...
Posted By: RAF74_Raptor

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/11/14 12:07 PM

You know a couple of months ago I expressed my concern about the project and was promptly called an Idiot on these forums. As much as I hate the fact that there is going to be a delay; however i think in the long run Luthier leaving the scene will be good for the sim.
Posted By: msalama

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/11/14 12:25 PM

Quote:
Luthier leaving the scene will be good for the sim.


Oh, definitely. The man had his last chance and blew it. A downside, however, is that no-one knows if this will delay, say, ED finally getting out of their perpetual beta mode and stabilizing the platform... instead of swat a bug, create two, as it has been lately frown
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/11/14 01:56 PM

Originally Posted By: RAF74_Raptor
You know a couple of months ago I expressed my concern about the project and was promptly called an Idiot on these forums. As much as I hate the fact that there is going to be a delay; however i think in the long run Luthier leaving the scene will be good for the sim.



You were? I don't remember that, but if so it must've been by people who'd backed with a non-trivial amount of money and were desperate for you to be wrong. smile



The Jedi Master
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/11/14 02:34 PM

Originally Posted By: msalama
ED models all but classified systems for their aircraft. This means lots of manhours for preliminary research and verification, and all that before you write any FM and/or systems code at all. And indeed, 777 releasing not one but several AC at the same time actually points to their craft being simpler - and thus faster - to make, now doesn't it?

So yah, apples and oranges still.


This is very true. Can you imagine how many lines of code it took to write the functions of the ABRIS in the Ka-50 or the CDU in the A-10C? I mean..these are faithful replications of extremely complex systems. Definitely apples and oranges. And its OK to like apples and oranges by the way.

BeachAV8R
Posted By: BillyRiley

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/11/14 04:19 PM

I hadn't bought into this.

For one reason, I'm not interested in WWII flyables in DCS World and for the second reason, I never had any faith in anything they did after CLoD. Exact same reason why I never jumped on BoS

I don't understand how the secrecy can stand. Why are people not entitled transparency here? People paid their money, in good faith, to a Kickstarter project and it's goals (or pledges) were changed (where they not?) and then the head development team (at least him) involved in the kickstarter project has left/been booted.

This is a complete kick in the baws for Kickstarter - especially with no transparency on what's gone wrong. How are people meant to go onto further Kickstarter projects knowing that the goals can change during it's process and then the thing crumble - regardless of whether someone else has picked it up or not, I think if you don't come clean on what's happened, it makes it likely unfeasible to expect people to pledge in the future.

I'll be steering way WAY clear of Kickstarter. From now on money will be released from my wallet when a product is available - and not before.
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/11/14 04:38 PM

BoS and DCS WWII were never to be done by the same group, so how do they relate?



The Jedi Master
Posted By: SAPPER

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/11/14 05:12 PM

Originally Posted By: msalama
ED models all but classified systems for their aircraft. This means lots of manhours for preliminary research and verification, and all that before you write any FM and/or systems code at all. And indeed, 777 releasing not one but several AC at the same time actually points to their craft being simpler - and thus faster - to make, now doesn't it?

So yah, apples and oranges still.


Gess you are not familiar with the A-10A, F-15C, Mig-29, Su-25, Su-25T, Su-27 and Su-33 then?
Of course a DCS level aircraft (A-10C, KA-50, P-51,etc) take a longer time to make, the point was it all comes down to man hours. A Study level aircraft takes a huge amount of hours to make but a survey level aircraft with high detail and advanced flight model is no easy task eighter and takes a great deal many hours as ED has shown us with the few updates they've released for FC3 aircraft. It is however wrong to assume this aircraft are arcade level.
Man hour are man hours if you want to call yours orange hours is up to you.
Posted By: SlipBall

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/11/14 06:21 PM

Originally Posted By: msalama
Quote:
Ouch! Maybe.


The way I'd like to see this go is approximately this:

First, the Stang is out there already, so Red (yes, Red, has got to be Red in this context) has a good fighter already.

Second, release the FW for $50, and an extensive map and AI (including aircraft) pack for free.

Third, release comprehensively modelled (i.e. ASM/PFM) flyables for $50 a pop.

Fourth, release a CA-type ground module for $50.

Fifth - and this comes later - get all those stingy bastages who whined about the price (since they don't understand how expensive and time-consuming it is to make study-level sim models) by running a sale.


Really the only thing that has changed is luthier is out...Please remember that this project/and rewards was 100% DEC internally funded(and so remains), and that the base KS campaign was meant for the extended testing of the finished game...per the description during KS effort
Posted By: Skycat

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/11/14 07:17 PM

I never saw that about the KS funding. The description of how funds would be distributed included office chairs and utilities for Ilya's staff. Research, too, I think, and I'm pretty sure the rest was supposed to pay the staff for their time. Otherwise, why did Ilya go through all the hoops of tiers and promising that the Me262 and B-17 would be made flyable if certain dollar amounts were reached?
Posted By: SlipBall

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/11/14 07:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Skycat
I never saw that about the KS funding. The description of how funds would be distributed included office chairs and utilities for Ilya's staff. Research, too, I think, and I'm pretty sure the rest was supposed to pay the staff for their time. Otherwise, why did Ilya go through all the hoops of tiers and promising that the Me262 and B-17 would be made flyable if certain dollar amounts were reached?



The base KS dollar amount goal was to be used for extended testing, higher goals reached would be used for extra aircraft or larger map, depending on the goal reached...you could reread/listen to all of that said by luthier and Igor Tishin, its still there
Posted By: Pizzicato

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/11/14 07:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Skycat
I never saw that about the KS funding. The description of how funds would be distributed included office chairs and utilities for Ilya's staff. Research, too, I think, and I'm pretty sure the rest was supposed to pay the staff for their time. Otherwise, why did Ilya go through all the hoops of tiers and promising that the Me262 and B-17 would be made flyable if certain dollar amounts were reached?


The original $100,000 was supposed to cover an extended beta/polish phase. That was made clear in the initial pitch.

Anything above that was supposed to cover stretch goals (e.g. the Me.262), but the numbers quoted never really lined up the production realities. Matt Wagner recently posted that the Me-109 flight model alone cost upwards of $120,000 USD, so $58,000 for an entire new aircraft was always going to be extremely wishful thinking.
Posted By: msalama

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/12/14 02:47 AM

Quote:
Man hour are man hours if you want to call yours orange hours is up to you.


...and since study sim modules need much more time to develop than FC3 / BoS level aircraft, I will. But yeah, OK, I promise not to call survey level AC "gamish" or "arcade" anymore, since it seems to offend your finer sensibilities smile
Posted By: Ami7b5

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/12/14 05:25 AM

OK, I have that beautiful DCS:P-51, with all those systems modeled, but after initial hours of joy now I have NOTHING to DO with her.
Posted By: HeinKill

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/12/14 06:54 AM

Originally Posted By: ami7b5
OK, I have that beautiful DCS:P-51, with all those systems modeled, but after initial hours of joy now I have NOTHING to DO with her.


That's my experience too, so I don't get this idea of releasing all the aircraft as modules, and releasing the map/game last. Sure, if that's all they can do because for some reason they only have the people to do the aircraft, not the map, or they are nearly finished nost of the kites, and they need less cash, but faster...

But the number of people who will just buy 6 aircraft without a game attached, MUST be dramatically lower than those who would buy a game with 2 aircraft. Oh well, it's their business to run!

On the other hand, I am just grateful ED didn't totally walk away from this mess, and that there is still a chance for another big WWII sim title to emerge eventually!

H
Posted By: MACADEMIC

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/12/14 07:12 AM

Originally Posted By: HeinKill
Originally Posted By: ami7b5
OK, I have that beautiful DCS:P-51, with all those systems modeled, but after initial hours of joy now I have NOTHING to DO with her.


That's my experience too, so I don't get this idea of releasing all the aircraft as modules, and releasing the map/game last. Sure, if that's all they can do because for some reason they only have the people to do the aircraft, not the map, or they are nearly finished nost of the kites, and they need less cash, but faster...

But the number of people who will just buy 6 aircraft without a game attached, MUST be dramatically lower than those who would buy a game with 2 aircraft. Oh well, it's their business to run!

On the other hand, I am just grateful ED didn't totally walk away from this mess, and that there is still a chance for another big WWII sim title to emerge eventually!

H


I think this could change when they release EDGE and the Nevada map which I expect to become quite a step forward. I look forward to flying those planes over one of the most stunning flying environments on the planet.

Would be great if they'd focus on building great planes and open map and WWII ground equipment making to third parties, maybe that way we would get both faster.

MAC
Posted By: msalama

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/12/14 11:52 AM

What, no use for the Stang yet? Bah. You bloody reprobates have no imagination. I made a bunch of missions when it originally came out where you fly old VVS Lend-Lease P-51Ds as an insurgent against light Georgian ground forces; worked like a C.P. I'm telling ya biggrin
Posted By: msalama

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/12/14 12:00 PM

Quote:
Oh well, it's their business to run!


Pardon me if I've misunderstood something, but didn't you just state above that they should release completely modelled AFM/PFM birds for $25 apiece? And if so, where do you think that would leave them (without a paddle) businesswise?

Nah, as I said release the FW with a comprehensive map & AI pack for $50 and then sell other new flyables for $50 each. Also, put the Stang on offer for $25 or something.
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/12/14 01:47 PM

Originally Posted By: HeinKill
That's my experience too, so I don't get this idea of releasing all the aircraft as modules, and releasing the map/game last. Sure, if that's all they can do because for some reason they only have the people to do the aircraft, not the map, or they are nearly finished nost of the kites, and they need less cash, but faster...


Well, you are applying a mindset to something I think (hope) that ED is perhaps no longer ascribing to. People are still getting hung up on looking at DCS World as a combat flight simulator with all of the attributes that have historically defined the genre (aircraft, campaign, missions). Instead, you have to look at DCS as a *possible* eventual replacement product (or at least coexisting) for something like FSX.

For example - people point to the lack of a realistic combat environment in which to fly the P-51.

Now look at FSX and the number of high quality, extremely detailed WWII add-ons that are flourishing in that marketplace: An incomplete LIST

So you have droves of people that like to buy modules just for the enjoyment of learning and using the realistic systems, even if they never pull a trigger in anger or fly any kind of combat mission. With the advantages of the advanced flight model that ED seems to have come up with, there are a few advantages to moving to DCS World. The disadvantages are clear too - FSX has world scenery coverage, add-on weather products, etc.. But just because someone else HAS done it, doesn't mean that ED can't make inroads there.

Personally, I have very little interest in flying P-51s or Bf-109s or Spitfires in DCS World, FSX, BoB, IL-2, or any other sim simply because that isn't the time period I'm interested in (bring on the F/A-18C please..uh..and an Apache). But just because the (realistic) world to fly it in will come later doesn't mean they can't go with building the things they already know how to build (airplane modules). With the mention of tanks and ships - I think DCS World is planning on being much larger than what most of us have in our aviation/military sim specific minds.

TL;DR - DCS World isn't just for us here at SimHQ - there is a much broader audience that these products will appeal to.

soapbox

BeachAV8R


Posted By: komemiute

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/12/14 02:44 PM

+several million for Beachav8r...
Posted By: Frederf

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/12/14 04:46 PM

Welcome to the DCS business module. Sell shiny plane. No mission content. No refund. Repeat.

And it works!
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/12/14 06:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Frederf
Welcome to the DCS business module. Sell shiny plane. No mission content. No refund. Repeat.


OK - I'll rise to the bait.

Which module had no mission content? The P-51? It has some. Admittedly not as good as the other offerings.

So lets explore further to see this trend in the DCS "business model" that you are being so sarcastic about:

UH-1 - Great mission content.
Mi-8 - Great mission content.
A-10C - Great mission content.
Ka-50 - Great mission content.
Su-25T - Great mission content.
FC3 Aircraft - Great mission content.

Campaigns, single missions, training missions. Hmm..yeah, that's a lot to be disappointed about.

reading

BeachAV8R
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/12/14 06:27 PM

And just to check, because I had to take it at your word that the P-51 didn't have any mission content (I assume that is the plane you are talking about right?) since I don't have much interest in the P-51, I went ahead and loaded up DCS World and the P-51 module to fact check.

P-51 content:

Under Quick Start - 7 missions
Under Training - 11 missions
Under Single Mission - 3 missions
Under Campaign - 1 "Challenge" campaign (no idea what that is or how many missions it is)

So your complaint that there is no content isn't true. If your complaint is that the content isn't as good as *other* DCS module content, you might be right there.

BeachAV8R
Posted By: Pizzicato

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/12/14 07:05 PM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
Originally Posted By: Frederf
Welcome to the DCS business module. Sell shiny plane. No mission content. No refund. Repeat.


UH-1 - Great mission content.
Mi-8 - Great mission content.
A-10C - Great mission content.
Ka-50 - Great mission content.
Su-25T - Great mission content.
FC3 Aircraft - Great mission content.



+1

The Mi-8, UH-1 and KA-50 campaigns were/are all fantastic.
Posted By: BlueHeron

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/12/14 08:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Pizzicato

+1

The Mi-8, UH-1 and KA-50 campaigns were/are all fantastic.


++1 I especially enjoyed the helicopter campaigns.
Posted By: MigBuster

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/12/14 11:10 PM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R

Under Campaign - 1 "Challenge" campaign (no idea what that is or how many missions it is)



Good fun actually flying through the gates at low level and I can guarantee it's certainly a challenge - whether just taking off - or trying to shoot down a couple of Mi-24s.
Posted By: Pizzicato

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/12/14 11:18 PM

Originally Posted By: MigBuster
Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R

Under Campaign - 1 "Challenge" campaign (no idea what that is or how many missions it is)

Good fun actually flying through the gates at low level and I can guarantee it's certainly a challenge - whether just taking off - or trying to shoot down a couple of Mi-24s


I enjoyed it up until the bombing missions, at which point I wanted to murder someone.

Twice.
Posted By: Frederf

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/13/14 07:59 AM

I don't have several of the modules you guys are talking about. Ka-50 content was good. A-10C was poor (campaigns were dreadful). CA wasn't great (no training, the scenarios might be fun if CA was more fleshed out). It's a common statement you see over and over again "I bought this aircraft, but I don't have anything to do with it." Just look around and you'll see lots of people with the same sentiment. It's not me and 20 alt accounts.

P-51 is a good example. No WWII-specific AI or flight formations or AI tactics nevermind no terrain. I knew it was basically a glorified tech demo and a superb sim of the airframe itself so I'm not disappointed by that (I have the free PF-51).

But yeah, A-10 content good? LAUGH. I must have way higher standards than you because my eyes were rolling back in my head so hard it was back flips. Few if any were believable. The support was implemented very sketchily. The AI broke plenty. The backstory was nonexistent. The briefings thin.
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/13/14 08:59 AM

All I can and want to say is that I'm glad that I didn't kickstarted this!
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/13/14 09:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Frederf
I must have way higher standards than you because my eyes were rolling back in my head so hard it was back flips.


Let's just go with this part since it's fairly defensible. And did you really do back flips? Sounds exciting!

yep

Georgian Hammer was the worst ever time I ever had with a sim. Check these out - you can see what an awful time I was having with them:

Georgian Hammer 1
Georgian Hammer 2
Georgian Hammer 3
Georgian Hammer 4
Georgian Hammer 5

And I think there is a nice 11 mission "Valley" A-10A AAR(s) I wrote up too somewhere out there.

Anyway - I'm not quite sure what you are looking for in a $20 to $50 sim. For argument's sake - what is the sim that does so much better than ED's offerings?

popcorn

BeachAV8R

* If you'd rather I go point-by-point to rebut most of your last post, I can do that too. Picking the P-51 as the worst of the worst (in your opinion) was a smart move though, since you don't have a leg to stand on with the rest of the ED offerings. The twenty "not you" accounts are dwarfed by the praise that has been heaped on the DCS lineup. So I'd guess it's not a great idea to get all statistical in your argument.


Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/13/14 09:11 AM

Originally Posted By: ricnunes
All I can and want to say is that I'm glad that I didn't kickstarted this!


Kickstarting may have jumped the shark.

BeachAV8R
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/13/14 09:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Pizzicato
I enjoyed it up until the bombing missions, at which point I wanted to murder someone.

Yeah..when someone makes a CCIP mod for the P-51 I'll be all over it..

sicko

I get that people like the P-51 for the realism of the flight modeling and systems and all that. But for me - the modern(ish) fighter/bomber type - I could appreciate a P-51 dressed up as a drone over Nevada for something like the Hawk or F/A-18 to shoot down.

exitstageleft

BeachAV8R
Posted By: HeinKill

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/13/14 09:19 AM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
And just to check, because I had to take it at your word that the P-51 didn't have any mission content (I assume that is the plane you are talking about right?) since I don't have much interest in the P-51, I went ahead and loaded up DCS World and the P-51 module to fact check.

P-51 content:

Under Quick Start - 7 missions
Under Training - 11 missions
Under Single Mission - 3 missions
Under Campaign - 1 "Challenge" campaign (no idea what that is or how many missions it is)

So your complaint that there is no content isn't true. If your complaint is that the content isn't as good as *other* DCS module content, you might be right there.

BeachAV8R


P51 module offline combat content does suck...just training missions and a couple of combat sorties. But that is because it is a fish out of water in the DCS modern warfare world...you simply cant build a campaign of any historical reality. I tried here (great mission builder btw) with a Korean war scenario, 'Mustangs over Samcheok' but it was just not working, too many things 'not right' so I gave it away.

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3695841/1

These 1940s birds need a 1940s world to fly in, its that simple.

H
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/13/14 09:40 AM

Again, to my earlier point: Does FSX have a believable, combat filled world in which their WWII historically accurate aircraft fly? Because their WWII payware aircraft seem to have done quite well. You should broaden your horizons as to what DCS World might be to others that might buck what we have come to expect since we tend to hang around like minded individuals in these forums. I'm not a huge fan of Avsim, but many in their crowd have markedly different goals in what they want in a sim. (Flying a historically accurate PBY around the world using just a map and some NDBs? Not my cup of tea..but they are out there..)

BeachAV8R
Posted By: LukeFF

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/13/14 09:46 AM

Quote:
Does FSX have a believable, combat filled world in which their WWII historically accurate aircraft fly?


But FSX has never claimed to be combat flight simulator (while DCS of course does and is), so I understand those who complain about the lack of proper opponents for the DCS: P-51 module. It's not DFS, after all. smile
Posted By: MigBuster

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/13/14 10:09 AM

Originally Posted By: Pizzicato

I enjoyed it up until the bombing missions, at which point I wanted to murder someone.

Twice.


Yes it makes you want to murder that 23mm - but to be fair it's a challenge campaign not a historically accurate campaign - certainly gives you an appreciation of the issues faced with flying it.
Posted By: MigBuster

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/13/14 10:14 AM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
Originally Posted By: ricnunes
All I can and want to say is that I'm glad that I didn't kickstarted this!


Kickstarting may have jumped the shark.

BeachAV8R


Cmon its been such a success - DCS:F-35 anyone..........anyone..........
Posted By: msalama

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/13/14 12:03 PM

Quote:
It's not DFS, after all.


Judging from all kinds of odds and sods I've seen, it eventually will be (or at least could). Which is why I'm not at all opposed to someone making civvie craft for it - well among other things that make things go boom, that is.

True, the DCS ATC and navaids suck etcetera, and the bugs can bunch yer knickers if you let them. But all good things come to those who wait smile
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/13/14 02:46 PM

Originally Posted By: LukeFF
It's not DFS, after all. smile


At the risk of repeating myself for the third time - some people will pick up and fly DCS titles with no desire to shoot anything, kill anything, or engage in any kind of combat whatsoever. The same type of person that would buy a Harrier or Tornado or the A2A P-51 for FSX will also buy detailed modules for DCS World. You guys are getting hung up on a combination of semantics and your own personal vision of what DCS *should* be rather than what it might become.

You guys will probably go apeshi* when the first Cessna gets released for DCS. Oh..the humanity...

RTFM <-"Look..it says 'combat' right here in the title..so I guess I'm going to have to drive this Skylane into a building..."



wink

BeachAV8R
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/13/14 02:48 PM

Originally Posted By: MigBuster
Cmon its been such a success - DCS:F-35 anyone..........anyone..........


I was initially pretty excited about that - but from the first blush I kept thinking..man, that's a lot of coding that is going to have to go into those avionics. I wouldn't have cared if they had taken best guesses at systems and performance. At this point, with the authenticity of the helicopter flight modeling, I just want to see the advanced flight model in action on something like a Harrier.

BeachAV8R
Posted By: msalama

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/13/14 02:54 PM

Quote:
Because their WWII payware aircraft seem to have done quite well.


Indeed. But as it comes to DCS, folks for some strange reason don't seem to appreciate WW2 AC for what they are. Why is that?

And moreover, has no-one thought of the advantage of learning the ins, outs and intricacies of these mighty machines before the map/AI pack is released and the rookie herd stampedes in?
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/13/14 02:57 PM

Originally Posted By: msalama
Judging from all kinds of odds and sods I've seen, it eventually will be (or at least could). Which is why I'm not at all opposed to someone making civvie craft for it - well among other things that make things go boom, that is.

That would actually be a fair and good requirement - all modules (civil or military) should have to have damage models that at least approximate damage. So if you did get Cessnas and Lears at some point down the road, you could still put them in missions that could result in damage or destruction. I can already see something like the VEAO Tucano taking down a Cessna 337...

Originally Posted By: msalama
True, the DCS ATC and navaids suck etcetera, and the bugs can bunch yer knickers if you let them. But all good things come to those who wait smile

If World continues to expand, it would be nice to see third party developers for everything from weather generators (ie: ActiveSky) to ATC modules and AI traffic generators. World definitely seems to be gathering momentum, albeit slowly and methodically. Nothing wrong with that. ED has been doing this for a LONG time, and those that question their business model need to point to the groups that are doing it better...because I don't see them.

Originally Posted By: HeinKill
These 1940s birds need a 1940s world to fly in, its that simple.

I agree with that if your goal is to fly a WWII combat flight simulator. Anyone that purchased the P-51 module that thought they were getting that didn't read the box. As for DCS WWII..the amount of work that they will have to do building that world is enormous. I can't even grasp how much work will have to be done. Not a project for the feint of heart.

BeachAV8R
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/13/14 03:01 PM

Originally Posted By: msalama
Indeed. But as it comes to DCS, folks for some strange reason don't seem to appreciate WW2 AC for what they are. Why is that?

Well, I can give their answer for them: "If I just wanted to fly around I'd fly FSX." That's it in a nutshell. Simplistic logic, but FSX has scarred their psyche so deeply that it is almost a reflex response.. wink

The flight fidelity, advanced graphics, beautiful environments, and availability of very deep systems modeling makes DCS World ripe for development for everything from C-130s to Cessna trainers. FSX will probably be around forever, but it doesn't mean it has to be the only "go to" simulator for civil aviation simulation needs.

BeachAV8R
Posted By: msalama

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/13/14 03:03 PM

Quote:
I can already see something like the VEAO Tucano taking down a Cessna 337...


Yup. Replace Middle America with Caucasus and cocaine with heroin and we're about there. Just needs a good storyline...
Posted By: msalama

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/13/14 03:10 PM

Quote:
"If I just wanted to fly around I'd fly FSX."


Yeah. TBH, though, DCS still needs lots of work before any of that is believable there. As an optimist however, I'm willing to believe they'll achieve that someday...
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/13/14 03:19 PM

Originally Posted By: msalama
Yup. Replace Middle America with Caucasus and cocaine with heroin and we're about there. Just needs a good storyline...

It would be interesting to see a multiple type aircraft campaign. Fly recon in one airplane. Drop supplies in a helicopter. Interdiction in an attack airplane. Heck, with combined arms, we might see an ATV to drive at some point..that will really spin some heads.. wink Anyway, I think the stories are out there waiting to be written - we just need the theaters.

BeachAV8R
Posted By: msalama

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/13/14 03:24 PM

Quote:
we might see an ATV to drive at some point


Cool idea. Cries out for EDGE however, because driving amidst pyramids and triangles for terrain gets kind of boring after a while wink
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/13/14 03:52 PM

Well, I don't think you can drive one of these in a world with pyramids and triangles. I'm hoping that something really cool is coming down the pipe that will really make DCS World something altogether different.

thumbsup

BeachAV8R
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/13/14 04:09 PM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
Well, I don't think you can drive one of these in a world with pyramids and triangles. I'm hoping that something really cool is coming down the pipe that will really make DCS World something altogether different.

thumbsup

BeachAV8R


Why can't you drive an Abrams in Egypt? I thought we sold them some! I wanna blow the Sphinx's head off with a sabot round!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




The Jedi Master
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/13/14 04:10 PM

Last time I played Combined Arms, I got stuck behind AI Traffic.. and ended up going off road.
Posted By: msalama

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/13/14 05:41 PM

Quote:
the Sphinx's head off with a sabot round!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Now THAT's a spiffy idea! And I'm sure the locals will just loooove you, ahem, to pieces for that too biggrin
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/13/14 06:45 PM

Yeah, I'm sure there's a real danger of their opinion going lower! wink



The Jedi Master
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/13/14 09:20 PM


It's funny…I always thought DCS stood for "Digital Combat Simulator". Apparently now were just supposed to accept the sterile-ness of the "Combat" world…and just think of it as a Civilian Simulator?

We really do just keep lowering our standards for an actual battlefield/war experience. It's a shame really with the tech available that the Combat pilot experience is long gone…just insert this plane module into the same theater thats been used for over a decade.


sigh
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/13/14 11:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Force10
It's funny…I always thought DCS stood for "Digital Combat Simulator". Apparently now were just supposed to accept the sterile-ness of the "Combat" world…and just think of it as a Civilian Simulator?

We really do just keep lowering our standards for an actual battlefield/war experience. It's a shame really with the tech available that the Combat pilot experience is long gone…just insert this plane module into the same theater thats been used for over a decade.
sigh


I don't think I said that. I think I said - DCS is different things to different people. I think the SP campaigns have been pretty good over the years..but I'll admit that I have a creative imagination that can fill in the blanks. I don't have to idle my brain and be a passive participant in the campaigns and force them to paint the whole picture or give me a Jerry Bruckheimer experience. Like I said, I started out simming blowing up single pixel dots in games like Gunship for the Commodore 64. Sometimes I think us older simmers have lower expectations and greater appreciation for where we are compared to where we were.

The Shore

Claiming the series isn't going anywhere is just disingenuous. We have new platforms being added fairly regularly (UH-1, Mi-8) with good prospects on more third party stuff. We have sling loads, and with CA the newer campaigns (or revised ones) allow you to get on your radio and move the ground units according to the situation as you see fit. The editor gets better and more powerful with each iteration (admittedly at the price of sometimes breaking earlier missions). While the world isn't quite as dynamic as we'd all like it, I wouldn't classify it as sterile as long as you can get into the briefings and really get into the sim.

And if you can't rid yourself of sterility by playing MP - you just aren't playing the right missions or with the right people.

Some people want the content served on a silver platter - and I'd submit that you'll never be satisfied with the evolution of DCS World. Because there will always be more to complain about.

Snubbing your nose at the civil side of simulations is just arrogant and close minded. I guess the guys that fly the UH-1H on supply missions in MP and SP missions are just lame pacifists that don't deserve to share the DCS World skies with you natural born killers.

thumbsup

BeachAV8R
Posted By: LukeFF

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/14/14 02:01 AM

Beach, come on: if a plane (specifically, the P-51) comes with bombs, machine guns, and rockets, people actually want to use those weapons against period-correct targets, not in some odd alternate reality where it's flying in the Caucasus in the 21st century. I can't imagine that the group of people who just want to puddle-jump around the same map ad nauseum is pretty small. And that, for me, is the reason I've not picked up the P-51 module: it doesn't have a WWII environment with WWII targets.
Posted By: komemiute

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/14/14 07:56 AM

It's a long hard road to master the P51...
Theater or no theater, if you can't fly the thing it's for squat.

Not defending anyone really, just my 2 cents.
I for one was happy to buy it just the veridicity of the simulation.
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/14/14 08:41 AM

Originally Posted By: LukeFF
Beach, come on: if a plane (specifically, the P-51) comes with bombs, machine guns, and rockets, people actually want to use those weapons against period-correct targets, not in some odd alternate reality where it's flying in the Caucasus in the 21st century. I can't imagine that the group of people who just want to puddle-jump around the same map ad nauseum is pretty small. And that, for me, is the reason I've not picked up the P-51 module: it doesn't have a WWII environment with WWII targets.

You can protest all you want. The fact that military aircraft add-ons for FSX have been so successful proves that you are wrong. Some people DO just want to learn aircraft systems and go fly the airplane. You are blanketing the entire world sim community with your personal preferences and biases.

*shrug* Hey, I can't explain why people watch shows like "America's Got Talent", but they do. And if you are an advertiser, just because you are incredulous that people would watch such a show, doesn't mean you don't take advantage and make your money off them.

I just can't believe that people would be so incensed that a developer might eventually put a Cessna 172 or a Boeing into DCS World through some parallel project goal. How does that hurt you?

BeachAV8R
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/14/14 08:49 AM

Originally Posted By: komemiute
It's a long hard road to master the P51...
Theater or no theater, if you can't fly the thing it's for squat.

You see the same thing with something like the VRS Hornet. (Yeah, TACPACK is available to make it somewhat more capable within the FSX environment, but that still isn't really the same as a full fledged combat flight simulator environment.) Most people that buy something like the VRS Hornet do so because they are interested to learn the ins and outs of a relatively deeply modeled aircraft. Learning the systems like a real pilot would. Flying "cats and traps" with the VRS Hornet is about as much fun as you can have in FSX with nary a bomb being dropped or a missile being fired.

Obviously, something like the A-10C in DCS World offers military enthusiasts a step beyond. Not only do you get to learn the very deep systems and experience a top notch flight model, but you also get to fly against real (simulated) targets and threats in a dangerous environment. That will always win if your goal is to actually blow stuff up.

Did anyone actually buy the P-51 thinking they were getting the successor to IL-2?

BeachAV8R
Posted By: bogusheadbox

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/14/14 09:05 AM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R


I just can't believe that people would be so incensed that a developer might eventually put a Cessna 172 or a Boeing into DCS World through some parallel project goal. How does that hurt you?

BeachAV8R




You know, it makes sense to have such aircraft.

Stats tracking has been in for a while now and with the increasing effort to logistics and supply, it makes sense that people who don't fancy learning BVR or getting blown up every five seconds can fly a well modelled aircraft in a dynamic environment that has a real impact on their teams ability to continue the battle.

I could easily fly a transport aircraft from a relatively safe environment to a forward base. Or when a pilot is downed, that triggers a huey pick up mission at the downed location and with stat tracking maybe you can keep a tally of usable pilots. Alternatively flying a transport aircraft to take over a new airfield and with supporting CAP flights you have to run the gauntlet of getting into that base to take it over,

Plenty of reason for non combat aircraft in this game and (if and when) we see edge and the ability to have a diversity of maps then many things can be a possibility with a host of different era craft or different categories.

The only problem I see with this at the moment is the slow development time. Hopefully set backs as the topic of this post will no dissuade others to join the party. For if DCS can have even 30% of the add-on aircraft that FSX, this game will be amazing and have the ability to cater to a lot more people of different wants and abilities.
Posted By: LukeFF

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/14/14 11:06 AM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
You can protest all you want.


No, I will contest your opinion. Protesting is not what I am doing.

Quote:
The fact that military aircraft add-ons for FSX have been so successful proves that you are wrong.


Oh, my word. Again, FSX never has been marketed as a game that has air combat as a primary feature. It's quite obvious to everyone in the room that people fly FSX to (wait for it) learn how to fly a plane and learn the ins and out of it.

Quote:
Some people DO just want to learn aircraft systems and go fly the airplane. You are blanketing the entire world sim community with your personal preferences and biases.


No, I am not, and I'm not hardly the only one who feels the way I do. Go back and take a look at when DCS:P-51 was announced: plenty of people were asking what in the world they were supposed to do with a 1940s-era aircraft on a modern-era map. Learn procedures and fly helo transport missions? Sure, that's fine, and I have no issues with people who want to do that, in either DCS or FSX. What I've been trying to get at is that's never been the primary marketing strategy of DCS to model planes just so people can fly around and enjoy the scenery. The vast majority of people right now who buy DCS titles do so because the planes featured can blow other stuff up and do so in high-fi detail. Perhaps that will change in the future, but right now DCS has nowhere near the same number of flyable aircraft to be called an alternative to FSX.
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/14/14 11:27 AM

Originally Posted By: LukeFF
No, I will contest your opinion. Protesting is not what I am doing.

Ooo..kay.... Grammatical rivet counting aside...

Originally Posted By: LukeFF
Oh, my word. Again, FSX never has been marketed as a game that has air combat as a primary feature. It's quite obvious to everyone in the room that people fly FSX to (wait for it) learn how to fly a plane and learn the ins and out of it.

OK - So, just trying to get this straight, your stance is that ED should absolutely not let DCS evolve into anything other than a combat flight simulator? Just trying to get what your point is.

Originally Posted By: LukeFF
No, I am not, and I'm not hardly the only one who feels the way I do. Go back and take a look at when DCS:P-51 was announced: plenty of people were asking what in the world they were supposed to do with a 1940s-era aircraft on a modern-era map. Learn procedures and fly helo transport missions? Sure, that's fine, and I have no issues with people who want to do that, in either DCS or FSX. What I've been trying to get at is that's never been the primary marketing strategy of DCS to model planes just so people can fly around and enjoy the scenery. The vast majority of people right now who buy DCS titles do so because the planes featured can blow other stuff up and do so in high-fi detail. Perhaps that will change in the future, but right now DCS has nowhere near the same number of flyable aircraft to be called an alternative to FSX.

Thank you - that actually makes my argument for me. Precisely. What. I've. Been. Saying. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Holy cow.

BeachAV8R
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/14/14 11:39 AM

Originally Posted By: bogusheadbox
Stats tracking has been in for a while now and with the increasing effort to logistics and supply, it makes sense that people who don't fancy learning BVR or getting blown up every five seconds can fly a well modelled aircraft in a dynamic environment that has a real impact on their teams ability to continue the battle.

This a million times over. DCS World could become a sandbox for all types of vehicles..not just combat aviation. Supply trucks, ships, etc.. Think of a DCS World that has features as good as Steel Beasts, Truck Simulator 2, and Ship Simulator, (and maybe even Arma?). Sure, it's a bit of a reach right now, but I think ED has been crystal clear that DCS World is NOT limited to combat aircraft. (I'd dig up the specific reference, but I'm flying a lot of TOH this morning..lol..)

Originally Posted By: bogusheadbox
I could easily fly a transport aircraft from a relatively safe environment to a forward base. Or when a pilot is downed, that triggers a huey pick up mission at the downed location and with stat tracking maybe you can keep a tally of usable pilots. Alternatively flying a transport aircraft to take over a new airfield and with supporting CAP flights you have to run the gauntlet of getting into that base to take it over.

Plenty of reason for non combat aircraft in this game and (if and when) we see edge and the ability to have a diversity of maps then many things can be a possibility with a host of different era craft or different categories.

This guy thinks like me. The reason why (I'm guessing here)..is he's a real pilot like me, and I can tell you unequivocally - I've never been shot at before, but an ILS to minimums or trying to squeak in on an instrument approach before a major thunderstorm hits an airfield, or a tricky circle to land approach at night in the mountains is enough to get your pulse pounding pretty good without a shot ever being fired. It is a non-combat perspective that perhaps only guys that have been there and done that can appreciate. (Which makes me doubly impressed at the guys that do all that, and land on a carrier, and get shot at..now there's a life well lived..)

Originally Posted By: bogusheadbox
The only problem I see with this at the moment is the slow development time. Hopefully set backs as the topic of this post will no dissuade others to join the party. For if DCS can have even 30% of the add-on aircraft that FSX, this game will be amazing and have the ability to cater to a lot more people of different wants and abilities.

I agree. The slow development time means that some of these modules may be overtaken by technological progress. Something like Jet Thunder that seems to have been re-written over and over again because the programming has to be revamped over and over again due to the progress of technology.

That said - ED has pretty much been the first developer to manage to have a fairly robust modular system in place for a relatively long time. It was always my dream to have a base program with add-ons (aircraft, theaters, campaigns) but was always disappointed because the base program never seemed to make it past a couple years. How many of us were hoping for more content for JF-15 and JF-18 and LB2? The core program never got continued support, so obviously the add-ons never made it. ED (and I think Rise of Flight) have managed to crack this nut. I'm hoping that EDGE will put in place something with some longevity that will allow the development of in-house and third party theater DLC that the community is starving for (in a nod to LukeFF - I think we are all tired of the current theater).

Edit - Gotta love Google:

DCS Q&A with Wags: HERE

Q: Does the vision of DCS World include naval combat?

Matt: At some later point, yes. We envision DCS encompassing air, land and sea player control.

God, the panties that will be twisted when the first Land Rover DLC is announced... wink

The horror of what non-combat, non-aviation simming could become (err..OK..that looks pretty fun..): Dirty Pictures

BeachAV8R

PS - Take all of this with a grain of salt - because I actually spent two hours this morning moving container boxes around and was thrilled with it:




Posted By: msalama

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/14/14 11:59 AM

Beachaviator & headbox: you both think like me, and I'm not a RL pilot thumbsup Great comments right there guys!

As for me, what I'd really love to see in DCS is a fully modelled DC-3/C-47. Think about it: hugging the ground trying to avoid detection while flying supplies to the front in your beat-up Dak! Oh my, the goodness of that thumbsup
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/14/14 12:04 PM

Originally Posted By: msalama
As for me, what I'd really love to see in DCS is a fully modelled DC-3/C-47. Think about it: hugging the ground trying to avoid detection while flying supplies to the front in your beat-up Dak! Oh my, the goodness of that thumbsup

Well, the good thing about a DC-3 is that it could span the entirety of combat aviation almost. You could use it on a WW2 map, and you could use it on a modern map (particularly South America).

That airframe is timeless. We still see them occasionally in Charlotte running freight. The sound is unmistakeable, and the pop-pop blue flames shooting out the exhaust stacks at night are beautiful.

I approve. thumbsup

Wonder if DCS will ever feature para-troopers...

And while I'm a fan of the DC-3..as a modern type flyer, I would really love to see something like the A400M put into DCS World. Would probably take a company like Level-D or CaptainSim to make it right though..

SEXY!

BeachAV8R

Is this thread hijack complete yet? Luthier who?
Posted By: SlipBall

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/14/14 01:45 PM

For now I'm going to believe that Ilya was let go because he was fighting for the SDK to be released to us...but I think that he was just over whelmed, and should have realized that just a bare minimum of communication with us, could have made a big difference
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/14/14 02:13 PM

Originally Posted By: SlipBall
For now I'm going to believe that Ilya was let go because he was fighting for the SDK to be released to us...but I think that he was just over whelmed, and should have realized that just a bare minimum of communication with us, could have made a big difference


Yeah - I haven't decided if the best development strategy is to develop in silence and just release when ready, or if it's better to have lots of communication while developing. I've seen good and bad examples of both.

For instance - VEAO is awesome at communicating and sharing their progress with the community, and I think they will have viable products in the near and long term.

ED has historically not been a great communicator (they've been improving), but have a really good output result.

And then you have some developers that do a lot of talking with not a lot of results (the names will be withheld to protect the guilty..lol..) Fighter Ops

I'm not sure what the best formula is.

BeachAV8R
Posted By: komemiute

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/14/14 03:50 PM

Originally Posted By: msalama
Beachaviator & headbox: you both think like me, and I'm not a RL pilot thumbsup Great comments right there guys!

As for me, what I'd really love to see in DCS is a fully modelled DC-3/C-47. Think about it: hugging the ground trying to avoid detection while flying supplies to the front in your beat-up Dak! Oh my, the goodness of that thumbsup


Chalk me up in the insane Transport pilots group then! I've been waiting for a DCS level Huey and C130 for an Eternity!

One is down, one more to go... even though apart from a scam, there has not been any C130 announced.
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/14/14 04:07 PM

Originally Posted By: komemiute
One is down, one more to go... even though apart from a scam, there has not been any C130 announced.

I don't think anyone could object to a C-130 package that included the AC-130. If multi-crew platform operations are coming to DCS World - I think the AC-130 would be a pretty popular one to model. Not hard to imagine a Predator or ground JTAC working an AC-130 on a target area...

Actually - I see that ED did make an AC-130 desktop sim for their military contracts? But that it would not be available as a civilian module..

BeachAV8R
Posted By: komemiute

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/14/14 05:08 PM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R

Actually - I see that ED did make an AC-130 desktop sim for their military contracts? But that it would not be available as a civilian module..

BeachAV8R


Well, but wouldn´t that be exactly as what happened with the A10?
?_?
Posted By: boomerang10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/14/14 05:18 PM

Originally Posted By: msalama
Beachaviator & headbox: you both think like me, and I'm not a RL pilot thumbsup Great comments right there guys!

As for me, what I'd really love to see in DCS is a fully modelled DC-3/C-47. Think about it: hugging the ground trying to avoid detection while flying supplies to the front in your beat-up Dak! Oh my, the goodness of that thumbsup


Ever play Aces High? I loved doing low level C-47 runs and air dropping troops or supplies.
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/14/14 05:23 PM

The A-10C military module is not and will not be available to us. It's quite a bit different from the game that you have.

Same thing with the AC-130DTS. If ED decides to do an AC-130 sim, it's not going to be porting in the DTS, just like it couldn't have done so for the A-10C DTS&#9824;.

Originally Posted By: komemiute
Well, but wouldn´t that be exactly as what happened with the A10?
?_?
Posted By: komemiute

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/14/14 05:27 PM

Ok I explained poorly.
I meant ED took the DTS and made DCS A10C out of it.

Why not the same procedure?
Posted By: Frederf

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/14/14 09:50 PM

Beach, you're twisting the point away from core vs addon debate into this sidetrack about military vs civil. Personally I have no issue with broadening the world to include combat, civil, planes, trains, automobiles, goat farming, or anything else. I would hope that this branching of purpose keeps the individual parts from isolation and encourages meaningful interaction from the parts, but that's something else.

No, my core thesis is that companies have shown a distinct disregard over how the product functions vs selling more addon widgets. And I really suspect profit motive.

Rise of Flight desperately needed an improved beta Career mode and mission-context AI. Instead we get more plane DLC.

ArmA2 desperately needed real-time editing and improvements to the Warfare type architecture. Instead we get more special forces DLC.

Rome II Total War desperately needed better campaign and battle AI, improvements to the game mechanics, etc. Instead we get more faction DLC.

Do you see the pattern? Can you see what's frustrating about this trend?
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/14/14 11:16 PM

Originally Posted By: komemiute
Ok I explained poorly.
I meant ED took the DTS and made DCS A10C out of it.


No, DCS A-10C may have some common pieces of architecture and avionics code underpinning, but they were both made separately. There was no 'turn this into that'.
Posted By: komemiute

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/14/14 11:59 PM

Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
Originally Posted By: komemiute
Ok I explained poorly.
I meant ED took the DTS and made DCS A10C out of it.


No, DCS A-10C may have some common pieces of architecture and avionics code underpinning, but they were both made separately. There was no 'turn this into that'.


You said it yourself! *facepalm*

How should I phrase it?
Lemme see...

Use the knowledge they amassed during the making of the DTS to make a valid module for DCS.
Posted By: komemiute

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/15/14 12:03 AM

Originally Posted By: Frederf

Rise of Flight desperately needed an improved beta Career mode and mission-context AI. Instead we get more plane DLC.


This specific point is not correct. 777 gave the community the planes they wanted...
1/2 strutter, Hanriot, Dh2... were requested loudly.

Now, the campaign could see improvement, that's a given... But don't narrow it down to that.

I could also add that companies run on money, but I'm afraid it's moot as of now...
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/15/14 12:43 AM

Originally Posted By: Frederf
Beach, you're twisting the point away from core vs addon debate into this sidetrack about military vs civil.

Um, no. You were the one that said there was a pattern of "Sell shiny plane. No mission content. No refund. Repeat." Those are your words and they are untrue. Or do I need to go line by line down the content for each module again? You made a statement that was patently wrong and now your trying to make the issue about something other than your statement. Sure, point to the P-51 all day long as the least of the content worthy modules, but spare me the righteous indignation about the quality on the whole of ED and their partner's modules.

Originally Posted By: Frederf
No, my core thesis is that companies have shown a distinct disregard over how the product functions vs selling more addon widgets. And I really suspect profit motive.

Another expert on simulation business models with an opinion. What is a fact is that ED has been in business for a long time, they put out quality products, and their development continues and looks to continue for the foreseeable future. Again, I don't see what is in dispute about that. If they put out crap, they wouldn't get return business and would go the way of all those that litter the landscape that is the simulation industry.

Originally Posted By: Frederf
Rise of Flight desperately needed an improved beta Career mode and mission-context AI. Instead we get more plane DLC.

And a successful business model that allows for improvements to the core engine.

Originally Posted By: Frederf
ArmA2 desperately needed real-time editing and improvements to the Warfare type architecture. Instead we get more special forces DLC.

And a successful business model that allow for improvements to the core engine (and follow up products).

Originally Posted By: Frederf
Rome II Total War desperately needed better campaign and battle AI, improvements to the game mechanics, etc. Instead we get more faction DLC.

Can't comment about Rome II TW - don't know anything about it. But based on your track record, I'll just assume your wrong about that too.. wink

Originally Posted By: Freder
Do you see the pattern? Can you see what's frustrating about this trend?

I do. And it is. LOL..

BeachAV8R
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/15/14 12:46 AM

Originally Posted By: komemiute
Use the knowledge they amassed during the making of the DTS to make a valid module for DCS.

I was under the impression that the AC-130 desktop trainer thing focused on things like the sensors and stuff..but maybe didn't have all the bells and whistles in the cockpit and stuff like that. Just speculating, but maybe placeholder avionics or a very basic FM or something.. More of a systems trainer perhaps for the sensors and weapons perhaps. (I'm just guessing).

BeachAV8R
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/15/14 03:35 AM

No, you're misunderstanding. The DCS A-10C project was not permitted to use any part of DTS A-10C, insofar as A-10C functionality is concerned.

Some of the underpinning software is the same (eg. the software that drives how MPCDs act) and some of the knowledge is the same as well, but far from all or most of it.

Now, it has been a long time since I was told what the DTS was/had, and it may have advanced since then, but back then when DCS A-10C came out, the DTS had a 2D cockpit and used the SFM. It was a cockpit trainer,

The funtionality represented in DCS A-10C is also far, far behind what the DTS represents, and by comparison it is also incomplete or flat out fake - for example, the indications you see from your CMDS jammer are made up. The datalink looks realistic, but it's also made up. Yes, it probably represents a bunch of the real life functionality if you think about it, but it's also probably missing a huge lot of it, some of it that we know about and some of it that we do not. For example: With the SADL you can receive SAM geolocation from wind weasels, and with Link-16-SADL gateway you can see the entire battlefield. Friendly planes, enemy planes, SAMs, ships, everything. That's without going into SADL/Link-16 operational specifics.

The Pod OFP may be completely different, and even what you have in-game may be an incomplete version of the old pod OFP. We just wouldn't know.

So again, they were developed separately. You're not allowed to just take military sim stuff and 'tweak it' into a civilian sim. This is required for security measures and other purposes. Also what went into DCS A-10C had to be vetted by the USANG despite separate development, IIRC.

And as for the AC-130, like beach said, they just made a simulation of the gunnery station AFAIK. That's it.


Originally Posted By: komemiute
You said it yourself! *facepalm*

How should I phrase it?
Lemme see...

Use the knowledge they amassed during the making of the DTS to make a valid module for DCS.
Posted By: cichlidfan

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/15/14 03:44 AM

Originally Posted By: GrayGhost


And as for the AC-130, like beach said, they just made a simulation of the gunnery station AFAIK. That's it.


I'd buy that!!
Posted By: Frederf

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/15/14 08:41 AM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
Originally Posted By: Frederf
Beach, you're twisting the point away from core vs addon debate into this sidetrack about military vs civil.

Um, no. You were the one that said there was a pattern of "Sell shiny plane. No mission content. No refund. Repeat." Those are your words and they are untrue. Or do I need to go line by line down the content for each module again? You made a statement that was patently wrong and now your trying to make the issue about something other than your statement. Sure, point to the P-51 all day long as the least of the content worthy modules, but spare me the righteous indignation about the quality on the whole of ED and their partner's modules.

Originally Posted By: Frederf
No, my core thesis is that companies have shown a distinct disregard over how the product functions vs selling more addon widgets. And I really suspect profit motive.

Another expert on simulation business models with an opinion. What is a fact is that ED has been in business for a long time, they put out quality products, and their development continues and looks to continue for the foreseeable future. Again, I don't see what is in dispute about that. If they put out crap, they wouldn't get return business and would go the way of all those that litter the landscape that is the simulation industry.

Originally Posted By: Frederf
Rise of Flight desperately needed an improved beta Career mode and mission-context AI. Instead we get more plane DLC.

And a successful business model that allows for improvements to the core engine.

Originally Posted By: Frederf
ArmA2 desperately needed real-time editing and improvements to the Warfare type architecture. Instead we get more special forces DLC.

And a successful business model that allow for improvements to the core engine (and follow up products).

Originally Posted By: Frederf
Rome II Total War desperately needed better campaign and battle AI, improvements to the game mechanics, etc. Instead we get more faction DLC.

Can't comment about Rome II TW - don't know anything about it. But based on your track record, I'll just assume your wrong about that too.. wink

Originally Posted By: Freder
Do you see the pattern? Can you see what's frustrating about this trend?

I do. And it is. LOL..

BeachAV8R


My point is obvious and plain and does not deserve this social posturing and henpecking you display. Stop with the "LOL"s and the winky faces to some imaginary audience you imagine cheering for you. This isn't Jerry Springer. Please drop the song and dance sophistry approach long enough to engage a topic genuinely.

Consider the possibility that video game companies are directing their efforts down channels that are designed to separate customers from their cash as a priority over making their core gameplay work. Of course a case could made that free enterprise is allowed to prioritize the superficial fast cash sale over more profound improvement. I just find it unpalatable. New toys are enjoyable and worthwhile but only in balance to the health of the underlying playground. At least admit that theoretically it's possible for a product to be broken at its core and paid expansions to be released for it that do not address the flaws of the core. What if Microsoft Train Simulator was literally unplayable, with a CTD on run for 100% of the customer base; wouldn't new boxcar DLC for that product be effectively money for nothing? I want to establish this concept in the theoretical.

Let me point out logical fallacies in your response:
1. I have an opinion -- does that mean it's wrong or right? How about my opinion is as valid as my information and reasoning.
2. ED has been doing business for a long -- Longevity means what exactly? ENRON was around a long time.
3. ED makes quality products -- Binary thinking. ED makes products somewhere along the continuum between worthless and perfect.

I'll skip ED as it seems to hold a religious significance to you. Take ROF. ROF introduced a beta Career mode early in the development that I really liked. It provided context and story to individual sorties. ROF also sold DLC airplanes which provided variety of airframe on the base environment. You state that this allows "for improvements to the core engine (and follow up products)." I state that this is ignoring reality. The reality is that ROF pumped out tons of paid DLC, did nothing to further development on the Career mode, and then ceased work on ROF to produce a new product. All the implied promises of "give us your money now and we'll totally improve the game later" as a rule fall flat. This scheme were we support a company with DLC purchases and they turn around and use that money to deepen other parts of the game is a demonstrable failure. It doesn't happen. All shelling out money for toys does is inform marketing that that's what we'll pay for.

Rome II TW has 11 DLC packs for sale currently. ELEVEN. They are all extra factions or bonus buildings or similar. None address some of the glaring errors in core gameplay like AI armies not figuring out how to attack city walls and standing still for 60 minutes or putting their soldiers on ships and parking them in a corner of the ocean for all eternity. Stuff that doesn't prevent the game from proceeding (often making it easier for the player) but pretty awful for game dynamics and satisfaction.

ArmA 2 I didn't really mean. I was trying to go for more examples.

The entire origin of my original comment stems from several other people (those are people who are not me) who have expressed statement or query along the lines that "I learned how to fly X. I don't feel like there's anything to do now." Collecting all these quotes and included my own experience I developed an opinion that DCS might be balanced more toward selling new aircraft content than ensuring the longevity of satisfaction with same. Yes, I admit the way I expressed it was "in extremus." It was blunt and I felt it had to be counter the overwhelming roar of praise. ED deserves praise but it cannot only be praise as it ignores the faults that it does have.

Why? Because it makes me feel good to give people perspective. You ask jokingly if people really expected P-51 to be a sequel to IL-2. The frightening answer is "yes." Customers are, en mass, ill-informed and impulsive. As DCS becomes more popular it encounters more mainstream gamers where a game isn't complete akin to an Xbox release is a shock. The idea that you might have to search for or even create your own mission content in an editor is more or less normal for flight sim regulars like you and me. It is far from normal for the new DCS audience. Reading a pdf manual? No interactive tutorials? A multiplayer mode that requires thought? Unthinkable. Me and you, we can see Ka-50 as a simple series campaign, A-10C with simple branching, and P-51 of course that has no real campaign it's a tech demo. That subtlety and understand is not present in the common customer of today.

By its very nature flight sims take more effort on the part of the user to busy oneself. You go play DOTA or Watchdogs or any normal game and there's no absence of content. It's not hard to get to. DCS, A3, FSX, etc. are sims. They take more drive and self-direction to find enjoyment. DCS is a victim of its own popularity in this regard. What do you say to the common gamer who has played all the single player content and is asking you what to do?
Posted By: bogusheadbox

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/15/14 09:13 AM

Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
No, you're misunderstanding. The DCS A-10C project was not permitted to use any part of DTS A-10C, insofar as A-10C functionality is concerned.

Some of the underpinning software is the same (eg. the software that drives how MPCDs act) and some of the knowledge is the same as well, but far from all or most of it.

Now, it has been a long time since I was told what the DTS was/had, and it may have advanced since then, but back then when DCS A-10C came out, the DTS had a 2D cockpit and used the SFM. It was a cockpit trainer,

The funtionality represented in DCS A-10C is also far, far behind what the DTS represents, and by comparison it is also incomplete or flat out fake - for example, the indications you see from your CMDS jammer are made up. The datalink looks realistic, but it's also made up. Yes, it probably represents a bunch of the real life functionality if you think about it, but it's also probably missing a huge lot of it, some of it that we know about and some of it that we do not. For example: With the SADL you can receive SAM geolocation from wind weasels, and with Link-16-SADL gateway you can see the entire battlefield. Friendly planes, enemy planes, SAMs, ships, everything. That's without going into SADL/Link-16 operational specifics.

The Pod OFP may be completely different, and even what you have in-game may be an incomplete version of the old pod OFP. We just wouldn't know.

So again, they were developed separately. You're not allowed to just take military sim stuff and 'tweak it' into a civilian sim. This is required for security measures and other purposes. Also what went into DCS A-10C had to be vetted by the USANG despite separate development, IIRC.

And as for the AC-130, like beach said, they just made a simulation of the gunnery station AFAIK. That's it.



You know, I read all of that and I think I could not understand most of it.

Say whaaaaat!
Posted By: Sim

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/15/14 09:18 AM

Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
No, you're misunderstanding. The DCS A-10C project was not permitted to use any part of DTS A-10C, insofar as A-10C functionality is concerned.

Some of the underpinning software is the same (eg. the software that drives how MPCDs act) and some of the knowledge is the same as well, but far from all or most of it.

Now, it has been a long time since I was told what the DTS was/had, and it may have advanced since then, but back then when DCS A-10C came out, the DTS had a 2D cockpit and used the SFM. It was a cockpit trainer,

The funtionality represented in DCS A-10C is also far, far behind what the DTS represents, and by comparison it is also incomplete or flat out fake - for example, the indications you see from your CMDS jammer are made up. The datalink looks realistic, but it's also made up. Yes, it probably represents a bunch of the real life functionality if you think about it, but it's also probably missing a huge lot of it, some of it that we know about and some of it that we do not. For example: With the SADL you can receive SAM geolocation from wind weasels, and with Link-16-SADL gateway you can see the entire battlefield. Friendly planes, enemy planes, SAMs, ships, everything. That's without going into SADL/Link-16 operational specifics.

The Pod OFP may be completely different, and even what you have in-game may be an incomplete version of the old pod OFP. We just wouldn't know.

So again, they were developed separately. You're not allowed to just take military sim stuff and 'tweak it' into a civilian sim. This is required for security measures and other purposes. Also what went into DCS A-10C had to be vetted by the USANG despite separate development, IIRC.

And as for the AC-130, like beach said, they just made a simulation of the gunnery station AFAIK. That's it.


Originally Posted By: komemiute
You said it yourself! *facepalm*

How should I phrase it?
Lemme see...

Use the knowledge they amassed during the making of the DTS to make a valid module for DCS.

As someone that used DTS right when DCS A-10C came out, I can compare them easily. And if I had to choose one, it will be hands down DCS module. That's all I'll say about this.
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/15/14 01:39 PM

Use one as a flight sim, or use one for learning how to operate the cockpit?

Originally Posted By: Sim
As someone that used DTS right when DCS A-10C came out, I can compare them easily. And if I had to choose one, it will be hands down DCS module. That's all I'll say about this.
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/15/14 06:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Frederf
My point is obvious and plain and does not deserve this social posturing and henpecking you display. Stop with the "LOL"s and the winky faces to some imaginary audience you imagine cheering for you. This isn't Jerry Springer. Please drop the song and dance sophistry approach long enough to engage a topic genuinely.

OK - listen, if YOU had wanted to approach the topic "genuinely" you wouldn't have started with:

"Welcome to the DCS business module. Sell shiny plane. No mission content. No refund. Repeat."

It's a statement that requires no qualification. No. Mission. Content. Those are your words. And they are completely wrong.

Quote:
Consider the possibility that video game companies are directing their efforts down channels that are designed to separate customers from their cash as a priority over making their core gameplay work. Of course a case could made that free enterprise is allowed to prioritize the superficial fast cash sale over more profound improvement. I just find it unpalatable.

Because making a super duper product worked out so well for MicroProse, Razorworks, and Digital Image Design right? You are espousing a business model that will lead to NO products when they go out of business. Not withstanding the fact that I don't even agree with the whole premise that ED is prioritizing cash over quality. What a ridiculous statement. Have you even played any of their sims and modules? Do even realize how in-depth they are? How awesome the mission generator is? How relatively bug free most of these complex systems are? Are there bugs that remain in the Ka-50 and the other legacy modules to this day - sure..but they don't make the sim unplayable. Your expectations are in-line with a multi-million dollar simulator (which, by the way, also has bugs), not a $50 consumer entertainment sim.


Quote:
New toys are enjoyable and worthwhile but only in balance to the health of the underlying playground. At least admit that theoretically it's possible for a product to be broken at its core and paid expansions to be released for it that do not address the flaws of the core. What if Microsoft Train Simulator was literally unplayable, with a CTD on run for 100% of the customer base; wouldn't new boxcar DLC for that product be effectively money for nothing? I want to establish this concept in the theoretical.

What ED product is broken at it's core and is totally unplayable? This should be good.

Quote:
Let me point out logical fallacies in your response:
1. I have an opinion -- does that mean it's wrong or right? How about my opinion is as valid as my information and reasoning.

Your opinion started with a false statement: "No content". False. Completely false, and sets the foundation of the rest of your arguments. Hey, those weren't my words, they were yours, they were wrong, and you don't seem to want to take ownership of them. :shrug:

Quote:
2. ED has been doing business for a long -- Longevity means what exactly? ENRON was around a long time.

Longevity in isolation doesn't mean anything - longevity coupled with quality does. ED has a long track record of quality. I'll be the first to be critical of them when they turn out something unflyable and so bug riddled that it becomes a laughing stock.

Quote:
3. ED makes quality products -- Binary thinking. ED makes products somewhere along the continuum between worthless and perfect.

No - perhaps approaching worthless to you. What is the product that is most worthless to you in the lineup? The P-51? Combined Arms? Both have their fans that enjoy them.

Quote:
I'll skip ED as it seems to hold a religious significance to you.

Yep, I'm a fan. And I'm as much a fan as you aren't. :shrug: Nothing wrong with that.

Quote:
Take ROF. ROF introduced a beta Career mode early in the development that I really liked. It provided context and story to individual sorties. ROF also sold DLC airplanes which provided variety of airframe on the base environment. You state that this allows "for improvements to the core engine (and follow up products)." I state that this is ignoring reality. The reality is that ROF pumped out tons of paid DLC, did nothing to further development on the Career mode, and then ceased work on ROF to produce a new product. All the implied promises of "give us your money now and we'll totally improve the game later" as a rule fall flat. This scheme were we support a company with DLC purchases and they turn around and use that money to deepen other parts of the game is a demonstrable failure. It doesn't happen. All shelling out money for toys does is inform marketing that that's what we'll pay for.

You are might be a horrible businessman when it comes to simulation software. And in the end, despite all the dreamy thoughts of a sim world panacea, that's what these companies are: businesses that have to make money. I can appreciate the ones that do it, stay in business, and provide quality content. Again, your definition of quality is obviously something way beyond mine because I thought ROF did a lot of things very well and continues to be a great game.

Quote:
The entire origin of my original comment stems from several other people (those are people who are not me) who have expressed statement or query along the lines that "I learned how to fly X. I don't feel like there's anything to do now." Collecting all these quotes and included my own experience I developed an opinion that DCS might be balanced more toward selling new aircraft content than ensuring the longevity of satisfaction with same. Yes, I admit the way I expressed it was "in extremus." It was blunt and I felt it had to be counter the overwhelming roar of praise. ED deserves praise but it cannot only be praise as it ignores the faults that it does have.

Sure, but your collection of quotes are from online forums where bugs and problems tend to be disproportionately represented. People rarely post to say what a fantastic time they had, and often post to gripe about a problem they ran into. It's just the way people are. And listen, I'm not a huge fan of the P-51, or any of the WW2 third party DLC coming down the pipe simply because it isn't my thing. But when I encounter something like a P-51 or Bf-109 or whatever, I just switch to my FSX mentality and say "well, this airplane will be fun to learn and fly regardless of whether I use it as it was intended". Again, the core of my argument continues to be that DCS, even though it has "combat" in the title, doesn't have to necessarily only appeal to combat flight enthusiasts.

Quote:
Why? Because it makes me feel good to give people perspective.

"No mission content" - is perspective? It's misinformation, plain and simple. Had you made a more balanced and accurate statement, we wouldn't be having this back and forth.

Quote:
You ask jokingly if people really expected P-51 to be a sequel to IL-2. The frightening answer is "yes." Customers are, en mass, ill-informed and impulsive.

I honestly don't think we can do anything about that.

Quote:
As DCS becomes more popular it encounters more mainstream gamers where a game isn't complete akin to an Xbox release is a shock. The idea that you might have to search for or even create your own mission content in an editor is more or less normal for flight sim regulars like you and me. It is far from normal for the new DCS audience.

To be honest, I'm just happy that DCS might be getting penetration into the dumb and dumber segment of the population because it DOES mean more revenue. As long as they keep their modules scalable from game to sim, I'm fine with that. Although it does suck to be on a MP server with Air Quake people.

Quote:
Reading a pdf manual? No interactive tutorials? A multiplayer mode that requires thought? Unthinkable. Me and you, we can see Ka-50 as a simple series campaign, A-10C with simple branching, and P-51 of course that has no real campaign it's a tech demo. That subtlety and understand is not present in the common customer of today.

I honestly don't know the ratio of sales for EDs products between casual, hardcore, and gamer type customers. It would be an interesting statistic to know. If 90% of EDs sales are to hardcore simmers (a statistic I'm making up), then that is a clear indication of the direction that product development should go. If it's like 50/50 (or 33/33/33), that's tough..and requires a balance of development resources toward the potential customer. I haven't decided that the ratio of opinions on these forums (SimHQ and EDs) are representative of the sales numbers or not. By and large though, I think ED have been very successful at putting out quality products that at least the forum-community enjoys.

Quote:
By its very nature flight sims take more effort on the part of the user to busy oneself. You go play DOTA or Watchdogs or any normal game and there's no absence of content. It's not hard to get to. DCS, A3, FSX, etc. are sims. They take more drive and self-direction to find enjoyment. DCS is a victim of its own popularity in this regard. What do you say to the common gamer who has played all the single player content and is asking you what to do?

I'd actually find it difficult to believe a gamer would have played all the single player content. Heck, I'd have difficulty believing that a hard core DCS fan has played all the single player content. Unless you are talking about one specific module. For those that have the range of products, the enormous amount of content (stock campaigns and missions plus user created ones) is enormous. I have campaigns that I haven't even finished and single player missions I've never even opened. And there are probably 100+ user created missions that I've seen and said "wow...that looks like a pretty good brief"..but haven't had time to play.

I don't know. It is just my opinion that ED have done a pretty good job. Where could they do better? Heck, I'd pay them money to take a year off from ALL aircraft development to focus on churning out an EECH or Falcon type dynamic campaign. I would pay for a dynamic campaign DLC. That might ruffle your feathers (why should I have to *pay* for something that used to be part of game development back in the day??), but you and I both know that the enormous resources to make a sim everything we want it to be is the same reason that so many of those past developers got sunk. Like it or not, it takes money to provide content. People will vote with their wallets. People like me who like to support ED because of the products we like, will sometimes even vote with their wallet for modules we don't even really want. That isn't being a bad customer, it's just an acknowledgement that other people might actually like that kind of content (WWII) and I know eventually the product development cycle will get around to my type of content (F/A-18C, AH-64, etc..)..

So I'm curious - what would your roadmap for ED be then? Fix *all* of the remaining bugs in their legacy products? Upgrade the core module? What is it exactly that you think ED should be doing that they aren't doing? I'm genuinely curious why you think their business model is screwed up. Or do you just think it's unethical or something?

BeachAV8R
Posted By: Sim

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/15/14 07:07 PM

Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
Use one as a flight sim, or use one for learning how to operate the cockpit?

Originally Posted By: Sim
As someone that used DTS right when DCS A-10C came out, I can compare them easily. And if I had to choose one, it will be hands down DCS module. That's all I'll say about this.


So the cockpit portion works....everything else doesn't or simplified to a silly level.
Posted By: Frederf

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/15/14 10:26 PM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
OK - listen, if YOU had wanted to approach the topic "genuinely" you wouldn't have started with: "Welcome to the DCS business module. Sell shiny plane. No mission content. No refund. Repeat."


Releasing plane Y produces no mission content to previously-purchased plane X. That was the whole point of the statement that "buyz morez planez" isn't the panacea for lack of content. Releasing another plane doesn't help people who didn't feel satisfied with the last product. Yes, the modules are release with some content for that module. I and others seem to find the content that is released with modules doesn't have sufficient longevity. It's not the universal truth, but an opinion of some fraction of the user base.

And you're right. I could address the topic more genuinely, but I tried that years ago and was met with a parade of cultish white knights that soured me on the process. If I'm interjecting the monthly barb it's because civil discourse gave up on me first. A better person would be less snippy.

Quote:
Because making a super duper product worked out so well for MicroProse, Razorworks, and Digital Image Design right? You are espousing a business model that will lead to NO products when they go out of business.


So you're saying that producing a product where enjoyability takes a backseat to riding the impulse DLC buy wave is required for business success? I don't have to nor will I be happy with that. I'm not a share holder and I'm guessing neither are you. The companies that produced enjoyable products and then went out of business are more a success to me than the reverse. Even if that's a harsh reality that the sim must go on this way, isn't it healthy to acknowledge that openly? Why can't I express "man I with they improved product A instead of releasing DLC B" without an avalanche of backlash?

Quote:
What ED product is broken at it's core and is totally unplayable? This should be good.

The ATC is bad. The JTAC was not coded for the MP environment. None of the INS drift features in the aircraft work. You can't save mid mission. You can't save MP missions. You can't interact with flights outside your 4. You can't have multi-MP_client flights. You can't right click in the editor. You can't use the mission planner in MP. AI see through trees.

Quote:
Your opinion started with a false statement: "No content". False. Completely false, and sets the foundation of the rest of your arguments. Hey, those weren't my words, they were yours, they were wrong, and you don't seem to want to take ownership of them. :shrug:


You're a smart guy. Read between the lines. When a little kid says "there's no food in the house" it's not helpful to find a packet of saltines in the corner of the cupboard. When I say "no content" I mean "no or little content that satisfies my wants." I already admitted it was hyperbole and really done so for brevity. If you want to claim that as a technical victory, you have my blessing.

Quote:
Longevity in isolation doesn't mean anything - longevity coupled with quality does. ED has a long track record of quality. I'll be the first to be critical of them when they turn out something unflyable and so bug riddled that it becomes a laughing stock.


There's this binary thinking again. Does everything have to be pigeon holed into 1 or 0 values? ED produces products of a rich matrix of quality. Aircraft systems? Lovely. Graphics? Dated but quite good. Bugs? Not bad considering the complexity of the whole. Authenticity of mission content? Ehh, not that good.

You can be impressed with ED 'til the cows come home. I'm a moderate and I don't fancy participating in this fanaticism. I would similarly not stand for saying that DCS is terrible. It's not nor is it perfect. I'm curious if you can express any dissatisfaction or want about DCS in an objective way. Please pick something that you don't like or see as an area of improvement in DCS. The cloud modeling or MP community or the menu interface or just anything. Show me a real human being and not a talking head. I'm interested to find if we have any common ground of this nature.

Quote:
3. ED makes quality products -- Binary thinking. ED makes products somewhere along the continuum between worthless and perfect.

No - perhaps approaching worthless to you. What is the product that is most worthless to you in the lineup? The P-51? Combined Arms? Both have their fans that enjoy them.

Quote:
I'll skip ED as it seems to hold a religious significance to you.

Yep, I'm a fan. And I'm as much a fan as you aren't. :shrug: Nothing wrong with that.

Quote:
You are might be a horrible businessman when it comes to simulation software.

Correct, I'm not a businessman. I'm a gamer. The interplay of challenge and reward and mystery and direction are fascinating to me. Is the game better with a minimap or without? Is it better to auto-regenerate health or not? These are my drives. A good piece of software is good completely separate from the price tag or the business revenue. I recognize that there is a business behind the product but I don't have to cheer it on if it compromises the quality of it.

Quote:
Sure, but your collection of quotes are from online forums where bugs and problems tend to be disproportionately represented. People rarely post to say what a fantastic time they had, and often post to gripe about a problem they ran into.... But when I encounter something like a P-51 or Bf-109 or whatever, I just switch to my FSX mentality and say "well, this airplane will be fun to learn and fly regardless of whether I use it as it was intended".


These quotes I have found weren't made in anger, but confusion. Sure, some people rant, but that too comes from ignorance some times. The general game audience has been programmed to associate a vehicle on the box art with a certain expectation of how the game is made. Put a T-72 on the box and people will expect a tank combat game and will be surprised if it's about maintaining and washing them.

It took a conscious effort to adopt the "this is about just the airplane, don't expect much more" with the P-51. I also respond to "Should I buy X" questions with the "If you want to learn how to fly X, yes. If your focus lies on using X in really cool scenarios, no." I'm trying to spread that mentality and I have to be selective. Ka-50 for example has the fun of learning and quite a bit of fun in the use so I don't have to quality any recommendation. UH-1 on the other hand is "you better enjoy the heck out of flying this because the use side isn't too developed." You know, people want to blow stuff up.

Quote:
"No mission content" - is perspective? It's misinformation, plain and simple. Had you made a more balanced and accurate statement, we wouldn't be having this back and forth.


I refuse. I am free to balance the fanatical praise for a product with something proportionally on the other side of the fence. I am just one voice in the crowd. My statement is to give pause to the potential buyer and make them curious "no content? what does that mean? I better find out really what I'm getting." It's better people be pleasantly surprised with a handful of SP missions than disappointed with the same.

Quote:
You ask jokingly if people really expected P-51 to be a sequel to IL-2. The frightening answer is "yes." Customers are, en mass, ill-informed and impulsive.
I honestly don't think we can do anything about that.

I think we can. It's called being realistic in our conversation. Not dour (I'm an example this time) nor over the moon.

Quote:
To be honest, I'm just happy that DCS might be getting penetration into the dumb and dumber segment of the population because it DOES mean more revenue. As long as they keep their modules scalable from game to sim, I'm fine with that. Although it does suck to be on a MP server with Air Quake people.


Absolutely. I think flight sims are keen and more people would enjoy them if exposed. I'm also optimistic what exposing a wider audience will do to the pressures on ease-of-use design. Fight simmers have long tolerated some pretty outrageous designs and requirements. Hunting for specific patch files, not being able to adjust controls while in game, typing custom IPs to join MP... all examples of things DCS has done and kudos for that. I look forward to the day the lay person can get on DCS, join an MP session, and participate in an organized team-based authentic air war scenario any day of the week. MP design is a whole new can of worms that troubles even the most dedicated game developers.

Quote:
I honestly don't know the ratio of sales for EDs products between casual, hardcore, and gamer type customers. It would be an interesting statistic to know. If 90% of EDs sales are to hardcore simmers (a statistic I'm making up), then that is a clear indication of the direction that product development should go. If it's like 50/50 (or 33/33/33), that's tough..and requires a balance of development resources toward the potential customer. I haven't decided that the ratio of opinions on these forums (SimHQ and EDs) are representative of the sales numbers or not. By and large though, I think ED have been very successful at putting out quality products that at least the forum-community enjoys.

I guess forum goers are not representative. It's gotta skew the mean a little bit at least. If I had to qualify DCS as a success or failure, it would be a success. The more I care about a product and the more I see potential the more vocal and opinionated I get. If I thought DCS was bad or wasn't going anywhere I'd close the window and move on. When I like something can see how much fun I could be having if just X Y and Z were better, that's when I get animated.

Quote:
I'd actually find it difficult to believe a gamer would have played all the single player content. Heck, I'd have difficulty believing that a hard core DCS fan has played all the single player content. Unless you are talking about one specific module. ... Heck, I'd pay them money to take a year off from ALL aircraft development to focus on churning out an EECH or Falcon type dynamic campaign. ... I know eventually the product development cycle will get around to my type of content (F/A-18C, AH-64, etc..)..

So I'm curious - what would your roadmap for ED be then? Fix *all* of the remaining bugs in their legacy products? Upgrade the core module? What is it exactly that you think ED should be doing that they aren't doing? I'm genuinely curious why you think their business model is screwed up. Or do you just think it's unethical or something?


I meant one module. I tried to enjoy the SP missions, but the more I became disillusioned. There's a lot of "Really?!" moments in them. I can't help but think how I would have done it differently if I designed it or wrote the briefings. Any mission that starts engines on at the end of the runway already upsets me. The lack of a data cartridge system causes me to grumble as I spend the minutes re-entering info into the jet after a mission restart. Nevermind several of the missions will fail due to timing if you do things "the right way." 1 A-10 vs 37 targets so you have to either carry WWIII loadouts and/or trek back to base umpteen times is irritating. I also don't like being forced to be Sgt. Hero, War Commander. Having to manage the whole air-ground war via F-keys feels cheesy and needlessly player-centric. How can I enjoy the puppet show if I also have to be pulling the puppet strings?

I would too pay for dynamic campaign or something like it. I cheer ED on when they make any advances in the generation or warehouse system front.

For "what to work on" I suggest sitting down and watching a user playing their 1st and 100th mission and really scrutinizing their interactions and troubles. From short memory I would work on the following:
1. Save state for SP
2. Add the concept of a separate step and takeoff time.
3. Run the briefing text pass a military SME
4. ATC needs much much work
5. Some kind of airborne combat commander interface to interact with
6. A mission planner that doesn't feel like a read-only mission editor
Posted By: Pizzicato

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/15/14 11:06 PM

There's going to come a time when you two are on your respective deathbeds, looking back at how you spent your limited span of days on this planet, when the hours you've devoted to arguing semantics in this thread will suddenly come back to mind... wink

Seriously, guys, I totally respect your passion for the product and the strength of your respective opinions, but you surely MUST have something better to do with your time.
Posted By: komemiute

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/15/14 11:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Pizzicato
There's going to come a time when you two are on your respective deathbeds, looking back at how you spent your limited span of days on this planet, when the hours you've devoted to arguing semantics in this thread will suddenly come back to mind... wink

Seriously, guys, I totally respect your passion for the product and the strength of your respective opinions, but you surely MUST have something better to do with your time.
rofl
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 12:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Pizzicato
There's going to come a time when you two are on your respective deathbeds, looking back at how you spent your limited span of days on this planet, when the hours you've devoted to arguing semantics in this thread will suddenly come back to mind... wink

Seriously, guys, I totally respect your passion for the product and the strength of your respective opinions, but you surely MUST have something better to do with your time.

LOL..I managed to participate in this thread and STILL had time to play with my kid today, swim in the pool, and post a couple AARs...





It was Father's Day - I had the day to burn.. wink

Frederf - The only reason we are even having this exchange of ideas is because of that first statement you made that I took exception to. I believe in "exceptional praise" for ED's business model because I've gotten exceptional value from my purchases from them. I like to think my more mainstream posts in the forums represent about the ratio of likes to dislikes about the sim, and I think that is the way it should be. If you are 80% happy with a product..then yes, I have a problem with posting 90% of the time about the problems. I remember once I posted how I thought the campaigns for one of the products (might have been FC2?) could have used more fleshing out..and a bit more back story. I think I received a PM from Wags a week later asking specifically what kinds of things I was talking about. And to a large degree, I think they've done their best with providing entertaining content while not spending the bucks to hire Dale Brown to write their back story.

The last thing I'll really say (because no, I really don't have all the time in the world) is that I've found even the old content is surviving the test of time. I'm still playing missions in BS2 that were originally written for BS1 (most recently Vergeev Group campaign)

As for trying to provide my bona fides on critical commentary - I've been critical of many aspects of ED. Some could be helped, and some were just the victim of progress. My biggest beef is the breaking of old missions with new content..but I can at least understand why that happens. Second up is the lack of in-game save. Third up is the default mapping of a zillion different commands to every controller you have hooked up. They made up for that last one with the ability to now map controllers while playing - that is a welcome improvement so that you don't have to constantly exit and reenter missions to attempt to figure out your assignments. Not a fan of the limited briefing screen graphics resolution (I think it is still 512 x 512 or something?). I haven't explored the Mission Editor lately, but it would be nice to see real-time placement of units in the 3D world when you are working with it so that you aren't constantly putting units in the side of buildings or in trees where you don't want it.

Frustrations? Seeing P-51s and Bf-109s when I'd rather be seeing AH-64s and F/A-18s. That's a *me* problem though, not EDs. The confusing FC vs. singular module deal. I understand the how and why of it (getting away from Ubi), but it still makes things complicated. Hopefully less complicated as things evolve. Theaters - been dying for Afghanistan or Iraq. I'm hopeful that is being addressed by the completion of EDGE which might open things up. ATC - yeah, it isn't great, but I fly in real life all day long and even the best sim ATC still sucks. The only way to get a semi-real experience with that is with VATSIM. The opportunity is there though for some 3rd party to come up with an E-2C DLC with an air traffic radar (if looking at it with the glass half full). Tired of hearing Falcon 4 fans point to ED as still not having a dynamic campaign. Yeah, we know. I'd be happy with an intermediately (is that a word?) complex campaign such as that in EECH. Another one would be the auto-updater overwriting any of my mods - but from what I understand, if you have stuff in our /users folder now that might not happen (?). I have Ricardo's cockpits and unfortunately I installed them to the ED root directory structure, so that stuff all gets written over when I auto-update. Someone made the suggestion to start using JGSME (or whatever it is called) to manage my stuff so it will be one click to install stuff when this happens. The price of progress though.

I've mentioned most of this stuff in the past. Sometimes as direct criticisms, but more often as questions asked within threads. I also have the privilege of still having access to the ED beta forum since I'm often writing preview or review articles for the magazine. I've had many questions or concerns addressed there.

I'm pretty happy with ED, their business model, their past and current projects, and I have little reason to doubt they won't continue to put out quality material. What they come out with might not be what I really want (WW2 stuff), but I'm willing to go along for the ride because the Ka-50, A-10C, UH-1H, Mi-8, and Su-25T are simply the best aircraft I've ever seen modeled in any sim. The only near contender is the F-16 from BMS 4.x on..

I appreciate the lively discussion - and I'll let you have the last word. smile

BeachAV8R
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 02:00 AM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
but I'll admit that I have a creative imagination that can fill in the blanks. I don't have to idle my brain and be a passive participant in the campaigns and force them to paint the whole picture or give me a Jerry Bruckheimer experience.



Some people want the content served on a silver platter - and I'd submit that you'll never be satisfied with the evolution of DCS World. Because there will always be more to complain about.



So...let me get this straight. I need to idle my brain and lack a creative imagination because I have an opinion that's different than yours? Classy...real classy.

You might have left this thread but maybe someone else here can tell me what happened to you. You used to be a diplomatic sort that could identify somewhat with the end users experience...now...you're some kind of developer schill that is full combat ready with safeties off. Throwing around insults and generally being a thug because we would like to see a more fleshed out experience instead of plane modules being pumped out with campaigns being an after thought.

For the record...I'm 46 years old with 2 kids (my daughter in her second year of college)...so I remember having to use my imagination plenty when gaming/simming. Then in the late 90's there was an immersive experience that didn't require as much imagination...now I'm supposed to just shell out for an endless stream of DLC content with little to no care given to creating a realistic battlefield/war feel? No thanks.

I'm also willing to bet you have only flown the A-10 campaign that you wrote an AAR for just once. Maybe twice. You know how many other A-10 campaign AAR's there are besides yours? Zero. I've never seen one. There's no point because you already layed out the same basic experience that anyone else that flies it will have. Same objectives, basically the same opposition and the same end result.

Oh yeah...and before I forget...I need to fly the thumbs up ala Beach that makes everything I said Ok.


thumbsup
Posted By: shadylurker

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 02:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Force10
Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
but I'll admit that I have a creative imagination that can fill in the blanks. I don't have to idle my brain and be a passive participant in the campaigns and force them to paint the whole picture or give me a Jerry Bruckheimer experience.



Some people want the content served on a silver platter - and I'd submit that you'll never be satisfied with the evolution of DCS World. Because there will always be more to complain about.



So...let me get this straight. I need to idle my brain and lack a creative imagination because I have an opinion that's different than yours? Classy...real classy.

You might have left this thread but maybe someone else here can tell me what happened to you. You used to be a diplomatic sort that could identify somewhat with the end users experience...now...you're some kind of developer schill that is full combat ready with safeties off. Throwing around insults and generally being a thug because we would like to see a more fleshed out experience instead of plane modules being pumped out with campaigns being an after thought.

For the record...I'm 46 years old with 2 kids (my daughter in her second year of college)...so I remember having to use my imagination plenty when gaming/simming. Then in the late 90's there was an immersive experience that didn't require as much imagination...now I'm supposed to just shell out for an endless stream of DLC content with little to no care given to creating a realistic battlefield/war feel? No thanks.

I'm also willing to bet you have only flown the A-10 campaign that you wrote an AAR for just once. Maybe twice. You know how many other A-10 campaign AAR's there are besides yours? Zero. I've never seen one. There's no point because you already layed out the same basic experience that anyone else that flies it will have. Same objectives, basically the same opposition and the same end result.

Oh yeah...and before I forget...I need to fly the thumbs up ala Beach that makes everything I said Ok.


thumbsup




lol partything
Posted By: Snoopy_476th

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 02:22 AM

I'll be the first to admit I'm not a fan of WWII and don't like the direction ED has taken but this thread has gone completely off topic IMO. I think people just need to take a step back, drink a beer or two and chill (I had to do the same thing).
Posted By: speck01

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 02:31 AM

Saying Beach is acting like a thug or a shill is going way too far, but I'm actually glad Force10 brought up those particular quotes of Beach's, I mean, idling brain? a Jerry Bruckheimer experience?!? Who here are SimHq, in the DCS forums of all places is looking for a 'Jerry Bruckheimer' experience? Those are practically fighting words!


edit - just read Snoopy's post and he's right, time to chill (and have a beer).
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 04:02 AM

You guys are pretty sensitive for being natural born killers. (Where is that vase of flowers smiley?)

BeachAV8R
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 04:09 AM

Originally Posted By: speck01
edit - just read Snoopy's post and he's right, time to chill (and have a beer).

I can't have a beer. I'm in Florida right now doing my real job. Shilling for ED isn't all that lucrative, so I'm still forced to work...

thumbsup

BeachAV8R
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 04:20 AM

Originally Posted By: Force10
You know how many other A-10 campaign AAR's there are besides yours? Zero. I've never seen one.There's no point because you already layed out the same basic experience that anyone else that flies it will have. Same objectives, basically the same opposition and the same end result.

How about the one I posted earlier in this thread that gave you just such an example. I didn't write THIS, some other guy was having an awful user experience with the content that doesn't exist that he was flying.

Originally Posted By: Force10
Oh yeah...and before I forget...I need to fly the thumbs up ala Beach that makes everything I said Ok.

Pro tip: only use the thumbs up smiley when you are pretty sure you are right.

thumbsup

BeachAV8R
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 04:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Force10
I'm also willing to bet you have only flown the A-10 campaign that you wrote an AAR for just once.

Well. You got me there. I have only flown the campaign twice. Once with the original and once with the Combined Arms integration. (Flying it with CA is better..)

......

BUT the reason I haven't revisited it? Well, it's because of all that other content that is out there. Still haven't flown the whole UN Mi-8 campaign, or any of the P-51 content (I probably won't if I'm being honest). I beta tested FC3 a bit, but they've added new missions for release that I never tried out. Then there are the dozens of user created missions and campaigns I haven't managed to wade through. I envy those of you that have had the free time to play all that stuff and are now bored. How was it? (Heck, I'm still trying to figure out the ABRIS in the Ka-50 and the CDU in the Hog...you guys must have already peeled that onion huh?)

BeachAV8R

PS - I'm not a mod here anymore. All those years I was here to stop the arguments that got out of hand. Now I'm allowed to have an opinion and express it as passionately as you guys. LOL.. Thuggish. Now that really is funny. On second thought though..I do cut a menacing image huddled over this iPad hunting and pecking on this awful keyboard as I drink this eight hour old coffee. I think I need a tattoo.

Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 05:02 AM

Originally Posted By: speck01
Who here are SimHq, in the DCS forums of all places is looking for a 'Jerry Bruckheimer' experience? Those are practically fighting words.

I was going to say J.J. Abrams, but I didn't want to offend the DCS users that like their HDR with lots of lens flare. Bruckheimer was my second choice, and in retrospect, it may have been too offensive (definitely borderline thuggish). I do apologize for going too far with that one.

BeachAV8R

Hey Luthier - got any opinions on all of this? I mean..you've probably got some free time to comment right?
Posted By: clayman

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 05:14 AM

Thank you Pizzicato ... Thank You!
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 06:34 AM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R

How about the one I posted earlier in this thread that gave you just such an example. I didn't write THIS, some other guy was having an awful user experience with the content that doesn't exist that he was flying.



Hold the phone! You mean 2 people had enough fun to write an AAR for the A-10 campaign in the last 3 years? Only the most jaded player would see that as a winning argument.

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R


BUT the reason I haven't revisited it? Well, it's because of all that other content that is out there.


Hmmm...when I purchased A-10 I didn't realize it was going to be a "fly the campaign once and your done" type of sim.

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R

Hey Luthier - got any opinions on all of this? I mean..you've probably got some free time to comment right?


lol...I got a chuckle out of this. I didn't back this project because of my lack of faith in him managing a project and his communication ethic, BUT...amazingly enough, if he dug up his work on the Korean War era sim they were working on before it got scrapped...I might actually take the risk. It just shows how desperate I am for a Korean era sim.

thumbsup
Posted By: Wklink

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 06:39 AM

Here is my issue right now.

Beach, I understand exactly what you are saying. But.

Personally I think ED made a mistake putting the P-51 in the game without putting the proper environment for the use of the aircraft. Yes it probably made money on the project and that is fine but there was an investment of time and money in that aircraft that probably could have been used to fund a rotary wing aircraft (say, like the AH1-the Huey's cousin) or another jet that would have been much more appropriate in the ED environment. While flying the P-51 is fun in and of its own right most people will want to fly the P-51 in the combat aspect of the aircraft in an environment that would have been appropriate for the timeframe of P-51 production. The Crimea, while an intereating area, was not an area that say much, if any P-51 sorties and certainly not in the 21st century.

You compare DCS to MSFS and there are some valid comparisons but you fail to mention one part. One of the cool aspects of Microsoft Flight Simulator (and later on with X-plane 10) is the ability to fly in different areas of the globe. Probably the biggest sales of FSX and X-plane were to guys wanting to buzz around their hometown in this aircraft or that aircraft. Heck, one of my most fun times in FSX was flying a Stearman out of Galesburg (IL) Airport. YOu also have to remember that almost all of the aircraft created for FSX and X-plane came from third party developers and not from Microsoft or Laminar Research. IN fact, Microsoft washed their hands of the Flight Simulator series after FSX because it wasn't making them enough money.

The other argument is that this is the same approach that 777 is using with ROF. While it is true that 777 sells add on aircraft those aircraft are appropriate to the environment that is Rise of Flight. To me putting a P-51 into the DCS world would be akin to 777 releasing Bf109F4 into the world of Rise of Flight. Great plane, would love to fly it but it would be terribly inappropriate in a WW1 flight simulator. So, what is 777 doing? They are creating a simulation that has appropriate WW2 aircraft.

Personally, if ED is going to do this right, then that is what they are going to have to do. Just dumping a bunch of WW2 aircraft into a modern day Crimea isn't going to cut it. Like 777 they have to create a world where these aircraft can live and fly. Sure ED might sell some aircraft initially, like they did with P-51 when it was released but once people realize the aircraft are pretty much set in a sterile world where they can't effectively do anything then the numbers of aircraft bought will drop. Subsequent aircraft sales will not materialize.

I personally don't think ED is going to just release a bunch of WW2 style aircraft without some kind of environment to play them. It makes poor business sense to do such a thing.
Posted By: bogusheadbox

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 07:26 AM

I thought ed were going to release a ww2 environment.
Posted By: komemiute

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 07:38 AM

Call me easy, but I think we'll see quite some new maps after the release of EDGE.
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 07:50 AM

Well, all good points Tom. But I'd argue that ED is building a foundation for something much broader. I mean, look at their product lineup evolution.

Rotor - Ka-50
Fixed Wing Jet - A-10C
Ground - Combined Arms
Propeller - P-51

Do you see the progression there? Would *anyone* be surprised to see DCS - PT-109 in there to prove the naval chops of DCS World? Or DCS M1A2? I think they are setting up the "demonstrators" in parallel with their sales. Would VEAO have considered building (and licensing their content through ED) a lineup of WWII aircraft if the P-51 hadn't demonstrated the capability of prop dynamics? (I don't know the answer to that..)

Sure, I don't know of anyone that doesn't agree the current theater is worn thin. And you don't necessarily have to have world coverage to compete with FSX. Aeroflight seemed to have done OK. Take On Helicopters was better than perhaps it appeared. I have no idea if ED is contemplating eventually having a round world with everything in it. It'd be nice. Comparing the resources of ED to those of a Microsoft In Its Prime FSX team though is probably apples to oranges. Or, more appropriately, cantaloupes to grapes.

BTW - I have NO inside baseball on ED's plans or what they are thinking with regards to any future products. So all my thoughts are speculation. I think Snoopy can verify that there is a closed team within the team that makes all those decisions and has the plan tight to their chests. My speculation about DCS Tanks and DCS Boats and DCS Infantry is just that (did I mention DCS John Deere Tractor?). But it stands to reason.

Finally (another finally? Don't worry..my night shift flight is almost over..one more hop to CLT and I'm done, pull the shades and put me to bed..), I think people fail to give credit at the work that has gone on over the years that is under the surface. All the little incremental things to the ME and graphics and underpinnings of the whole World environment. It's nice to say - wow, it's cool that I can now flip into the controller settings in-game and make adjustments on the fly. The time it took to make that feature was real work that does take resources, time, and money. The small, continuous improvements are nice when we look at some titles in our simulation past that got a patch or two and then they were gone (JF-15 anyone?).

I don't even know what the WWII content is going to be about. I still think WWII has been done over and over and over again and I'm on Force 10's side on the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, or Falklands if we are going to step backwards in time.

The sun is coming up. I gotta get to my coffin. See ya'll in about 10 hours..

BeachAV8R
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 07:55 AM

Originally Posted By: Force10
lol...I got a chuckle out of this. I didn't back this project because of my lack of faith in him managing a project and his communication ethic, BUT...amazingly enough, if he dug up his work on the Korean War era sim they were working on before it got scrapped...I might actually take the risk. It just shows how desperate I am for a Korean era sim.


I'd back anything Korean, Falkland, Vietnam, or future era. My heart broke when the F-35 project went bust. I always thought the programming to even approximate that aircraft was going to be way, way harder than they might have thought.

Which is why, perhaps, WWII planes are pretty attractive. They don't have layer upon layer of avionics and systems details to program and code. The guys that took on the Super Hornet screwy - I'll be very surprised if that module ever sees the light of day. I think that plane would take even ED years and years to build. Pretty ambitious though.

BeachAV8R
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 08:07 AM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R


Which is why, perhaps, WWII planes are pretty attractive. They don't have layer upon layer of avionics and systems details to program and code. The guys that took on the Super Hornet screwy - I'll be very surprised if that module ever sees the light of day. I think that plane would take even ED years and years to build. Pretty ambitious though.

BeachAV8R


This is why I think Korean war era would be a perfect compromise! You have jet technology but still have primarily dogfights with machine guns in the air to satisfy the more pure aspect of dogfighting that WWII fans like. Probably not too many layers of avionics and/or weapon platforms. These are just pipe dreams of course as no developer has shown interest really in making one.

Korea really is the forgotten war.
Posted By: HarryR

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 08:19 AM

Korea would be good, Sea Fury Vs Mig-15... thumbsup
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 08:57 AM

Back in CLT. Yay. Long night. What the hell are all you people doing up anyway?

With any of these projects I think the tough thing is populating the world with period authentic objects. I shudder to think how much research and vetting has to go into building one of these theaters from the bones up. Seems pretty daunting to me. At least an airplane module is a fairly straightforward research and development project. Even building an authentic Nellis AFB seems incredibly time intensive. I guess it all depends on how detailed you want to make it, but we've already discerned that us lot are pretty picky. How many aircraft 3D models and vehicle models do you have to build to make WWII or Korea...? I guess you can buy 3D models and modify them to suit your needs...but does everyone agree the task must be huge? Maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe it's harder to build something like the UH-1H than a theater?

BeachAV8R
Posted By: komemiute

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 11:47 AM

Talking about Korea... You've all seen the incoming DCS F-86, right?
Posted By: Bumfluff

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 12:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Force10
Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R


Which is why, perhaps, WWII planes are pretty attractive. They don't have layer upon layer of avionics and systems details to program and code. The guys that took on the Super Hornet screwy - I'll be very surprised if that module ever sees the light of day. I think that plane would take even ED years and years to build. Pretty ambitious though.

BeachAV8R


This is why I think Korean war era would be a perfect compromise! You have jet technology but still have primarily dogfights with machine guns in the air to satisfy the more pure aspect of dogfighting that WWII fans like. Probably not too many layers of avionics and/or weapon platforms. These are just pipe dreams of course as no developer has shown interest really in making one.

Korea really is the forgotten war.




Agree korea would be the best. Give me a panther and carrier ops.
Posted By: boomerang10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 03:37 PM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
The guys that took on the Super Hornet screwy - I'll be very surprised if that module ever sees the light of day. I think that plane would take even ED years and years to build. Pretty ambitious though.


Something I really wish the VRS guys would've taken on. Loved their plane in FSX and I'd buy it again for DCS.
Posted By: MarkG

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 03:49 PM

With the complexity, realism and eye-candy of DCS, I wonder what the compile times are just to test something? And I wonder how many 3rd-party man years it will take to make a sizable finished map with the detail of EDGE Las Vegas?

DirectX 12 (for Win9?) is scheduled for "Holiday 2015", supposedly getting impressive results by letting the developer work closer to the metal = more work for the developer. It's all mind boggling to me.
Posted By: HeinKill

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 03:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Wklink
Here is my issue right now.

Beach, I understand exactly what you are saying. But.

Personally I think ED made a mistake putting the P-51 in the game without putting the proper environment for the use of the aircraft. Yes it probably made money on the project and that is fine but there was an investment of time and money in that aircraft that probably could have been used to fund a rotary wing aircraft (say, like the AH1-the Huey's cousin) or another jet that would have been much more appropriate in the ED environment. While flying the P-51 is fun in and of its own right most people will want to fly the P-51 in the combat aspect of the aircraft in an environment that would have been appropriate for the timeframe of P-51 production. The Crimea, while an intereating area, was not an area that say much, if any P-51 sorties and certainly not in the 21st century.

You compare DCS to MSFS and there are some valid comparisons but you fail to mention one part. One of the cool aspects of Microsoft Flight Simulator (and later on with X-plane 10) is the ability to fly in different areas of the globe. Probably the biggest sales of FSX and X-plane were to guys wanting to buzz around their hometown in this aircraft or that aircraft. Heck, one of my most fun times in FSX was flying a Stearman out of Galesburg (IL) Airport. YOu also have to remember that almost all of the aircraft created for FSX and X-plane came from third party developers and not from Microsoft or Laminar Research. IN fact, Microsoft washed their hands of the Flight Simulator series after FSX because it wasn't making them enough money.

The other argument is that this is the same approach that 777 is using with ROF. While it is true that 777 sells add on aircraft those aircraft are appropriate to the environment that is Rise of Flight. To me putting a P-51 into the DCS world would be akin to 777 releasing Bf109F4 into the world of Rise of Flight. Great plane, would love to fly it but it would be terribly inappropriate in a WW1 flight simulator. So, what is 777 doing? They are creating a simulation that has appropriate WW2 aircraft.

Personally, if ED is going to do this right, then that is what they are going to have to do. Just dumping a bunch of WW2 aircraft into a modern day Crimea isn't going to cut it. Like 777 they have to create a world where these aircraft can live and fly. Sure ED might sell some aircraft initially, like they did with P-51 when it was released but once people realize the aircraft are pretty much set in a sterile world where they can't effectively do anything then the numbers of aircraft bought will drop. Subsequent aircraft sales will not materialize.

I personally don't think ED is going to just release a bunch of WW2 style aircraft without some kind of environment to play them. It makes poor business sense to do such a thing.


Tom - you could have just said 'I agree completely with Heiny', saves a lot of typing and increases your credibility immensely.

woot

H
Posted By: Wklink

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 03:56 PM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
Back in CLT. Yay. Long night. What the hell are all you people doing up anyway?

With any of these projects I think the tough thing is populating the world with period authentic objects. I shudder to think how much research and vetting has to go into building one of these theaters from the bones up. Seems pretty daunting to me. At least an airplane module is a fairly straightforward research and development project. Even building an authentic Nellis AFB seems incredibly time intensive. I guess it all depends on how detailed you want to make it, but we've already discerned that us lot are pretty picky. How many aircraft 3D models and vehicle models do you have to build to make WWII or Korea...? I guess you can buy 3D models and modify them to suit your needs...but does everyone agree the task must be huge? Maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe it's harder to build something like the UH-1H than a theater?

BeachAV8R



There are ways to make it easier. In all honesty I would think DCS could make a cold war sim in a much easier manner than a WW2 one. Much of the equipment in a Cold War sim from say the 1980s to early 90s is still being used. T-72s, T-80s, M1s, M60s, M113s, Hinds, F15Cs, F16s as well as early model Apaches and the Huey were all around. There would be much less work involved and more work could be used to create a wartime environment. It wouldn't be easy, especially if you created something like the Fulda GAp or Korea in 1988 for a simulation. But it has been done before.

That is why I find a WW2 simulation puzzling. It isn't that ED can't do one, and do it very well. I'm sure that they can. It's just that it is so different from what they are making now and continue to make with this engine. The time and energy spent on creating WW2 aircraft could be used to make rotary wing aircraft or ground aircraft or some of the jets (like the FA18) that we want. Right now all they are doing is creating aircraft that can't really be integrated into their virtual battlefield. Either they have a plan in place that we don't know about or they are just rambling around. I honestly don't know.
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 04:47 PM

I agree with that part.

Can ED do a full WWII sim? Sure they can. SHOULD they? That is the debatable part, and I come down on the "we have the various current, defunct, and classic Il-2 sims for that" side. We have BMS in the "modding an old sim" that TD is doing for Il-2 1946 and ATAG for CloD...but who else is doing modern (or even just Cold War) aircraft but ED?

I don't know how much doing this WWII stuff takes away from the development of the modern stuff, but if it's more than 0% then IMO it's too much. They hire new people purely to do WWII, ok, fine, but if EDGE or Nevada or F-18 or the CA update or whatever gets pushed back even 1 month because of people working on WWII issues, then I'm NOT fine with it. Because they're it. And when there's only one game in town, I fret if they're spending time in another area that I feel is "covered" already.

I want to fly the Hornet off a carrier in the Black Sea, and over Nevada with F-15C cover and MiG-21 and 29 and Su-27 red air...
Flying a 109 over Black Sea or Nevada doesn't interest me, and I'll still have to buy Normandy or whatever separately. IMO they're not going to have a good number of planes, flyable and AI, and ground units for a true competitor to the Il-2 titles without a lot more work, work that isn't done just by accurately modeling every detail of a 109.

So if you're interested in FSX-style complete warbird modeling WITH added combat capabilities, then the DCS version will be appealing, possibly more so than the one in BoS. But I've always been a big-picture-over-details, see-the-forest-forget-the-trees type, so I'm more concerned about ground units fighting each other correctly, moving front lines, escorted bomber formations, and so on than whether or not the 109's boost at 10k feet is too much or too little in a WWII sim, which is why I'm looking forward to 777's WWII more...as much as ED's F-18. wink





The Jedi Master
Posted By: Pizzicato

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 05:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
And when there's only one game in town, I fret if they're spending time in another area that I feel is "covered" already.

I want to fly the Hornet off a carrier in the Black Sea, and over Nevada with F-15C cover and MiG-21 and 29 and Su-27 red air...


I put $150 into the WWII Kickstarter, but I'm 100% agreed with you on this. I would much, MUCH prefer to see ED focused exclusively on modern/contemporary aircraft and leave WWII to others. For me (and this is very subjective), I would also kill any pushes into areas such as Combined Arms and the proposed naval and ground armour initiatives. It's clear that it takes a LONG time to develop aircraft to a DCS level of fidelity and we're a long way from having a fully fleshed out inventory of modern combat aircraft, so I'd MUCH prefer them to stay focused into that area.
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 05:55 PM

The problem I see is that ED might well be a victim of their own success when it comes to any future products. You can't just throw a bunch of crappy 3D objects on the map and call it a sim - they will get called out for not modeling each unit to exacting detail and with perfect specifications. When you've already built such high detail simulations as their DCS modules, then anything less than that will be looked upon as a step backward. Look at the complexity of some of the ground models in the current DCS World such as some of the tanks and support vehicles. Pretty phenomenal levels of detail there..and any retreating from that will cause a crap-fest.

I agree with Jedi Master that ED and DCS, to me, represent somewhat modern aircraft for us techie gee-whiz guys that want to see relatively modern day warfare. I love the UH-1H and Mi-8 because they are fairly timeless and you can actually envision them still being around on some modern battlefields.

I'd honestly rather see more trainer aircraft come out than WWII content. The VEAO Hawk, Tucano, a T-6, etc.. I could have fun with those. I've owned all of the IL-2 iterations over the years and I'll bet I've played a cumulative of five hours of them. Just not all that interesting to me.

It will be interesting to see what direction DCS World takes after the release of EDGE. Will there be third party developers that JUST become theater developers (like ORBX?)..? With the obvious appetite for more places to fly rather than things to fly, I'd think that is a development area that is a void waiting to be filled by some group of talented artists. (I hope)

BeachAV8R
Posted By: komemiute

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 05:58 PM

They ARE victim of their own success. The P51 should (maybe) have remained that personal experiment that it started as.

Instead, somehow, they lost control over people expectation and it became a muddy puddle. Unclear how you got into it, hard to see where you are going and even if you make it out of that someone is really going to be pissed...
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 06:01 PM

Originally Posted By: boomerang10
Something I really wish the VRS guys would've taken on. Loved their plane in FSX and I'd buy it again for DCS.

Yeah. I'm hopeful that some of these FSX to DCS conversions might actually happen someday. I don't know what the status of Razbam's projects are..but a Harrier would be the mutts nuts. I tried to talk Jim Rhodes of Flight1 into taking a look at development for DCS and his reply to me on the phone was "What is DCS?".. <g> So there still needs to be some market visibility for ED before that happens.

All I know is that I'd love to see a Cessna 208 with Flight1 attention to detail in DCS World.

BeachAV8R
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 06:11 PM

Originally Posted By: komemiute
Instead, somehow, they lost control over people expectation and it became a muddy puddle. Unclear how you got into it, hard to see where you are going and even if you make it out of that someone is really going to be pissed...

Yeah, but if they eventually pull off a total sim like WWII or some other theater, we'll look back on it and say: "Ah..now I see what they did.. Prove the concepts first while funding further development toward a more ultimate goal.." I know the skeptics will say money from modules hasn't been shown to be pouring back into DCS development, but those ME, graphics, and performance improvements aren't free, so they are getting funded by something.

My biggest fear as that at some point ED just says "F-It" and reverts to just making software for military and private contracts. I'd be curious which is more lucrative - government or entertainment software. Knowing what the government will pay for stuff in the past, it wouldn't surprise me if those projects might be a significant revenue stream. Which is a reminder that consumer entertainment products for DCS don't exist in a vacuum. Some of the work on their consumer stuff might have an intent to work back toward trying to attain contracts in defense or private industry. What better way to sell the US Army on some updated training software than to produce a DCS level tank sim and then pitch it to the military as "see what we can do for these casual guys..just imagine what we can do for you.." (Again, all of this is 100% speculation..) I just think there is a heck of a lot going on behind the scenes that perhaps can explain some of the things ED does. I do like the fact that ED isn't all talk and no action. They put out. Whether it is everything to everyone is certainly debatable, but I like the fact that they have a short term road map and they continue to evolve. The same can't be said for a whole lot of developers in the last couple decades...

BeachAV8R
Posted By: Pizzicato

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 07:42 PM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R

My biggest fear as that at some point ED just says "F-It" and reverts to just making software for military and private contracts.


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!! pitchafit
Posted By: Wklink

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/16/14 10:44 PM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
Originally Posted By: komemiute
Instead, somehow, they lost control over people expectation and it became a muddy puddle. Unclear how you got into it, hard to see where you are going and even if you make it out of that someone is really going to be pissed...

Yeah, but if they eventually pull off a total sim like WWII or some other theater, we'll look back on it and say: "Ah..now I see what they did.. Prove the concepts first while funding further development toward a more ultimate goal.." I know the skeptics will say money from modules hasn't been shown to be pouring back into DCS development, but those ME, graphics, and performance improvements aren't free, so they are getting funded by something.

My biggest fear as that at some point ED just says "F-It" and reverts to just making software for military and private contracts. I'd be curious which is more lucrative - government or entertainment software. Knowing what the government will pay for stuff in the past, it wouldn't surprise me if those projects might be a significant revenue stream. Which is a reminder that consumer entertainment products for DCS don't exist in a vacuum. Some of the work on their consumer stuff might have an intent to work back toward trying to attain contracts in defense or private industry. What better way to sell the US Army on some updated training software than to produce a DCS level tank sim and then pitch it to the military as "see what we can do for these casual guys..just imagine what we can do for you.." (Again, all of this is 100% speculation..) I just think there is a heck of a lot going on behind the scenes that perhaps can explain some of the things ED does. I do like the fact that ED isn't all talk and no action. They put out. Whether it is everything to everyone is certainly debatable, but I like the fact that they have a short term road map and they continue to evolve. The same can't be said for a whole lot of developers in the last couple decades...

BeachAV8R



I hate to tell you this Beach but the US military already has stuff like this. They have invested billions into a virtual battlefield for almost all of the branches. They probably aren't going to be going to ED after all of they money they spent. Trust me on this that the company that is making most of this is a LOT bigger than ED. I know someone that is involved with this project and he very tight lipped about the entire thing but lets just say that what we get in DCS is minor compared to the full blown simulations that are being made for the military.
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/17/14 12:35 AM

Originally Posted By: Force10
It just shows how desperate I am for a Korean era sim.


Strike Fighters 2 modders just released a Korea mod BTW. Yeah, I know it's a bit sim light, but it can be pretty fun for a quick in and out session without a lot of button pushing.. Still a work in progress though..

LINK(ish)

BeachAV8R
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/17/14 12:40 AM

Originally Posted By: Wklink
I hate to tell you this Beach but the US military already has stuff like this. They have invested billions into a virtual battlefield for almost all of the branches. They probably aren't going to be going to ED after all of they money they spent. Trust me on this that the company that is making most of this is a LOT bigger than ED. I know someone that is involved with this project and he very tight lipped about the entire thing but lets just say that what we get in DCS is minor compared to the full blown simulations that are being made for the military.


I thought ED already had a military contract to provide the DTS simulator or something for the A-10C?

I know they also had some station simulator for the AC-130. I think they've had some success in some areas with that. Probably also in Europe and Eastern countries..






BeachAV8R
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/17/14 01:23 AM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
Originally Posted By: Force10
It just shows how desperate I am for a Korean era sim.


Strike Fighters 2 modders just released a Korea mod BTW. Yeah, I know it's a bit sim light, but it can be pretty fun for a quick in and out session without a lot of button pushing.. Still a work in progress though..

LINK(ish)

BeachAV8R


Yeah…I posted these from the mod back in November. Sim-lite for sure but I like the mission variety.

KAW
Posted By: streakeagle

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/17/14 02:21 AM

I went to a military grad sim convention in Orlando. DCS is ahead of most of the stuff I saw there. On the infantry side, ArmA was the basis for most of the "professional" grade sims being offered.

The flight sims were frequently based or modeled after FSX to allow portability for all of the addons already available.

Most of these sims were priced through the roof and equal to or worse than what gamers have available.

Their two advantages:
1) great hardware for the cockpits and screens.
2) access to classified performance parameters.

Despite the huge realism advantage of Steel Beasts Pro, the Canadians were showing off their tank sim that was ArmA based. Governments pour a lot of money into these things, but aren't necessarily looking for the same things we value as consumers. ED, eSim, BI, and Sonalysts have been uniquely successful in leveraging their core products in dual roles as both military training tools and consumer games. You would have to attend this convention to fully understand how much those two markets really overlap and how much the aforementioned companies favorably compare to the competition with only their consumer grade products, much less their full-bore uncompromised military trainers.
Posted By: HeinKill

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/17/14 05:58 AM

Been doing Deep Think.

Making a prediction, you read it here first.

ED will release the Fw190, maybe the Bf109...

And thassit. Project cancelled.

Because it really does make no sense. They have some near finished aircraft from RRG crew. Cash in on those, and then turn out the lights.

H
Posted By: SlipBall

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/17/14 06:47 AM

I don't think so(light but indebt thinking) biggrin because ED seems to want to get into the WW II prop thingy(will be awesome someday), the P 51 being their first move in that direction, and a near perfect representation of the P 51.
Posted By: Remon

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/17/14 08:30 AM

Originally Posted By: HeinKill
Been doing Deep Think.

Making a prediction, you read it here first.

ED will release the Fw190, maybe the Bf109...

And thassit. Project cancelled.

Because it really does make no sense. They have some near finished aircraft from RRG crew. Cash in on those, and then turn out the lights.

H


How does it make no sense?
Posted By: komemiute

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/17/14 10:31 AM

Dunno, not with Heinkill on this.
For once.

I see delays for sure.
But there's an entire team (ED announced RRG guys were taken in en-masse) working on them...
Workforce is not the problem.
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/17/14 05:04 PM

You said this was deep thinking? wink

Originally Posted By: HeinKill
Been doing Deep Think.

Making a prediction, you read it here first.

ED will release the Fw190, maybe the Bf109...

And thassit. Project cancelled.

Because it really does make no sense. They have some near finished aircraft from RRG crew. Cash in on those, and then turn out the lights.

H
Posted By: Ajay

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/18/14 04:22 AM

Originally Posted By: streakeagle


the Canadians were showing off their tank sim that was ArmA based.


This made me giggle..i just imagined all of these mil guys sitting around with their Arma based sim tanks blown up because they had hit a tree at two kilometres an hour, or driving over a bridge and getting launched into the atmosphere..' Ummmm..Sir, is this what is going to happen when we head to battle ? can i apply for a transfer to cooking or latrine duties ?' biggrin
Posted By: Mogster

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/18/14 12:11 PM

Originally Posted By: HeinKill
Been doing Deep Think.

Making a prediction, you read it here first.

ED will release the Fw190, maybe the Bf109...

And thassit. Project cancelled.

Because it really does make no sense. They have some near finished aircraft from RRG crew. Cash in on those, and then turn out the lights.

H


ED aren't the only ones making WW2 content for DCSW though, VEAO have announced a few planes. VEAO have also made vague comments about taking over half completed work...

I agree these planes need a context, although they have no context in a FSX and seem to sell well enough.
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/18/14 08:54 PM

I think the military has a different mindset about realism in training tools. They accept from the get-go that certain things will not be authentically modeled and they let it go...and no effort is made at improving those "F it!" areas. So things like wonky physics aren't a concern because they don't need their troops to know what happens exactly when a tank hits a brick wall. That's the kind of thing they do in live training.

The sims are designed to teach the things that are best taught in sims, that's all. Procedures, gauge monitoring, optical sight operations, etc. Things that could be taught in a real tank, but cost a lot more to do. If the Abrams flips over from hitting a bush, they don't say "Oh NO! Our training is completely RUINED!" they just shrug and hit reset and do it over or continue on, that's all. Immersion is not what they're looking for, again that's the live training where they look for that.



The Jedi Master
Posted By: Gambit21

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/18/14 09:47 PM

I thought anyone who was willing to give Luthier a penny after CloD was nuts - I certainly refused.
As far as I was concerned he owed me $50.
Burn me once....

I feel better about this project now.
Good news.
Posted By: streakeagle

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/19/14 03:42 AM

The Canadian trainer was a full size model of commander and gunner positions with the driver being handled at a trainer console. The emphasis seemed to be on co-ordination between the two, practicing both verbal and physical operation procedures while in the middle of a combat situation.

They don't really encounter bugs in these kind of situations. The terrain is not especially challenging, just adequate. The cost savings is huge being able to fire somewhat realistically without using live ammo and being able to engage somewhat accurate looking/moving/firing targets as opposed to using lasers for shooting, expending fuel, and general wear and tear on friendly tanks playing the good and bad guys.

Of course, at a convention like this, they only bring what fits in a booth area and only run scenarios that attract attention as opposed to following an actual training curriculum that is as boring to watch as it is to perform.

The ArmA2 based infantry squad training system was awesome: you wear the PC in a backpack with wireless networking to tie all the players to the server. The helmet and rifle each have gyro sensors that replicate all of your movement in game: moving your head moves your view similar to wearing track IR, moving your rifle moves your aim point similar to using the mouse. You don't actually walk or run (there is a little joystick on the simulated rifle that allows WASD type movement control), but all other movement is generated by your own position/motion such as standing, kneeling, and going prone. The helmet had a display similar to occulus rift, so you only see the ingame image and the angular mapping for head and rifle movement is 1:1. If you want to turn around, you have to physically rotate your body(and the rifle) 180 degrees.

My friend was hired to be one of the squad members for this infantry trainer demo as he had combat experience in Iraq. His PC was tethered to a big 1080p TV so that you could see what he was seeing in his helmet display. The tether caused some tangling issues, but it was great being able to see the situation play out live. I couldn't help but smile and laugh. I had been playing Operation Flashpoint almost since the day it had been released. The ArmA 2 (VBS version ?) based trainer still had the same look/feel aside from the updated 3d models and textures. The big difference between all the fun time I spent on OFP and what they were doing is that they were supposed to learn and follow combat protocols/doctrine: verbal communications, tactics, formations, etc. But having played the same demo every 20 minutes for a week straight, they were playing more like gamers running around like Han Solo and/or stalking/shooting each other. Brings back so many fun memories!

But, to get back on topic: however long the delays may be, I am pretty confident I am going to get the aircraft promised at the accuracy level promised. Unlike modern aircraft, all the required systems modelling should already be supported in DCS and the inherent similarities between some designs can speed up progress even more. It seems the main barrier to progress is getting Edge up and running in DCS World. If Edge is working and most of the aircraft have been released by December... DCS WW2 is really going to start rolling forward. While I will enjoy the WW2 aircraft, I am hoping the flood gates start opening for jets as well. Up to now, progress has been slow enough that I have bought everything released. But I don't think I can afford too many aircraft per year at $50 per plane... although 1 hour of overtime at work would pretty much cover each new aircraft.
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/19/14 02:57 PM

I don't know, while I once thought as you did, recent comments have made me doubt that anything done for the P-51 is really relevant to the 109 or 190.

Why? Because they are too meticulously modeled. While other sims have just copied systems between unrelated planes, I don't think they do that here. Now making a 109G after making a 109F should indeed be a simpler matter, but from the inline 109 to the radial 190 I think there are likely no engine systems really cross-usable. Even the inline P-51 to the 109 I think there were enough differences to make it useless.

Now you can argue they're taking it too far, that they're spending a ton of time to go from that 80% modeling to 95% that the end user will barely notice because whether it's a blown piston or total loss of oil or bullet to the crankshaft, the engine is dead. I know some customers will appreciate it, but I think others don't care--the illusion of realism can be attained with a lot less effort than actual realism and that's enough for them.

In other words, if it takes a few thousand lines of code and millions of CPU cycles for that bullet hit to your cowling to compute into "seized engine" vs a simpler critical hitbox simulation with a few dozen lines that takes a fraction of the time to figure out, how many pilots will be able to tell?

That's why IMO ED has reached the point of diminishing returns. They could TRY to push it farther, but it will take so much more effort for very little difference to the end user.



The Jedi Master
Posted By: komemiute

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/19/14 03:10 PM

I just hope someone will notice I selected the Dora as a reward plane from the DCS WWII menu... and the 109, P47 and Spitfire... frown
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/19/14 03:40 PM

a question : Luthier, Oleg Maddox, Matt Wagner and Igor Tishin were behind this project right ?

I took part in the kickstart.
Posted By: Pizzicato

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/19/14 03:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss
a question : Luthier, Oleg Maddox, Matt Wagner and Igor Tishin were behind this project right ?


It's unclear.

Publicly, it was all Luthier's project. Oleg Maddox appeared in one Kickstarter video where it was claimed that he would be "advising" the project, but he was never heard of again.

As for Matt Wagner and Igor Tishin, there must have been some connection since ED were bankrolling the lion's share of the cost, but the details were never publicly discussed.
Posted By: theOden

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/19/14 03:47 PM

Yes, sort of.
Luthier as RRG with Oleg as advisor (I personally doubt it, more as a marketing name) and Igor was presented in the kicker, not sure what Igor's involvement was though.
Matt more as DCS representative, not really in the project until it flamed out and became an all ED project.


Edit: or what Pizzicato the Ninja said smile
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/19/14 03:55 PM

I remember a video were they presented the project - although I never heard of Maddox in connection with it again.

definitively, it was an ED project from the start with Luthier as the guy in charge of the team.

if that is so, maybe Luthier not being involved in it could be that he is now in charge of another ED project only that they are not being able to tell us so due to NDA.
Posted By: Pizzicato

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/19/14 04:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss
maybe Luthier not being involved in it could be that he is now in charge of another ED project only that they are not being able to tell us so due to NDA.


Anything's possible, but I'd be surprised if that was the case. Nothing about any of his projects has given me any confidence in his abilities as a producer, so there's a certain Occam's Razor quality to him no longer being involved with DCS:WWII.
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/19/14 04:30 PM

If there is any blame should be placed, I feel it should be placed on the team as a whole and not on a single individual, since we don't know what happened and no one yet has explained either, pillorying Luthier for any problems on a project that was until a few weeks ago on track, in my personal opinion unwarranted.

Luthier ASAIK could be ill as well, and that being the reason of his absence.


Posted By: Pizzicato

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/19/14 05:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss
If there is any blame should be placed, I feel it should be on the team as a whole and not on a single individual, since we don't know what happened and no one yet has explained either, pillorying Luthier for any problems on a project that was until a few weeks ago on track, in my personal opinion unwarranted.

Luthier ASAIK could be ill as well, and that being the reason of his absence.


I'm certainly not pillorying him. I was simply stating my suspicions based on what we've seen and heard over the past many years. I'm not stating them as facts or an attack - just a scenario that I think is very plausible for a variety of reasons.

I don't know that I'd place blame on the team, though. In my experience, a bad game is most commonly the result of bad management (and I speak as management) as opposed to the wider team.

Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/19/14 06:05 PM

anyhow, it would be nice to see ED clarifying this situation.
Posted By: Pizzicato

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/19/14 06:51 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss
anyhow, it would be nice to see ED clarifying this situation.


Yeah, I agree. They've been clear that they can't/won't talk about the details, though, which I can understand.
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/19/14 07:38 PM

smile

would not hurt anyone if ED were to add that he left for 'personal reasons not related to the project' which is a nice formula many use, then add that 'if Luthier wants to add to that, he will do it in his own good time'.

it is always nice to protect the reputation of a person you worked with for years, this way when it is your turn to leave, others will do the same for you.
Posted By: LukeFF

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/20/14 02:28 AM

Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss
If there is any blame should be placed, I feel it should be placed on the team as a whole and not on a single individual, since we don't know what happened and no one yet has explained either, pillorying Luthier for any problems on a project that was until a few weeks ago on track, in my personal opinion unwarranted.

Luthier ASAIK could be ill as well, and that being the reason of his absence.


Sure, but Luthier does have a track record of not being the greatest at project management. Pacific Fighters, then CLoD, and now this. I would love to be proven wrong that it was again his lack of management skills that led to his downfall with DCS:WWII, sure, but with the way ED worded their announcement it tells me that he just couldn't hack this.
Posted By: Mogster

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/20/14 08:32 AM

Sadly I remember his attempts at managing the initial IL2 3rd party aircraft scene via the IL2 Centre website...

Some people are leaders and others are followers. I think it's important to understand where your skills lie when you make life choices.
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/20/14 01:27 PM

I missed completely the Il-2 sim development - but from my personal experience sometimes it is hard to gauge a person skills online.

Many times the one that gets the #%&*$# end of the stick is the one placed on a tough spot to be the fall guy for a team's shortcomings.

again, my 2c.
Posted By: bogusheadbox

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/20/14 01:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss
I missed completely the Il-2 sim development - but from my personal experience sometimes it is hard to gauge a person skills online.

Many times the one that gets the #%&*$# end of the stick is the one placed on a tough spot to be the fall guy for a team's shortcomings.

again, my 2c.


Well if that is the case, then I never knew that Luthier looked like Lee Majors

Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/20/14 03:14 PM

biggrin
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/20/14 04:52 PM

Hi all,

ED did not blame Luthier for anything.

All that Wags stated is that Luthier is no longer involved with the exception of writing manuals.

Due to the legal agreement that led to the transfer of IP, ED cannot comment on what led to the change.
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/20/14 06:16 PM

something that I mentioned as a possibility a few posts back:

Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss
I remember a video were they presented the project - although I never heard of Maddox in connection with it again.

definitively, it was an ED project from the start with Luthier as the guy in charge of the team.

if that is so, maybe Luthier not being involved in it could be that he is now in charge of another ED project only that they are not being able to tell us so due to NDA.


which turns out to be true.
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/20/14 06:51 PM

What turns out to be true?

Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss
something that I mentioned as a possibility a few posts back:

Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss
I remember a video were they presented the project - although I never heard of Maddox in connection with it again.

definitively, it was an ED project from the start with Luthier as the guy in charge of the team.

if that is so, maybe Luthier not being involved in it could be that he is now in charge of another ED project only that they are not being able to tell us so due to NDA.


which turns out to be true.



Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/20/14 06:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss
I missed completely the Il-2 sim development - but from my personal experience sometimes it is hard to gauge a person skills online.

Many times the one that gets the #%&*$# end of the stick is the one placed on a tough spot to be the fall guy for a team's shortcomings.

again, my 2c.


I think you are confused with who got the #%&*$# end of the stick...
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/20/14 07:02 PM

I don't believe you can reach that conclusion from the information you have. Luthier signed on as a 3rd Party or Partner, I don't know which. That doesn't make his project an ED project.

No one said Luthier is working on another project with ED.

Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss
which turns out to be true.
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/20/14 07:08 PM

RRG was a Partner, meaning (from what we can see) ED committed some resources to help RRG (sim core, people), but this was Luthier's/RRG's project/vision. For whatever reason now, RRG cant continue and ED is tasked with picking up the pieces.
Posted By: Tom_Weiss

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/20/14 07:11 PM

fine.
Posted By: bogusheadbox

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/20/14 07:27 PM

Well regardless of who got the boot up the arse / pushed out the door / decided to leave / whatever - what we are left with is a stretching of resources.

In a sim where even the su25t has glaring bugs, the black shark is in need of attention for a very long time add to that the dev cycle for the supposed f-18 / edge and what knows else then it all looks not that great.

C'mon, if it takes DCS a donkeys age to get round to incorporate something as simple as fix to the light in the SU25t to tell you if the ecm is on or not then I hold grave reservations about the ability to juggle so much.

Yeah yeah, they took on most of the team for the ww2 fiasco..... Still goes without saying. ED has announced further delays to what seems to be an eternity to aspects that have been broken for far too long.

And we still have no idea what we will be charged for to integrate into edge, which to me means
a) its still a long way off
b) they have no idea of forcast of cost and revenue projections to approximate a cost or upgrade plan we may have to undertake to intergrate with edge (e.g. Black shark 3 - a-10c v2 etc)

All that comes out of ED's mouth is nothing and that's what hacks off a lot of this community. Black shark 2 anyone

Priorities man, priorities.

Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/20/14 07:30 PM

Originally Posted By: bogusheadbox
what we are left with is a stretching of resources.

In a sim where even the su25t has glaring bugs, the black shark is in need of attention for a very long time add to that the dev cycle for the supposed f-18 / edge and what knows else then it all looks not that great.



Lets see if your still saying this in July.
Posted By: bogusheadbox

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/20/14 07:34 PM

Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
Originally Posted By: bogusheadbox
what we are left with is a stretching of resources.

In a sim where even the su25t has glaring bugs, the black shark is in need of attention for a very long time add to that the dev cycle for the supposed f-18 / edge and what knows else then it all looks not that great.



Lets see if your still saying this in July.


That's great skate. Are you saying something officially about a release or upcoming integration of EDGE or what we may have to do to integrate into edge.

If you are offering an official statement then great tell us (the customer).

If you are coming here not saying anything official and just giving us an open ended July statement, then for the sake of the community keep comments such as those to yourself. They serve no purpose other than self gloating over a community unknown fact.

Yeah I have one on me today (slang for bad mood)
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/20/14 07:37 PM

Since I'm not employed by ED, you're basically tellin' me to shut up.. I gotcha.
Posted By: Frederf

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/20/14 07:55 PM

Been away a while, just wanted to wrap up with Beach.

As best I can I'll try to condense my angle to a few words. I hope to instill in the DCS customer and/or developer a distinction between the quality of the user's interaction with the vehicle module and the quality of the vehicle's interaction with the environment. If the user finds significantly more satisfaction learning the vehicle module but loses interest when attention is shifted to vehicle-environment interaction only to have that interest reinvigorated on a new vehicle module, then consider that there is more value in improving vehicle-environment interactions (AI, mission design) than more variety of vehicle modules.

Value various addon modules but also contemplate the product as if that's the one and only module that ever was or will be made and your enjoyment of it has to stand on its own two feet apart from the anticipation of other addons.
Posted By: HeinKill

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/20/14 08:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Frederf
Been away a while, just wanted to wrap up with Beach.

As best I can I'll try to condense my angle to a few words. I hope to instill in the DCS customer and/or developer a distinction between the quality of the user's interaction with the vehicle module and the quality of the vehicle's interaction with the environment. If the user finds significantly more satisfaction learning the vehicle module but loses interest when attention is shifted to vehicle-environment interaction only to have that interest reinvigorated on a new vehicle module, then consider that there is more value in improving vehicle-environment interactions (AI, mission design) than more variety of vehicle modules.

Value various addon modules but also contemplate the product as if that's the one and only module that ever was or will be made and your enjoyment of it has to stand on its own two feet apart from the anticipation of other addons.


Or...get bored and move to another sim?
Posted By: rollnloop.

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/21/14 12:34 AM

Originally Posted By: LukeFF
Originally Posted By: Tom_Weiss
If there is any blame should be placed, I feel it should be placed on the team as a whole and not on a single individual, since we don't know what happened and no one yet has explained either, pillorying Luthier for any problems on a project that was until a few weeks ago on track, in my personal opinion unwarranted.

Luthier ASAIK could be ill as well, and that being the reason of his absence.


Sure, but Luthier does have a track record of not being the greatest at project management. Pacific Fighters, then CLoD, and now this. I would love to be proven wrong that it was again his lack of management skills that led to his downfall with DCS:WWII, sure, but with the way ED worded their announcement it tells me that he just couldn't hack this.


Despite all his failures, i still credit the guy for trying hard. But it sure looks like Luke nailed it.
Posted By: cichlidfan

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/21/14 12:44 AM

When someone goes from managing an independent group/company, to having no group/company and helping with some manuals. That pretty much paints the picture.
Posted By: LukeFF

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/21/14 02:18 AM

Originally Posted By: rollnloop.
Despite all his failures, i still credit the guy for trying hard. But it sure looks like Luke nailed it.


Sure, and even with that said, I certainly don't harbor any ill will towards him. He helped me out tremendously back in the days of IL2, when I was creating the He 162 cockpit and frankly didn't have much of a clue about what I was doing. biggrin He was always timely with his replies to my many e-mails, and he was always very helpful. In the end, I think he's the sort of guy who's good at creating content, but managing a team & complex projects just isn't his strength.
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/21/14 04:13 AM

Originally Posted By: Frederf
Been away a while, just wanted to wrap up with Beach.

As best I can I'll try to condense my angle to a few words. I hope to instill in the DCS customer and/or developer a distinction between the quality of the user's interaction with the vehicle module and the quality of the vehicle's interaction with the environment. If the user finds significantly more satisfaction learning the vehicle module but loses interest when attention is shifted to vehicle-environment interaction only to have that interest reinvigorated on a new vehicle module, then consider that there is more value in improving vehicle-environment interactions (AI, mission design) than more variety of vehicle modules.

Value various addon modules but also contemplate the product as if that's the one and only module that ever was or will be made and your enjoyment of it has to stand on its own two feet apart from the anticipation of other addons.


I would agree with all of that if I agreed that the user experience is tilted toward more gratification in new modules versus new "other" content (missions, improvements to the UI, improvements to the ME, improvements to existing cockpits, models, overall gameplay, etc..). I'm not convinced that people aren't still having fun with the included missions, user missions, and the extensive multiplayer fun that is available online. Taking your single module example as the template - there are guys that probably bought ONLY the A-10C or Ka-50 that fly them exclusively online. As long as new missions with a good premise keep getting churned out (thank you Wrecking Crew & Eno), with slots for those singular modules, then their gameplay is limitless. I sure am having fun still with what we have. I'll admit I would never kick new content out of bed (dynamic campaigns, new theaters), but I'm still quite satisfied with what I've been playing. I can accept though that my opinion might be an outlier. After all, I think Take On Helicopters is a gem of a product.

BeachAV8R

Posted By: Snoopy_476th

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/22/14 12:25 AM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R

Taking your single module example as the template - there are guys that probably bought ONLY the A-10C or Ka-50 that fly them exclusively online.


Exactly....members in the 476th vFG are only flying the A-10C within our organization and in the last two months alone we have flown well over 1000 MP hours. Getting into the summer months we've slow down only because the weather is nice and people are taking vacations. When we eventually have something as detailed as the A-10C it'll only get better. We have an extensive plan on the future, adopting a specific trainer (hopefully the VEAO Hawk once the EFM is completed) as well as other airframes eventually. I cannot wait to have fellow member of the 476th vFG flying a DCS level aircraft providing SEAD or CAP support while I'm skimming 100 feet off the deck in my A-10C!

ED isn't perfect and many A-10C bugs still exist that I wish would get fixed (and add realistic ATC and a wind sock) but as long as the A-10C doesn't get so broke it's unbearable I'll be chugging along as fast (aka slow) as my A-10C will allow and the 476th vFG will continue to provide the community with support, knowledge and a few other surprises.

I'll be happy than flys on sh*t when we finally have Nevada and the fact it should lead into other maps being available in the "near" future (near being subjective).
Posted By: bogusheadbox

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/22/14 04:48 PM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
(dynamic campaigns, new theaters)
BeachAV8R



Oh god Beach, what have you done ?

You have mentioned the two dirty words for DCS..... 1. new theaters and worst of all 2. dynamic campaign....

Here comes 500 pages of mud slinging - get to your fox holes gentlemen here it comes..... aaarrrrrggghhh

neaner
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/22/14 10:01 PM

Originally Posted By: bogusheadbox




You have mentioned the two dirty words for DCS..... 1. new theaters and worst of all 2. dynamic campaign....



Yep…at least 50 responses about how a dynamic campaign will put them out of business. Always forgetting examples like

Rise of Flight

Pat Wilson's one man effort for a ROF (which is better in some ways)

Strike Fighters (it doesn't have to be completely dynamic to be immersive)

Wings over Flanders Field (the most immersive yet…somehow they seem to be doing well)

These titles have prompted me to open my wallet…

On the flip-side, I haven't purchased any DCS products since A-10 when it became clear that offline immersion/battlefield experience is not on their agenda.
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/22/14 10:13 PM

Who said a DC would put them out of business. If people look hard enough... pieces of dynamic mission design are already in place. Perhaps the core changes we are seeing is whats holding things up... we shouldnt be so narrow minded all the time...

Originally Posted By: Force10
Originally Posted By: bogusheadbox




You have mentioned the two dirty words for DCS..... 1. new theaters and worst of all 2. dynamic campaign....



Yep…at least 50 responses about how a dynamic campaign will put them out of business. Always forgetting examples like

Rise of Flight

Pat Wilson's one man effort for a ROF (which is better in some ways)

Strike Fighters (it doesn't have to be completely dynamic to be immersive)

Wings over Flanders Field (the most immersive yet…somehow they seem to be doing well)

These titles have prompted me to open my wallet…

On the flip-side, I haven't purchased any DCS products since A-10 when it became clear that offline immersion/battlefield experience is not on their agenda.
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/23/14 01:41 PM

Quote:
Yep…at least 50 responses about how a dynamic campaign will put them out of business. Always forgetting examples like...

To be fair though - they have been putting their resources to use doing other things. The list is extremely long, and I know you don't want to hear it because it doesn't jibe with what you want, but it bears mentioning. Those other sims have much more simple platforms to model, freeing up an immense amount of time for working on environments and gameplay. I'm not saying that ED shouldn't (at this point) perhaps do that as well, but there is a intersection of projects they'd like to do versus profitability that meet somewhere and in their determination they do seem to have found the formula for remaining viable.

Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
If people look hard enough... pieces of dynamic mission design are already in place. Perhaps the core changes we are seeing is whats holding things up..

I don't know much about how the internals of the ME work. I do know there has been some recent work on inventory stuff and warehousing or something. Way above my head, but maybe that is laying the groundwork for something down the line. I don't know...

BeachAV8R

Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/23/14 01:45 PM

Originally Posted By: bogusheadbox
You have mentioned the two dirty words for DCS..... 1. new theaters and worst of all 2. dynamic campaign....

Hey, I'm a simmer/gamer at heart and I'm always up for improvement of any sim. The first I know is going to happen (eventually), the second, I hope is going to happen.

This morning I woke up wishing for an Su-25UTG and a populated Kuznetsov carrier.



BeachAV8R
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/23/14 01:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Snoopy_476th
Exactly....members in the 476th vFG are only flying the A-10C within our organization and in the last two months alone we have flown well over 1000 MP hours.

I've been checking your units streaming page the past week, but haven't caught you guys online yet. Interested to watch.. smile

BeachAV8R
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/23/14 01:51 PM

I wonder if the very traits that make luthier good at technical things (like a cockpit) are simply not conducive to being a project manager?

Now it's a clichéd rule of thumb that those who can do and those who can't manage, but honestly while a good manager needs to understand the technical details generally the best managers are not strongest in that area. Project management is at its core people and time management. I get the impression that luthier can lose the forest for the trees, focusing in on a handful of details seeking accuracy or authenticity while the rest idles and the overall schedule moves to the right faster than the speed of an unladen swallow.

That kind of attention serves mods well, when there is no deadline, no money, and no expectations, but not for leadership.



The Jedi Master
Posted By: HeinKill

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/23/14 04:59 PM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
Originally Posted By: bogusheadbox
You have mentioned the two dirty words for DCS..... 1. new theaters and worst of all 2. dynamic campaign....

Hey, I'm a simmer/gamer at heart and I'm always up for improvement of any sim. The first I know is going to happen (eventually), the second, I hope is going to happen.

This morning I woke up wishing for an Su-25UTG and a populated Kuznetsov carrier.



BeachAV8R


U
Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
Originally Posted By: bogusheadbox
You have mentioned the two dirty words for DCS..... 1. new theaters and worst of all 2. dynamic campaign....

Hey, I'm a simmer/gamer at heart and I'm always up for improvement of any sim. The first I know is going to happen (eventually), the second, I hope is going to happen.

This morning I woke up wishing for an Su-25UTG and a populated Kuznetsov carrier.



BeachAV8R


Ummm...for DCS WWII?

Now I understand why they can't fulfil your wishes man.

H

No seriously, this is a thread to gripe about lack of content for WWII scenarios guys - get your own DCS gripes thread! smile
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/23/14 06:15 PM

He has a point, there wasnt too many Su-25UTG is WWII I dont think biggrin
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/23/14 08:18 PM

Sometimes I wonder if he's not secretly relieved that he's just going to be doing all the detail-heavy documentation now. It seems far more like his forte.




The Jedi Master
Posted By: Snoopy_476th

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/23/14 08:21 PM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
Originally Posted By: Snoopy_476th
Exactly....members in the 476th vFG are only flying the A-10C within our organization and in the last two months alone we have flown well over 1000 MP hours.

I've been checking your units streaming page the past week, but haven't caught you guys online yet. Interested to watch.. smile

BeachAV8R


I'll be streaming tomorrow evening around 2300Z if all goes as planned.
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/23/14 10:30 PM

Originally Posted By: HeinKill
No seriously, this is a thread to gripe about lack of content for WWII scenarios guys - get your own DCS gripes thread! smile

Because no thread at SimHQ has evolved into something other than the subject line right? wave

BeachAV8R
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/23/14 10:32 PM

Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
He has a point, there wasnt too many Su-25UTG is WWII I dont think biggrin

In the WWII alternate ending version there was... The Japanese kidnapped some Russian engineers and the Su-25UTG Rising Sun model was created... It wreaked havoc on Iwo Jima..



BeachAV8R
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/24/14 01:42 PM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
He has a point, there wasnt too many Su-25UTG is WWII I dont think biggrin

In the WWII alternate ending version there was... The Japanese kidnapped some Russian engineers and the Su-25UTG Rising Sun model was created... It wreaked havoc on Iwo Jima..



BeachAV8R


I stand corrected... make it so! biggrin
Posted By: HeinKill

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/24/14 08:32 PM

If you liked that, you'll like this...

http://www.amazon.com/Weapons-Choice-Axis-Time-Trilogy/dp/0345457137

H
Posted By: toonces

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/25/14 04:51 AM

^ Crap. Now that's in my browsing history and will undoubtedly screw up my recommendations! LOL>
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/25/14 12:31 PM

Originally Posted By: toonces
^ Crap. Now that's in my browsing history and will undoubtedly screw up my recommendations! LOL>

Here ya' go...let the cookies put this one in your Amazon browser history so next time your co-workers are behind you watching your screen they'll get a chuckle:

Not that there's anything wrong with it.. (..and hey, 3 1/2 stars is NOT all that bad..)

thumbsup

BeachAV8R
Posted By: HeinKill

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/26/14 06:45 PM

Just as I feared, the Dora is 40 bucks.

Good for FSX style fans loaded with cash willing to pay 40 USD per warbird. Buy the P51 and Dora and Gustav please guys!

Hopefully they'll sell a couple of hundred of each to pay someone to work on a theatre and some missions...

H
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/26/14 07:40 PM

Originally Posted By: HeinKill
Just as I feared, the Dora is 40 bucks.

Good for FSX style fans loaded with cash willing to pay 40 USD per warbird. Buy the P51 and Dora and Gustav please guys!

Hopefully they'll sell a couple of hundred of each to pay someone to work on a theatre and some missions...

H


Yeah, I was thinking it could have been 3 dollars... or perhaps included in the back of a pack of baseball cards instead of that stale gum...

Posted By: Gambit21

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/27/14 12:03 AM

I'll happily fork out 40 bucks for the Dora if I have huge boxes of B17's to shoot at, great AI, and a nice immersive European theater
to fly it around in.
Posted By: msalama

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/27/14 03:35 AM

Quote:
Just as I feared, the Dora is 40 bucks.


Comments like this prove you have no understanding whatsoever how arduous, time-consuming and expensive it is to model these AC accurately.
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/27/14 07:14 AM

Can't wait to read HeinKill's SimHQ guest review of the Dora... (Here is the review of the A2A P-51 I mean DCS P-51: LINK )

popcorn

BeachAV8R
Posted By: SlipBall

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/27/14 08:59 AM

40.- dollars seems more than fair me thinks, had it been developed in the US probably 120.- or more
Posted By: Bumfluff

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/27/14 10:51 AM

$40 is fair. That's a meal and two beers.
Posted By: msalama

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/27/14 11:45 AM

Quote:
Just as I feared, the Dora is 40 bucks.

Good for FSX style fans loaded with cash willing to pay 40 USD per warbird. Buy the P51 and Dora and Gustav please guys!

Hopefully they'll sell a couple of hundred of each to pay someone to work on a theatre and some missions...


According to your P-51D review, you seem to think the A2A Mustang is the holy grail of warbird sims. OK, let's suppose DCSW gets enlarged and filled up with stuff (plus we get a working ATC) just like the MSX environment now. Will you _still_ whine about the price of ED's single AC releases then?
Posted By: Canadair

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/27/14 01:02 PM



. OK, let's suppose DCSW gets enlarged and filled up with stuff (plus we get a working ATC) just like the MSX environment now.

Suppose I wake tomorrow morning as Daenarys Targaeryan I have dragons and I am sitting on the Iron throne.
. They can't even deliver a new map after how many years. As much as all this suposedly coming add-on planes are perfect and well priced. ( I will buy some) , a good flight COMBAT sim as DCS is requires immersion; which means map, objects and stuff. DCS world has not been thoguht to be a civiliano thing and it will never be. Most of the airplanes we maybe will ahve have no place in georgia at all. Get real. One can be a DCS fanboy as much as he wants, and it is a good thing to be, but we cannot be blind. As it is now it looks like there is no roadmap and the wheel is in the hand of a monkey
Posted By: msalama

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/27/14 02:20 PM

Hey, I _do_ realize what a huge undertaking it is, and also the possibility of them not pulling it off because things have been moving at a snail's pace indeed. But still (and OK, I'll even retract my original supposition above since DCS isn't a civvie environment), what if they DID deliver a set of maps and period-accurate units for the AC they're releasing? Would $40 a pop still be too much?
Posted By: HeinKill

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/27/14 05:17 PM

I'm honestly glad you guys think its worth it! Buy it! And the Gustav! And the P51! All three for just 120 bucks...

And fly them around Crimea to your hearts content...no, even better... Nevada?



Originally Posted By: msalama
Hey, I _do_ realize what a huge undertaking it is, and also the possibility of them not pulling it off because things have been moving at a snail's pace indeed. But still (and OK, I'll even retract my original supposition above since DCS isn't a civvie environment), what if they DID deliver a set of maps and period-accurate units for the AC they're releasing? Would $40 a pop still be too much?


Thanks for asking the right question.

If they did that, I'd be the first in the queue to preorder!

H
Posted By: Frederf

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/27/14 06:27 PM

I think it is a mistake to complain that you cannot afford all content for a game. This artificially limits the scope of games that can be made and only to satisfy the "completionist gamer mentality" which is unhealthy thinking anyway.

What if DCS had 999 modules for $40 each? You couldn't realistically afford that many. This shouldn't stop you from purchasing what you want or can afford and being happy having an incomplete set. You have to let go emotionally from the "complete set" idea. It is up to the game designers and MP community to ensure that you can still enjoy the game with a limited set. For example if the server rotates to a mission where only plane Z is available and you only bought X and Y that is a bad community.
Posted By: eno75

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/27/14 07:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Frederf
For example if the server rotates to a mission where only plane Z is available and you only bought X and Y that is a bad community.


Wut?
Posted By: msalama

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/27/14 07:37 PM

Quote:
only plane Z is available and you only bought X and Y that is a bad community.


No it isn't, you just switch servers when/if that happens.

@Heinkill: the complaints concerning missing content are of course valid, and I do understand folks not wanting to fly, say, a Stang in 2000s Georgia. But I personally _still_ want to support the high-quality work they put out, because when it comes to CFS's these folks really are the ONLY game in town with excellently modelled FMs and systems both. And thus I'll gladly pay $40 each time there's something coming that tickles my fancy...
Posted By: Pizzicato

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/27/14 08:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Bumfluff
$40 is fair. That's a meal and two beers.


Yep. $40 is well within acceptable constraints given the cost of development, quality of product and size of audience.

I have no issues with that at all.
Posted By: Frederf

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/27/14 08:17 PM

Originally Posted By: eno75
Originally Posted By: Frederf
For example if the server rotates to a mission where only plane Z is available and you only bought X and Y that is a bad community.


Wut?


I don't understand your confusion. If a game environment exists where it is not reasonable to own all content then any user experience which de facto requires that is not reasonable. If the answer is "get the heck out of here" or "buy more stuff" that just reinforces the notion that you need all paid content to participate at all which sabotages the ideal of an environment where it's acceptable to have a reasonable subset of the content.

This is game design 101 here.
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/27/14 08:20 PM

You can't blame the game developers if a server admin is being a dick.

That's common sense 101.



The Jedi Master
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/27/14 08:23 PM

The game is designed to be very flexible. The server chooses what to run and the server's popularity depends on what missions they offer and how they run them.

I'm quite certain that there will be people running servers with a small selection, and I'm quite certain that there will be servers running the entire collection of DCS stuff as well.
Posted By: sharpe26

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/27/14 09:31 PM

Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
I'm quite certain that there will be people running servers with a small selection, and I'm quite certain that there will be servers running the entire collection of DCS stuff as well.


hmm, makes me wonder wheter or not Virtual Aerobatics opens up a ww2 server?
Posted By: HeinKill

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/27/14 09:35 PM

Originally Posted By: msalama
.@Heinkill: the complaints concerning missing content are of course valid, and I do understand folks not wanting to fly, say, a Stang in 2000s Georgia. But I personally _still_ want to support the high-quality work they put out, because when it comes to CFS's these folks really are the ONLY game in town with excellently modelled FMs and systems both. And thus I'll gladly pay $40 each time there's something coming that tickles my fancy...


I respect that.

H
Posted By: Frederf

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/28/14 05:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
You can't blame the game developers if a server admin is being a dick.

That's common sense 101.



The Jedi Master


When did I blame the devs? That's reading 101 :p
Posted By: HomeFries

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/28/14 06:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Frederf
...If a game environment exists where it is not reasonable to own all content then any user experience which de facto requires that is not reasonable. If the answer is "get the heck out of here" or "buy more stuff" that just reinforces the notion that you need all paid content to participate at all which sabotages the ideal of an environment where it's acceptable to have a reasonable subset of the content.

This is game design 101 here.

Perhaps the part in bold is where the inferred criticism of the developers was interpreted.

I'm sure you realize this, but DCS World does not require you to have all aircraft in the mission in order to participate in the mission; all that is required is an aircraft for which there is an open slot. That's as open as any graduate of game design 101 could expect. A server admin going from a mission with planes X and Y to a plane Z only without input from online flyers is obviously not a graduate of server admin 101. biggrin
Posted By: Canadair

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/29/14 08:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Gambit21
I'll happily fork out 40 bucks for the Dora if I have huge boxes of B17's to shoot at, great AI, and a nice immersive European theater
to fly it around in.


AMEN, well said in one line
Posted By: eno75

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/29/14 12:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
You can't blame the game developers if a server admin is being a dick.

That's common sense 101.



The Jedi Master



Originally Posted By: Frederf
Originally Posted By: eno75
Originally Posted By: Frederf
For example if the server rotates to a mission where only plane Z is available and you only bought X and Y that is a bad community.


Wut?


I don't understand your confusion. If a game environment exists where it is not reasonable to own all content then any user experience which de facto requires that is not reasonable. If the answer is "get the heck out of here" or "buy more stuff" that just reinforces the notion that you need all paid content to participate at all which sabotages the ideal of an environment where it's acceptable to have a reasonable subset of the content.

This is game design 101 here.



And you can't blame a server operator for running a mission that has content that YOU don't PERSONALLY own. Good lord man- get a grip with your 101 ish.


I'd have people b1tching just as loud if I was running mustangs in the same mission as eagles.
Posted By: Frederf

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/29/14 06:59 PM

Calm down there sparky.

The point discussed was that $40 for a module is a lot of money if there are a large number of modules available. The only way that that price point is acceptable is if it's impossible to have a good user experience without all the content. The fact that you can be next to (just not controlling) content you don't own in DCS is a great start.

However if the prevailing user environment punishes a user for not having all content then that severely undermines the idea that having an affordable subset of the content is OK. The message that "don't worry about $40, it's not like you have to buy a ton of it to have fun" would be lost in that scenario.

If the interest is ensuring the user, with some reasonable minimum of content, is always included and is enjoying themselves then all participants in the user experience landscape have to perform beyond what is required and fair to that which is fun. It's completely childish and unhelpful for Bob to blame Bill and Bill to blame Frank and Frank to blame Bob about who let the user down.

Now you're free to run your server in a manner which does not take this principle to heart. Perhaps you want to run a mission where Mi-8s just plain don't belong and so users who only have the Mi-8 will be disappointed. This should be a sad and regrettable situation on the whole. Acknowledge that if this situation is the norm where a user keeps getting kicked around like a stinky dog, they aren't going to have a good time.

And the next time someone says "don't complain about the module price, you can have fun online without so many modules" we'd know the answer is "bullsheet."
Posted By: Pizzicato

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/29/14 08:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Frederf
The point discussed was that $40 for a module is a lot of money if there are a large number of modules available. The only way that that price point is acceptable is if it's impossible to have a good user experience without all the content.


The question of whether or not $40 for a module is a lot of money is very subjective. There's no right or wrong position on that point - it's just a value proposition. From my perspective, $40 is about right or slightly too cheap. Other people will see the world differently.

In terms of whether or not it's possible to have a good use experience without all of the content, it indisputably is. You can only control one aircraft at a time, so as long as you can have fun with that aircraft (and I'm living proof that you CAN have fun with every single aircraft), then it's provably entirely possible to have fun without all of the content.

The question of whether or not every module needs to have a place on every server is back to a question of subjectivity. I used to fly on a Ka-50 only server, which was great because it allowed me and the other guys to enjoy that bird without being constantly plinked by F-15s. If other people only owned the F-15, they could go and play on a different server. No problem.

That, to my mind, demonstrates that every server needing to support every aircraft is actually an undesirable case - not, as you suggested, "a sad and regrettable situation". You can argue that that situation should promote coordinated gameplay, but it rarely works out that way for a variety of reasons. In my mind, I actually prefer servers that provide a subset of the experience.

And I have no idea at all what you're getting at with this:

Originally Posted By: Frederf

And the next time someone says "don't complain about the module price, you can have fun online without so many modules" we'd know the answer is "bullsheet."
Posted By: toonces

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/29/14 09:49 PM

I thought Frederf's point was pretty clear.

I used to play Rise of Flight quite a bit on multiplayer. But ultimately I wasn't super into it enough to keep investing in add-ons beyond the 10 or so planes I had.

RoF introduced the Channel map for sale. I didn't buy it. One of the more popular servers, New Wings I think it was, started putting that map into its rotation. So, when that map came up I was not able to play on the server.

Not a big deal if there were a lot of heavily populated servers, but as most of you know, there are only a handful with a "lot" of players so the sale of the new map essentially created a situation where I needed to either pony up the cash for the map, or accept that I wouldn't be able to play periodically.

This isn't a huge problem with DCS right now. However, when there are 10 WW2-era planes for sale, at $40 a pop, you are likely to run into a situation similar to my RoF situation where you want to fly online but none of the $40 WW2 planes required are in your library.

At $5 a plane it's almost trivial...at $40 it becomes quite an investment to keep up.

Taken to its conclusion this can hurt sales. Once a player realizes he has to keep investing to keep up with the game, he has to make a cost/benefit as to its value. RoF lost its business with me, in my case, because of this. I like the game and there are still a few planes I might have bought. However, realizing that there was a certain level of non-interested buy-in required to keep playing online, I decided it wasn't worth it...I didn't really want the Channel map and by not buying that I decided there was no point in continuing to buy planes I did want because my playing time was of necessity being limited. So they lost my business.

I believe that's what Frederf is saying. I'm willing to take a wait and see with respect to DCS on this one. For me, though, the $40 price point is way, way too high at this point in DCS's evolution.
Posted By: Snoopy_476th

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/29/14 10:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Frederf
Calm down there sparky.


First Beach now Eno...good job offending two of the most highly respected members around here.

Quote:


I believe that's what Frederf is saying. I'm willing to take a wait and see with respect to DCS on this one. For me, though, the $40 price point is way, way too high at this point in DCS's evolution.


So what would you expect? with DCS world being "free" they have to absorb the cost of maintaining/updating world as well as the cost of paying programmers for new airframes.
Posted By: Pizzicato

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/29/14 11:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Snoopy_476th
So what would you expect? with DCS world being "free" they have to absorb the cost of maintaining/updating world as well as the cost of paying programmers for new airframes.


This is my fundamental problem with the "planes should cost $5" and "I'm not buying DCS: WWII for $40 unless it comes with a new map, five flyables and a bunch of AI aircraft" crowd. It shows a complete lack of understanding of how much it takes to deliver aircraft to the fidelity and detail that ED achieve.

The days of Jane's WWII Fighters or even Il-2 Sturmovik are long gone.

Ultimately, though, this is an utterly pointless discussion. ED's strategy as regards pricing and free content will be decided based on the hard metrics of sales, not an obsessive bunch of forum dwellers arguing amongst themselves.

Bring on the next module. I'd far rather be flying than posting. biggrin
Posted By: Chris2525

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/30/14 12:30 AM

Personally I recognize that $40 could easily be an appropriate price for an aircraft given what goes into producing it, but personally I won't be buying the Dora when it comes out. My reasoning having nothing to do with principle or spite, rather because I just didn't get much out of P-51 with respect to gamplay when I bought it and I estimate that it'll be the same way with the Dora. I'll take it for a spin a few times then put it away. It's just simple cost vs benefit.

Now when there's enough WW2 content to create a context within which I'd enjoy those planes, I'll certainly be buying the Dora and dusting of the P-51, without question.
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/30/14 01:28 AM

Originally Posted By: Frederf
Perhaps you want to run a mission where Mi-8s just plain don't belong and so users who only have the Mi-8 will be disappointed. This should be a sad and regrettable situation on the whole. Acknowledge that if this situation is the norm where a user keeps getting kicked around like a stinky dog, they aren't going to have a good time.

It makes zero sense to be sad and regrettable about running into hosted missions that don't have a slot for a particular module. It makes complete sense. It would be no different than not being able to join an online FPS scenario because you didn't buy a follow on module or product. There appears to be plenty of servers out there hosting a huge variety of missions and platforms, so the point is moot anyway. I don't think that situation has become or is in danger of becoming the "norm", rather it is the exception that you can't find a server to play on with the content you own.

You tout your "Game Design 101" philosophy, but again I'd remind you that ED seems to have found the correct formula for staying in business while simultaneously giving a wide audience a pretty good experience. Is it perfect? Certainly not. I'm just impressed that you think you have a better idea on how it should be done. Might be time to get into the development business and show up ED and demonstrate how broken their business model is.

Originally Posted By: Chris2525
Personally I recognize that $40 could easily be an appropriate price for an aircraft given what goes into producing it, but personally I won't be buying the Dora when it comes out.

I'm not a big fan of the Dora. I'll buy it as a "collector" moreso than out of interest. I'd pay $100 for a F/A-18C right now today. To be honest, if I were interested in WW2 planes I have a whole shelf full of IL-2 type games that I could play. That era just doesn't do much for me.

BeachAV8R
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/30/14 01:32 AM

Originally Posted By: Pizzicato
Ultimately, though, this is an utterly pointless discussion. ED's strategy as regards pricing and free content will be decided based on the hard metrics of sales, not an obsessive bunch of forum dwellers arguing amongst themselves.

I agree mostly with this, but I also know that a lot of what ED do they do out of love for aviation and simulation. Contrary to popular belief, they have a soul, and they enjoying making things as realistic as possible and giving a great end-user experience. So it isn't completely about the money, but balancing what they want to do with what they can financially afford to do. I'm sure they would love to have the budget to hire a whole team of programmers to make all the things we want, but they prioritize stuff just like any business does.

BeachAV8R
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/30/14 01:37 AM

Originally Posted By: Snoopy_476th
First Beach now Eno...good job offending two of the most highly respected members around here.

biggrin

Nah..I got called a "thug" earlier in this thread. That's sorta a badge of honor for a generally positive, pacifist like myself. wink

BeachAV8R
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/30/14 01:41 AM

Originally Posted By: toonces
RoF introduced the Channel map for sale. I didn't buy it. One of the more popular servers, New Wings I think it was, started putting that map into its rotation. So, when that map came up I was not able to play on the server.

Not be be critical, but isn't that the normal life cycle of most games like Arma and CoD and others? New content comes out, many people migrate, some people stay. If the new content isn't good enough to draw people and their money with them, it becomes self evident in sales right? I call it "The Matrix Effect". The first movie was awesome. People were so excited that they went to see the second movie in even greater numbers. It sucked. So the third movies numbers tanked.

Matrix By the Numbers

I do understand what you are saying though. But it seems like a normal part of the life cycle of a game.

BeachAV8R
Posted By: toonces

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/30/14 02:42 AM

No doubt that most games you have to keep paying in as the game evolves, or move on. I was trying to find a concrete example to illustrate Frederf's point and that was the best I could come up with from my own experience. And it's not just idle talk. I bought quite a few DLC planes in RoF in the hope/faith that the sim would eventually evolve into what I wanted it to be...in this case, I'm specifically talking about a more robust single player experience with the beta career fully developed.

At some point, prior to the channel map, I realized that there was a chance RoF wasn't going to develop into the sim I wanted and I decided that throwing more money into it was not a good investment on my part. The channel map just cut me out of the community altogether.

Originally Posted By: Pizzicato
Originally Posted By: Snoopy_476th
So what would you expect? with DCS world being "free" they have to absorb the cost of maintaining/updating world as well as the cost of paying programmers for new airframes.


This is my fundamental problem with the "planes should cost $5" and "I'm not buying DCS: WWII for $40 unless it comes with a new map, five flyables and a bunch of AI aircraft" crowd. It shows a complete lack of understanding of how much it takes to deliver aircraft to the fidelity and detail that ED achieve.


You know, people keep throwing stuff like this out there. It doesn't fly with me anymore. If it does with you, fine. I've been a supporter of ED and I have all of their content- in some cases multiple times with Blackshark having been bought twice, Flaming Cliffs at least twice, and so on. But like my RoF example, enough is enough.

Look, I want to support ED and I want to see them continue to build new modules and so on. But, for me, I'm not going to keep throwing money into the kitty in the hopes that someday my loyalty will be paid off by them finally developing something I want. Maybe, instead of continuing to build stuff that most of us are lukewarm about (ok, I'm lukewarm about, I'll try not to generalize) how about building something we all want? Nobody here is going to #%&*$# about $40 for an Apache module, or F/A-18, or a dynamic campaign module...you know what I mean?

When ED starts building things I want, I'll start buying them again. I'm not throwing any more money into this pot until it starts to pay off. And, no, it hasn't been paying off for me yet.
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/30/14 03:28 AM

The people that want $5 planes are usually the Arcade Ace Combat People, that dont know what goes into these Aircraft.

I've seen user after user whine 24/7 about the prices of the modules on steam, then when they buy one on a steam sale for $12, they whine whine whine about how hard it is to do anything.

They Simply Assumed it was gonna be ACE COMBAT Style, their problem for not doing the research before whining.

If you want $5 Easy to fly DLC, Buy Ace Combat, Hawx or something.

Knowledge-able People In the High Fidelity Flight Sim market happily pay $50-$100 for individual planes for DCS, FSX, P3D, Xplane, whatever.
Posted By: Frederf

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/30/14 03:54 AM

Quote:
The question of whether or not $40 for a module is a lot of money is very subjective. There's no right or wrong position on that point - it's just a value proposition. From my perspective, $40 is about right or slightly too cheap. Other people will see the world differently.


I think $40 is a great price for what you get. What I'm getting at is that this price point doesn't scale to large increments of that price. Say there were 1,000 DCS modules on the market at $40 each. Each one could be great value but it's unreasonable to expect the customer to have most or all of them. Ideally having any number of modules should be a pleasant experience.
Quote:
The question of whether or not every module needs to have a place on every server is back to a question of subjectivity. I used to fly on a Ka-50 only server, which was great because it allowed me and the other guys to enjoy that bird without being constantly plinked by F-15s. If other people only owned the F-15, they could go and play on a different server. No problem.


I'm not saying that making every server have every slot available is the solution. But there are other alternatives. What if there was a grand server that tracked all the module-slots across all servers and the user could press a "Fly Ka-50 Now" button and get funneled to an appropriate server. I'm not saying that's a brilliant idea but it's an idea.

Quote:
RoF introduced the Channel map for sale. I didn't buy it. One of the more popular servers, New Wings I think it was, started putting that map into its rotation. So, when that map came up I was not able to play on the server.


That's exactly the kind of situation I'm talking about. No single party in the user experience (user, developer, server owner, etc.) had done anything distinctly wrong but regardless the end user is still having a bad time. What's not helping is every individual party crossing their arms and proclaiming that "well, it's not my problem" because it doesn't change anything. Ultimately "not my job" attitude just passes the buck and the end user may simply leave dissatisfied anyway.

Quote:
So what would you expect? with DCS world being "free" they have to absorb the cost of maintaining/updating world as well as the cost of paying programmers for new airframes.


Absolutely. Ideally more pay = more play and people buy modules because they like those modules. What I'm cautioning against is allowing it to be frustrating to try to enjoy what you have purchased. The RoF example is the quintessential example. In RoF you absolutely cannot buy 1 airplane and have fun with it online. The map rotations are so fast and the selections so dynamic that you quickly end up forced out. I'm not saying that DCS has this problem severely currently but it could as the number of modules increases.

I've not been a fan of the "collect all the DLC or go home" attitude that I've seen in various games. I'm interested in Star Citizen and obviously the individual craft are expensive. It would be healthy, in my opinion, for people to divorce themselves from "100%itis" and be happy owning a portion of the content. The developers too much help us overcome our addiction by making an effort to reinforce the idea that not having everything is OK. I used to be a 100%er of games and I think it's a mental illness. When I learned to let go and play "in the moment" I enjoyed games much more. If DCS:WWII hopes to have 50+ $40 modules then the gaming culture also has to get over this hoarder tendency.

Quote:
It makes zero sense to be sad and regrettable about running into hosted missions that don't have a slot for a particular module.


Sure it is. If someone's play is interrupted because they only have 2 modules instead of 20, that's unpleasant. I agree it's perfectly rational and understandable that this happens, but it does put a kink in user enjoyment. If we can find a way to streamline the user's enjoyment of his purchased product, it would be nice to design and implement it. Use your imagination. What about a server browser filter that filters for empty slots for X Y Z modules you select? That's an off-the-cuff suggestion that would make the limited-content user's life a little happier. Why are we so against making the user happy? Why do we pour such energy into crossing our arms, furrowing our brows, and explaining why they won't be having cake?

As far as making money, the smoother and more pleasant the experience, the more cash for the company. Usually. I know plenty of friends that avoid flight sims because they are a royal pain in the butt. The Xbox crowd has a ton of cash and a significant percentage would be interested in playing flight sims. However they don't accept the hurdles to entry that this genre has. There's no quickmatch, the chat window is in hard-to-read colors, there's no national (language) filtering help to join with same-language clients, etc. Flight sims have made some inroads to usability but more work is needed on this front.
Posted By: toonces

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/30/14 05:15 AM

Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
The people that want $5 planes are usually the Arcade Ace Combat People, that dont know what goes into these Aircraft.

Knowledge-able People In the High Fidelity Flight Sim market happily pay $50-$100 for individual planes for DCS, FSX, P3D, Xplane, whatever.


I don't have a problem necessarily with $40 for the Dora or other modules. I do have a problem spending that kind of money on a plane without the proper environment to fly it in. And for that matter, I'm starting to feel that way about DCS in general.

If WW2 is the (or a) direction DCS is going to go, IMO they seriously need to flesh out the environment before they pump out $40 planes. They need to sell the planes to get development money for the environment? Maybe that's so...then they should have thought of that before they went down this road in the first place (and by "they" I mean whoever greenlighted this whole idea to begin with).

Maybe I'm alone here thinking this way, but I'm telling you as a customer, someone who has money to spend on his hobby, that this plan isn't going to get me to spend my cash on this sim. If I'm going to fly high-end WW2 planes I want a full WW2 environment to fly them in.
Posted By: theOden

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/30/14 08:00 AM

What ED needs to do for DCS World is that players join an airbase rather than a served plane slot.
From there the player can choose to spawn into the mission with whatever module he has.

Not fun to fly Su25 in an air-to-air mission with F15/Su27's but you're still in and may try to survive until next "rotation" smile
Posted By: Gambit21

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/30/14 08:31 PM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R

I'd pay $100 for a F/A-18C right now today.
BeachAV8R


If however you were relegated to flying it around in 1944 Normandy you'd be less likely to purchase it, because it would amount to
little more than a momentary novelty. Same with those of us who 'in theory' love the Dora. I'll pay you $40 for a fully
realized 190D - sure, but don't make me fly it around in Nevada or Crimea. Give me a fully fleshed out WWII map, France at least.
Same comments apply to the P51 which is why I don't own it yet.

I'm watching, and hopeful, and when the moment comes that they even announce "the whole package" is coming, I'll open my wallet.
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/30/14 08:41 PM

P-51s are being used more than you think.
Posted By: Pielstick

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/30/14 09:41 PM

Interesting thread.

Whilst I recognise the technical achievement that DCS:W and its thus far released modules are, I'm a bit less than thrilled about the selection of modules available and perhaps lethargic pace at which the current Black Sea/Caucuses theatre is being fleshed out.

Yes it's great to have such a nicely modelled P-51, even though it's totally out of place... yes it's great to have such a good UH-1 - and I understand Belsimtek have to cut their teeth on something more straightforward than an AH-64 or Mi-24 - but again it's out of place. I feel much the same about the upcoming F-86.... great to have but kind of pointless without having an appropriate theatre got it.

Right now DCS for me is kind of like having a great steak, fantastic fish and chips, and some really nice rasberry ripple ice cream all served on the same plate. I appreciate them all, but I'd rather have them as seperate courses.

As much as I like the Fw190D as one of my favourite WW2 warbirds, it's very likely going to be the first DCS module that I skip because I'm simply not interested in flying it in the current theatre and plane set.

Now if we had a decent F/A-18, F-15, F-16, MiG-29, Su-27, Su-24, Mi-24, Mi-28, AH-64, AH-1, Tornado, Harrier module released I'd be all over it.
Posted By: Bumfluff

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/30/14 09:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Pielstick
Interesting thread.

Whilst I recognise the technical achievement that DCS:W and its thus far released modules are, I'm a bit less than thrilled about the selection of modules available and perhaps lethargic pace at which the current Black Sea/Caucuses theatre is being fleshed out.

Yes it's great to have such a nicely modelled P-51, even though it's totally out of place... yes it's great to have such a good UH-1 - and I understand Belsimtek have to cut their teeth on something more straightforward than an AH-64 or Mi-24 - but again it's out of place. I feel much the same about the upcoming F-86.... great to have but kind of pointless without having an appropriate theatre got it.

Right now DCS for me is kind of like having a great steak, fantastic fish and chips, and some really nice rasberry ripple ice cream all served on the same plate. I appreciate them all, but I'd rather have them as seperate courses.

As much as I like the Fw190D as one of my favourite WW2 warbirds, it's very likely going to be the first DCS module that I skip because I'm simply not interested in flying it in the current theatre and plane set.

Now if we had a decent F/A-18, F-15, F-16, MiG-29, Su-27, Su-24, Mi-24, Mi-28, AH-64, AH-1, Tornado, Harrier module released I'd be all over it.


Small steps mate. They've got to start somewhere.
Posted By: Pielstick

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 06/30/14 10:00 PM

Yeah I understand they've got to start somewhere, but the thought of DCS a few years from now still being a mish mash hodge podge of ill-fitting modules flown over a couple of theatres that aren't really appropriate makes me sad.

The whole thing just seems to be lacking any sense of cohesion or overall direction at the moment.
Posted By: mbchilemike

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 12:23 AM

Ahh well, took the $250.00 plunge. But on the other hand I've spent more in a titty bar in one night and didn't get anything either.
Posted By: LukeFF

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 01:59 AM

Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
P-51s are being used more than you think.


But that still doesn't nullify the fact the P-51 is a plane without a proper WWII map and WWII targets. Like Gambit, I'm not going to shell out money for any of these WWII modules until there's a proper WWII environment in which to fly them. Lack of money is not a factor for me in this, but I'm not going to buy a module just for the sake of it.
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 02:05 AM

I still think you guys are thinking too small. DCS World is planned to be much more than our individual wants. We'll have to see.

BeachAV8R
Posted By: Gambit21

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 02:29 AM

Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
P-51s are being used more than you think.


Good to hear it's being enjoyed, but I wasn't really making a commentary on how much the P51 was being used by others.
Posted By: Gambit21

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 02:34 AM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
I still think you guys are thinking too small. DCS World is planned to be much more than our individual wants. We'll have to see.

BeachAV8R


Can you expand on that? I'm not really sure what you mean.
I'm simply saying I have little interest in flying the Dora (or Mustang) without a proper WWII environment.
Seems plenty of others feel the same.
If that DCS World includes a WWII home for the Dora and Mustang, so be it. I'm in!
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 03:37 AM

Originally Posted By: Gambit21
Can you expand on that? I'm not really sure what you mean.


Sure: Post...

and...

Post 2

Post 3

Originally Posted By: Gambit21
I'm simply saying I have little interest in flying the Dora (or Mustang) without a proper WWII environment.
Seems plenty of others feel the same.

Neither do I. But there are plenty of people that want to fly it to learn it and see something historical replicated. Happens all the time in FSX. I have almost zero interest in WW2 stuff.. Even if there was a full fleshed out world to fly them in, I wouldn't spend much time doing it. But plenty will...

BeachAV8R
Posted By: msalama

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 04:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Pielstick
but again it's out of place.


As it comes to Georgia, it is NOT out of place (or at least not as completely as you seem to think). To my knowledge these birds are still in active service and the GAF uses them for SAR and (possibly) COIN duties:

http://www.nwhelicopters.com/nwh/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=164:georgia-air-force-takes-delivery-of-first-group-of-uh-1h-huey-plus-helicopters&catid=37&Itemid=51
Posted By: bogusheadbox

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 07:34 AM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
Originally Posted By: Gambit21
Can you expand on that? I'm not really sure what you mean.


Sure: Post...

and...

Post 2

Post 3

Originally Posted By: Gambit21
I'm simply saying I have little interest in flying the Dora (or Mustang) without a proper WWII environment.
Seems plenty of others feel the same.

Neither do I. But there are plenty of people that want to fly it to learn it and see something historical replicated. Happens all the time in FSX. I have almost zero interest in WW2 stuff.. Even if there was a full fleshed out world to fly them in, I wouldn't spend much time doing it. But plenty will...

BeachAV8R


Totally agree with the future potential and idealism of dcs. I really do hope it fleshes out

There is only one concern though. That is, can ED actually pull it off.

Its been a long time since dcs black shark was released before dcs world and in the big scheme of things, not a lot has happened.

So the question is. Does ED have the ability/resources to make all these hypotheticals a reality. of that I am not convinced. But I live in hope.
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 09:29 AM

I agree. It seems rather ambitious. But maybe they are making the tools for the 3rd party developers to run with. I don't know. The UH-1H and Mi-8 were very good modules. I think VEAO and Leatherneck will put out good stuff too. I'm more skeptical of some of the harder projects. Coretex taking a crack at the F/A-18E seems really over the top.

It remains to be seen whether ED will be very good at a few things, or just OK at a lot of things. So far, I'm of the opinion they've been very good at a few things. I'm a fan of the series and I realize that some people (not most I don't think) are not. It is what it is. I do think there are some people who will complain no matter what you give them. Twice a year I climb into multi-multi million dollar simulators that approximate, but don't match the real airplanes I fly. For $40 I'm amazed at what you get in DCS modules. Based on that track record, I'm more hopeful that most.

BeachAV8R
Posted By: Pielstick

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 12:12 PM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
I still think you guys are thinking too small. DCS World is planned to be much more than our individual wants. We'll have to see.


I've read your earlier posts and I see where you're coming from, but I disagree that DCS can reinvent itself as an FSX type sandbox sim any time soon.

As technically capable DCS is, it lacks the most important ingredient of a sandbox sim - global scenery coverage. Bear in mind now the current area has been pretty much the same since the original Su-27 Flanker in 1995. That's nearly TWENTY YEARS with the same postage stamp sized area of the world to fly in.

I also don't see why ED would even want to break into that segment of the market given the dominance of the existing platforms - not only in the entertainment sector, but also the professional sector as well. To me at least ED would be biting off far more than they could chew if they tried to go down that road.

I understand when ED opened up DCS to third party developers those same third parties need to cut their DCS teeth on more straightforward projects like a UH-1 or Hawk as opposed to going straight in at the deep end with a F/A-18E or Eurofighter Typhoon.

However, given the extremely limited scope of the existing theatre I would have preferred to have the Black Sea/Caucuses fleshed out with a decent number of appropriate modules first and actually get the whole digital battlefield concept up and running instead of the current trend which appears to be plucking iconic aircraft from totally different eras and dropping them all into the existing theatre whether they belong there or not.

I can appreciate it from a flight simmer perspective and am bowled over at how well these modules are produced, but I would much prefer a more cohesive approach to populating DCS. I can understand the merits DCS may have as a sandbox and the possibilities it can bring over and above other platforms, but to be perfectly honest if I want to fly an F-86 or Fw190D there are already very nicely done models in FSX and I have the entire world to fly them over with a mind boggling array of quality scenery options.

On the subject of theatres, this is perhaps maybe where my biggest criticism of DCS is. We've been flying in pretty much the same part of the world for almost 20 years. It's great the EDGE is on the way, but I have to say that I think most of the community just might possibly prefer to see somewhere like a Middle East, or possibly Afghanistan or Korea theatre than Nevada.


To summarise - DCS is a technically fantastic sim with enormous potential. Whilst I can certainly appreciate the effort and quality that goes into the content being produced for it, I think I'm far from alone when I say I'd prefer theatres and modules that complement one another as opposed to the ostensibly directionless hodge podge drip feed of stuff that we are getting now.

It's almost as if the whole DCS project is stuck in the mud at the moment and can't seem to move far in any one direction. I hope that developers will sieze on EDGE and bring us at least one or two more theatres. This would grease the wheels a great deal and give DCS the momentum it would need going forward. However, if a couple of years from now we are stuck with Nevada, the Black sea and a rather eclectic mix of modules I can see myself losing interest in DCS. Given how fantastic this sim could be that would be very sad.
Posted By: apelles

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 01:28 PM

Just my 2 cent after the long debate:

I have DCS world and three module: flaming cliffs, A-10c, Ka-50. I love it when a purchase these monsters. But after 2 years i don't fly any of them, but i fly il-2 (offline), Bob2, Mighty 8, falcon 4 AF (i'm pussy for the BMS), and if my computer would be willing to, i were play Mig alley and EAW. Not because dynamic campaign, but because the i'm there feeling is in them.

And now in the DCS i'm not there. I'm in a bells whistles simulator what i don't feel alive.
BeachAv8r, I appreciate your AARs, and reviews, and stuff. But i'm only enjoy DCS when i read your AAR's.
Of course it's only an opinion.
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 01:29 PM

If ED and the 3rd parties were pumping out a module every other month or so (combined), I don't think we'd have nearly as many reservations with the apparent meandering direction of releases.

That we only get 1-2 per year, however, means that we'll need a couple of decades to get a fully representative sim for a given era other than the modern one DCS World already does. So a more coherent release plan would allow respective eras to be filled out before moving on. How many naval planes are we hoping/waiting for that pretty much need ED to finish the Hornet and its carrier ops?

This is I think a great reason for the Flaming Cliffs-level of modeling. You get several planes, matching in era and theater, for the price of one more or less because it takes about the same amount of resources to make as one plane at high fidelity. Later they can up the systems and flight modeling to appeal to the hardcore.

I do see the problem of undercutting sales, though...how many who bought the A-10C would've been satisfied with an FC-level A-10C and bought that for less? So given that it would cost the same to develop no matter what, you get a lot of people buying the cheaper FC A-10C up front and significantly less buying the full up A-10C later once they finish it because the FC level was good enough.





The Jedi Master
Posted By: HeinKill

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 05:03 PM

I accept they are just doing what makes most sense to get a return on all the work to date on DCS WWII - FW190 nearly finished, get it out the door. Why not? Sell a few units at least.

This is an ambitious timeline and I really hope they pull it off and don't just pull the plug after eg the 109K which seemed also to be well advanced.

August 2014 – Fw 190 D-9 Dora
October 2014 - BF-109K
December 2014- Spitfire IX
March 2015 - P-47D-28
May 2015 - Normandy Map with period AI units

Especially that last one because that is when I will buy in...

H
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 05:58 PM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R


Well, you are applying a mindset to something I think (hope) that ED is perhaps no longer ascribing to. People are still getting hung up on looking at DCS World as a combat flight simulator with all of the attributes that have historically defined the genre (aircraft, campaign, missions). Instead, you have to look at DCS as a *possible* eventual replacement product (or at least coexisting) for something like FSX.


I find it interesting that you think those of us that are unhappy with the battlefield/campaign/immersion aspect of DCS should be changing our mindset and thinking about the possibilities of it as a civilian type sim. It seems a couple years ago…you were thinking along the same lines as a lot of us...

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
Uh..I'm a little late to the party on these campaigns. I have DCS World installed with the A-10C. Am I correct that there is only one campaign for the A-10 (and one with the free Su-25T)? I think it is Georgian Hammer correct?


…and that statement is followed with examples from you Beach on how a "more immersive" and better campaign techniques can be employed by the dev…complete with pics from Janes F/18 and Longbow 2 campaigns as examples.


Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R


I'd also pay money for well constructed campaigns and missions. Wasn't there some group (Vergeev Group?) making some pay to play campaigns. I could see a system like Yankee Air Pirate being very successful with hand crafted missions that follow a story.


I agree with you here!

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R

Perhaps if we get some new campaign areas things will open up a bit. I think the Black Sea area is getting a bit tired if I'm to be honest.



I agree with this as well. So for the sake of argument…I will say the Beach from 2 years ago is the one I agree with and would like to speak to. You know…the one that was after a great combat flight simulation and was all for offering up ideas on how to make DCS a more immersive experience. If anyone happens to run into that Beach…tell him to drop by! thumbsup
Posted By: HeinKill

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 07:26 PM

That was evil...the internet never forgets!

cheers
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 07:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Force10
I find it interesting that you think those of us that are unhappy with the battlefield/campaign/immersion aspect of DCS should be changing our mindset and thinking about the possibilities of it as a civilian type sim. It seems a couple years ago…you were thinking along the same lines as a lot of us...

Interesting in what way? Do you think it's some sort of conspiracy or something? I'm sure if you dig into the vast archive of my posts you'll see wishes and wants that are similar to yours. And I'm not encouraging to change your mindset about anything - I'm just pointing out the obvious, that DCS World is a different experience to each individual and pigeonholing it into the standard definition of a combat flight sim.


Originally Posted By: Force10
…and that statement is followed with examples from you Beach on how a "more immersive" and better campaign techniques can be employed by the dev…complete with pics from Janes F/18 and Longbow 2 campaigns as examples.

Yeah - and imagine this - they listened! Wags specifically contacted me asking for some input on mission briefing stuff and other things. And the huge amount of A-10C content that followed on by both ED and the user community put my mind at ease. I mean, I didn't come to be a fan of the series just by opening my wallet. I've played them and been entertained for countless hours (as evidenced by my many, many mission reports and articles).


Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
I'd also pay money for well constructed campaigns and missions. Wasn't there some group (Vergeev Group?) making some pay to play campaigns. I could see a system like Yankee Air Pirate being very successful with hand crafted missions that follow a story.


Originally Posted By: Force10
I agree with you here!

Vergeev missions were very good. So are the Basic Flight series that are out there. As far as I'm aware those are the only payware campaigns out there. With payware comes an expectation of gameplay and compatibility, something I think people are hesitant to do since the ever evolving mission editor keeps breaking old missions. A problem with no great solutions unless ED freezes the ME at some point and that can be the starting point (doubt that would happen).


Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
Perhaps if we get some new campaign areas things will open up a bit. [b]I think the Black Sea area is getting a bit tired if I'm to be honest.


Originally Posted By: An idiot with a keyboard
I agree with this as well. So for the sake of argument…I will say the Beach from 2 years ago is the one I agree with and would like to speak to. You know…the one that was after a great combat flight simulation and was all for offering up ideas on how to make DCS a more immersive experience. If anyone happens to run into that Beach…tell him to drop by! thumbsup

That's the stupidest thing I've read in this thread. And I'm not going to waste my time going back through five or six years of my old posts to show you the same things I'm saying here in support of ED. You can cherry pick a couple statements and try to paint me in whatever light you want, but that is just guerrilla journalism. Neither the "old" me or the "new" me is gonna waste another second with you dude. Believe whatever you want.

BeachAV8R

Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 07:34 PM

Originally Posted By: HeinKill
That was evil...the internet never forgets!

cheers

I stand by everything I've written. If you want to cobble together an argument by using bits and pieces of 25,000 posts, you could probably prove I wrote Mein Kampf too.

cheers

BeachAV8R
Posted By: bogusheadbox

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 07:51 PM

Lets keep it civil guys. There is one reason why we are heated on the DCS subject. Because flight sims are out passion and we want the most out of DCS whether that is or is not in their capability.
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 07:58 PM

Originally Posted By: bogusheadbox
Lets keep it civil guys. There is one reason why we are heated on the DCS subject. Because flight sims are out passion and we want the most out of DCS whether that is or is not in their capability.

I'd love to. I started off in this thread answering complete hyperbole "DCS modules have NO content" with a reasoned outline of how false that statement was. You might not like the content, or like the direction that DCS is moving in, but the statement was completely 100% false and I called out the OP on it. The rest is just the poo swirling around the bowl at this point as each side retrenches. EDIT - Actually, that's not fair because a lot of these comments both pro and con have been constructive and show where people are and what they are thinking. But there is a little bit of poo in there (from me too). It's the same old shi* over and over again. I just find it funny that when I support TOH, or Strike Fighters, or X-Plane, all of which have severe shortcomings, I don't get near the rash of shi* as when I support ED because for some reason people think ED are some evil overlords or something. Shrug. Just funny. It's not like my modus operandi has changed over the past two decades. Go back on USENET and you'll see I've always been very supportive of sims in general and like to accentuate the positive in direct proportion to the negative. As opposed to people that just want to complain a disproportionate amount of the time. I can't imagine deriving pleasure out of being that way..but to each their own.

BeachAV8R
Posted By: Pizzicato

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 08:42 PM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
It the same old shi* over and over again. I just find it funny that when I support TOH, or Strike Fighters, or X-Plane, all of which have severe shortcomings, I don't get near the rash of shi* as when I support ED because for some reason people think ED are some evil overlords or something.


I think it's a function of the fact that DCS is the closest thing to flight simming greatness that we have. From what I've been reading, it seems as though a lot of the frustration stems from the "nearly-but-not-quite" nature of the sim, the painfully slow development times and the always obtuse and frequently arbitrary directions that ED (and their partners) seem to be taking with their releases. I think people sensed an "on-the-verge-of-greatness" moment with the Su-25T AFM, the Ka-50 and the A-10C... but then the divergence into WWII, the lack of new theatres and the painfully slow development of both EDGE and the F/A-18C have resulted in a sense that it's all gone rather off the rails.

From my perspective as a single-player gamer with a love of helicopters, I'm extremely well catered for. I get three very high fidelity aircraft, each with excellent campaigns and a theatre that looks good and works perfectly for slow, low level aircraft. That sometimes makes it difficult for me to see the validity of the various complaints, but I ultimately think that they are valid.

The observation that kind of brought it home to me was the comment about what it would feel like to have a DCS: F/A-18C, but only have the WWII Normandy map to fly around. Despite the fact that I'm currently happy to tool around modern day Georgia in the P-51D, the scenario sketched out above would be unconscionably retarded and unacceptable from my perspective.

The end result is that while I don't necessarily share all of the frustrations, but I can totally understand how people (dependent on what's important to them) are getting frustrated about:

  • High fidelity aircraft that don't have "valid", historically relevant theatres to play in.
  • Very limited resources being spread across a wide variety of historically exclusive time periods.
  • Mission content that is very finite, scripted and (dependent on the aircraft) of widely varying quality.


All of that said, though, there are right and wrong ways to voice those frustrations. The snidely passive aggressive personal attacks and, in places, flat out lies are completely unacceptable, IMHO.

As difficult as it is, though, Beach - try to avoid rising to the bait. You're one of the most consistently positive, interesting, thoughtful and valuable contributors around here. Getting drawn into extended arguments with people that aren't interested in intelligent debate is ultimately fruitless, frustrating and stress inducing. Spend your time productively and go make some AARs, instead. biggrin
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 08:55 PM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R

That's the stupidest thing I've read in this thread. And I'm not going to waste my time going back through five or six years of my old posts to show you the same things I'm saying here in support of ED.


Neither am I…this wasn't even 2 years ago.

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R

You can cherry pick a couple statements and try to paint me in whatever light you want



I didn't cherry pick a couple of statements…it was a 2 page thread with ways the campaign system could be improved.

DCS Campaigns?

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
Neither the "old" me or the "new" me is gonna waste another second with you dude. Believe whatever you want.



Looks like someone is a little irratated that his previous statements were posted…whatever.

Originally Posted By: Pizzicato
Spend your time productively and go make some AARs, instead. biggrin


I agree! Reading Beach's AAR's is much better than seeing his "developer spokesperson" side that smacks down any opinions about DCS being a better combat sim.
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 09:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Force10
I agree! Reading Beach's AAR's is much better than seeing his "developer spokesperson" side that smacks down any opinions about DCS being a better combat sim.

There it is. Was just waiting for the "shill" statement. Because I get paid by ED right? Right? F-you because you are clueless about my integrity. If you'd been bothered to read all the stuff you've been researching about my past posts (kinda creepy if you ask me), you'd have reached that conclusion. F-it. You can't debate with someone like this.

BeachAV8R
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 09:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Pizzicato
As difficult as it is, though, Beach - try to avoid rising to the bait. You're one of the most consistently positive, interesting, thoughtful and valuable contributors around here. Getting drawn into extended arguments with people that aren't interested in intelligent debate is ultimately fruitless, frustrating and stress inducing. Spend your time productively and go make some AARs, instead. biggrin

Thanks. You are correct. Wrestling with pigs and all that. I'm usually smarter than that.

Now I gotta go explore the P-51 content I've never tried. I'll be sure to use my non-shill assessment mode.

BeachAV8R
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 09:38 PM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
stuff you've been researching about my past posts (kinda creepy if you ask me)



Oh my…someone is full of themselves. The other day I was looking for some new campaigns for A-10 and I typed "DCS A-10 campaigns" in Google and your thread is the second hit. I found it enlightening how you went from being tired of the Black Sea theater and thinking the campaigns could be improved…to your position now.

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
F-you because you are clueless


Is that the integrity you were talking about? Name calling because my opinion on the direction DCS should go in is different than yours? Coincidently the same opinion you shared not 2 years ago.

Real classy. I think we've seen enough here.
Posted By: HeinKill

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 09:44 PM



Meanwhile...

Wondering what other aircraft would people like to see in DCS eventually?

I'd love to see the Tempest...havent flown it since IL2 days...good counterpoint to the Dora.




With DCS modelling it we might finally be able to settle this old debate...

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/dora-vs-tempest-9888.html

H
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 09:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Force10
Is that the integrity you were talking about? Name calling because my opinion on the direction DCS should go in is different than yours? Coincidently the same opinion you shared not 2 years ago.

Real classy. I think we've seen enough here.

No, that's the reaction to you claiming I'm a shill. Here's a good example - check out the Take On Helicopters forum where I posted a couple years ago: "TOH - The most frustrating sim ever?" and I railed against the control scheme. Fast forward to last month, where I reassessed that post and felt I hadn't learned enough about the sim, so I revamped my opinion on the overall game. You are so entrenched in your opinions that you can't open your mind up to the possibilities your opinion could evolve. F-it, dig up my stuff from 10 years ago. I was probably listening to different music, driving a different car, and had different politics. Life changes. I can change with the times and don't have to suffer from having a narrow opinion on anything.

BeachAV8R
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 09:56 PM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R

No, that's the reaction to you claiming I'm a shill. Here's a good example - check out the Take On Helicopters forum where I posted a couple years ago: "TOH - The most frustrating sim ever?" and I railed against the control scheme. Fast forward to last month, where I reassessed that post and felt I hadn't learned enough about the sim, so I revamped my opinion on the overall game. You are so entrenched in your opinions that you can't open your mind up to the possibilities your opinion could evolve. F-it, dig up my stuff from 10 years ago. I was probably listening to different music, driving a different car, and had different politics. Life changes. I can change with the times and don't have to suffer from having a narrow opinion on anything.




Look Beach…I don't want to spar with you anymore. I know your sim history somewhat from reading your AAR's and posts over the last decade and you were my favorite flight sim fan. (probably most everyone's) I'm just frustrated that whenever we try to make DCS a more immersive and engaging experience with suggestions…it's met with opposition. In years past you always struck me as someone interested in the same thing. It's even more frustrating that all the tools seem to be in place to make it possible with a pretty robust mission editor.


Force10
Posted By: Leadspitter

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 10:08 PM

Ah best of luck to Ilya,

I think the DCS team is excellent and more impressed in olegs work and love of wwii aviation even if we disagree on somethings. Im still looking forward to DCS wwii europe but will be difficult to be in one front, hopefully if it is successfull they will add other fronts and ac packs like eastern front, pacific, france poland australia some of the rare wonderful planesets.

Right now I am enjoying IL2 BOS beta looks really pretty runs very nice but not a big fan of the Rise of Flight/Il2 fb like fms the wobbley rubberband feeling and rudders with almost no effect fms. I liked the il2 sturmo original fms more with super trim smile planes should not have the center of a x y z axis static center point, that center point should sway side to side and up and down differently depending on wind and weather conditions with a more on rails feeling which is more like real flight in my opinion.

I would really like to see simulated stick pressures with higher speeds forcing ac in unrecoverable dives way before airframe overstressing "popping parts"

Been into the flight sims since chuck yeagers on xt computers and think the sims that had the most realistic feel of flight to me are fsx xplane and condor soaring sim. I think these days in order to have a successfull wwii aircraft game you have to have alot of online players and have land sea and air play with the focus on the power of strategic aviation. Defending factories rails bridges which would stop the teams respawn numbers and destroyable runways to disable and take over.

PS host options for fakism/equal fm dm firepower is highly needed to make it completely equal for all sides, team tournements, and would end fm debates in game smile

I can dream right smile

Something i wanted for along time along with locked cockpit ability which brought me to il2 demo back in the day from eaw aceshigh and cfs thanks to WUAF squad.
Posted By: Paradaz

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 10:17 PM

As many others have said in this thread, I think the negativity voiced from some people (including myself) with regards DCS/ED comes from knowing that it wouldn't take a lot of effort to really turn the niggles around from this great series to really make it head and shoulders above anything else.....however, the slow development and what appears to be a lack of real direction right from the start with the way BS/BS2 was handled and the integration of what was supposedly a modular title which turned out to be not modular at all without major re-work really started some people asking questions with regards to whether ED knew which direction they were really heading in - something I'm still not sure of today. Sure, a fully fledged combat theatre might be the target, but at the rate ED are moving in its never going to be in our or our grandkid's lifetime.

Personally I think that ED could have shaved a few of the bells and whistles off the fidelity, making the aircraft fall somewhere between FC and DCS, but release them in pairs within the same era. The previous releases couldn't have fallen more randomly.....I was seriously awaiting the C130J Hercules and Blimp announcements at one stage to fill in the gaps!

I've always found it strange, and what it probably most eyebrow raising within SimHQ is that whilst we can debate any simualator as adults and discuss the pros and cons, negativity around DCS always brings the same people jumping to its defence (and no, I'm not talking about you Beach) - the DCS test team/moderators whose post count show a 100% attendance in DCS thread with no posts in any other topic are seemingly here to ensure that it is suitably moderated and any negativity is constrained. It's about the only simulator on this whole forum in which the good points can be discussed but negativity is pounced on.
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 10:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Force10
Look Beach…I don't want to spar with you anymore. I know your sim history somewhat from reading your AAR's and posts over the last decade and you were my favorite flight sim fan. (probably most everyone's) I'm just frustrated that whenever we try to make DCS a more immersive and engaging experience with suggestions…it's met with opposition. In years past you always struck me as someone interested in the same thing. It's even more frustrating that all the tools seem to be in place to make it possible with a pretty robust mission editor.

I am interested in the same thing. Honestly. Peace.

BeachAV8R
Posted By: Gambit21

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 11:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Leadspitter
Ah best of luck to Ilya,


I would really like to see simulated stick pressures with higher speeds forcing ac in unrecoverable dives way before airframe overstressing "popping parts"



Pretty sure I experienced this in a dive with the La5 the other night - I'll have to test again to be sure.
Posted By: Gambit21

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/01/14 11:59 PM

I was just thinking - funny that European Air War back in the day came closer to what some of us are really looking for than anything since as far as immersion goes.
No developer has bothered taking what this old sim did and running with it. Kind of odd really.
Developers seem plenty able and willing to give us WWII planes, but nobody is interested in giving us WWII it seems.
Falcon 4.0 attempted to give us a Korean War (I was one of those who purchased the CD/binder on release day) - no developer has tried to bring us a fleshed out conflict like that since.

It's just strange that after all this time, we're still wanting for that "being there" experience. If you would have asked be back then if we'd have WWII or even modern jet flight sim nirvana by now, I would have bet on it.
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/02/14 12:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Gambit21
I was just thinking - funny that European Air War back in the day came closer to what some of us are really looking for than anything since as far as immersion goes.
No developer has bothered taking what this old sim did and running with it. Kind of odd really.
Developers seem plenty able and willing to give us WWII planes, but nobody is interested in giving us WWII it seems.
Falcon 4.0 attempted to give us a Korean War (I was one of those who purchased the CD/binder on release day) - no developer has tried to bring us a fleshed out conflict like that since.

It's just strange that after all this time, we're still wanting for that "being there" experience. If you would have asked be back then if we'd have WWII or even modern jet flight sim nirvana by now, I would have bet on it.



Agreed. Someone will be quick to point out that the dynamic campaign in Falcon pretty much busted Microprose. I would say that a dynamic campaign for DCS doesn't have to be as ambitious as Falcon to be well received. Even though it's kinda sim-lite…the Strike Fighters series has a functional campaign system that is different for the most part when you play it over again.

The thing that I like about the SF campaign though is the amount of AI flights and battles going on around you that makes it feel like a war zone. This is something I wish DCS would work more on instead of just adding more plane modules with a canned linear campaign.
Posted By: Gambit21

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/02/14 01:03 AM

Yes - those little touches make a huge difference.
When I built my Liberation Skies P47 campaign for IL2, I made sure there was plenty of AI air activity, transports, other CAS
flights, etc. As well vehicle activity at the base, including when the player returned from their mission.
Large vehicle convoys - all this stuff is important and largely overlooked.

I miss that briefing from EAW, the sound of boots scuffling on the floor - such a little thing but it set the tone
and added at one of immersion.

The whole Microprose thing - yeah that was a disaster. It kind of "broke" me as far as allowing myself to look forward to
a sim too much. That's why I weathered the the whole CloD thing with little more than a shrug.
I had a lot of fun in that Falcon 4.0 mission editor though - it was a model for user friendliness IMO.
Posted By: toonces

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/02/14 03:19 AM

Just something I kind of started thinking as I was reading this thread is that I'm surprised ED didn't seize the niche they carved with Ka-50 and run with it. What I mean is that instead of biting off something like the F/A-18 and carrier ops, why not stick with helicopters and evolve the sim into a successor to EECH?
Posted By: Pielstick

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/02/14 12:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Force10
Someone will be quick to point out that the dynamic campaign in Falcon pretty much busted Microprose.


Falcon 4 was a hugely ambitious project and the sheer scope of it and all the things they were trying to do was what nobbled them in the end.

Don't forget also that Falcon 4 was supposed to be the base upon which they would expand with other aircraft, much like what DCS is doing now.

ED have been very wise not to try to do everything all at once. I tend to agree though, a dynamic campaign, even a more simplifed one that is more SF2 than F4 in terms of scope and complexity is increasingly conspicuous by its absence in what is after all, the premier combat flight sim of recent years.
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/02/14 12:56 PM

The F-15E was announced and then swiftly cancelled once Hasbro bought them. I don't know if that was just Hasbro being conservative or if the numbers really didn't add up, but it seems to me that making an F-15E cockpit and systems and reselling the whole thing at full price would've helped make up that investment.
It didn't get the chance to try.



The Jedi Master
Posted By: Pielstick

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/02/14 01:19 PM

Was it an F-15E? I always thought it was going to be an F/A-18C? It's been that long now i can't remember.
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/02/14 01:31 PM

I think I would prefer an EECH type campaign (big fish in a little pond) over a Falcon 4 type campaign (little fish in a big pond). I always felt like I had more influence over the campaign in EECH which made it a bit more "gamey", but entertaining.

BeachAV8R
Posted By: apelles

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/02/14 01:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Gambit21

I miss that briefing from EAW, the sound of boots scuffling on the floor - such a little thing but it set the tone
and added at one of immersion.


Yes, yes, yes!
I want the boots too! And the briefing tables!!! And squadron mates. Not just novice pilot, veteran pilot.
Posted By: HeinKill

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/02/14 05:12 PM

Originally Posted By: apelles
Originally Posted By: Gambit21

I miss that briefing from EAW, the sound of boots scuffling on the floor - such a little thing but it set the tone
and added at one of immersion.


Yes, yes, yes!
I want the boots too! And the briefing tables!!! And squadron mates. Not just novice pilot, veteran pilot.


Thems woz the days...

http://www.combatsim.com/htm/nov98/jpg/eaw-car1.jpg

H
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/02/14 05:42 PM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
I think I would prefer an EECH type campaign (big fish in a little pond) over a Falcon 4 type campaign (little fish in a big pond). I always felt like I had more influence over the campaign in EECH which made it a bit more "gamey", but entertaining.

BeachAV8R



Would you think a Strike Fighters type campaign system would be viable? Reading your AAR's for SF2 it seems it would be something that you could enjoy and be do-able without breaking the bank. I'm not sure how persistant the campaign actually is…or if it ever ends(I've never been able to finish one, if that's even possible). DCS already has the fast mission planner that makes random missions, so we know some sort of quasi-dynamic scripting works, and is a stepping stone for what we are after IMO. Just need to add squad mates with names that you can select for the mission(ala SF2) that carry over through missions, squadron kill board etc.

It seems any sim with a robust mission editor has the capability to have a campaign created with a dynamic feel. Pat Wilson managed to get one going for ROF with Java scripting that functions outside of the sim itself. Not too long after Cliffs of Dover came out a guy named TheEnlightenedFlorist was able to make a dynamic campaign that actually worked in the sim using the sim's UI. I'm just wondering if DCS's mission editor is a bit too complex for 3rd parties to figure out and make one for it? DCS has a huge following and I would have figured somebody would have taken up the charge as many others have done for just about every other sim that has a mission editor. Maybe it's because frequent updates change mission editor properties and would break a 3rd party system? Regardless…I think the devs need to help the community out with this because they have the most knowledge on how the editor works and how best to move forward.
Posted By: apelles

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/02/14 05:47 PM


http://www.combatsim.com/htm/dec99/mig-offensive.htm
Posted By: Scoobe

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/02/14 06:11 PM

I enjoyed EAW a lot. Most immersive sim ever.

I am not into the whole multiplayer thing that seems to be so popular now. I play mostly single player only and would love to have something more than just user created missions. Don’t get me wrong, some of them are fantastic, but there needs to be better re-playability.

I don’t need a totally dynamic campaign like Falcon to get me going. The old randomly generated missions were fine with me. Gunship 2000 was great in this way. You would get a random mission with a primary and secondary mission and then you would pick which Ai pilots would attach which target and you would fly along with them or attack a different target. If they survived, they would get better. If they didn’t, you would lose an experienced ai pilot to get replaced by a not so good pilot. I remember feeling sad when one of my veteran squad mates would buy the farm and did not send my good pilots on suicide missions.

DCS world already has a pretty good random mission generator. If they can somehow tie it into a pseudo dynamic campaign like system, and maybe add some command responsibilities for the player, it would be good enough for me.


Rob
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/02/14 06:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Force10
Would you think a Strike Fighters type campaign system would be viable? Reading your AAR's for SF2 it seems it would be something that you could enjoy and be do-able without breaking the bank. I'm not sure how persistant the campaign actually is…or if it ever ends(I've never been able to finish one, if that's even possible).

From an entertainment standpoint - I'd say certainly. From a technical standpoint (actually making one for DCS World), I couldn't even hazard a guess as to how easy or hard it would be. I mean, everything is achievable given the resources and desire to do it. I enjoyed the SF2 campaign system for the fact that it populated the entire theater with a fairly wide array of aircraft, each doing their own roles. And it had a little bit going on under the hood too because each of those missions you are assigned is usually accompanied by other flights (SEAD, CAP, SWEEP, etc..).

The only reason I might like an EECH campaign a bit better is because there is a bit more feeling of taking and holding territory in that sim. You change the blue to red or red to blue as you gain FARPS and bases. And each base can be later contested and won back with strikes, recon, and insertions. That is actually a bit more appealing to me personally than the Falcon 4 campaign which seems a bit too large if you ask me. I always got the feeling that there was a lot of interpolation going on in the Falcon 4 campaigns.


Originally Posted By: Force10
DCS already has the fast mission planner that makes random missions, so we know some sort of quasi-dynamic scripting works, and is a stepping stone for what we are after IMO. Just need to add squad mates with names that you can select for the mission(ala SF2) that carry over through missions, squadron kill board etc.

Yes, that would go part of the way to cleaning up the sterile atmosphere. A sense of ownership of your plane, pilot, and squad. I know for a fact that ED is not unaware of these kinds of suggestions. I don't know anything about anything with regards to what "hooks" are in the current DCS World editor as far as making progress toward the things we all agree would be great. I don't really know how the warehousing features work or anything like that. Smarter people than me can probably comment on what's in there so far.

Originally Posted By: Force10
It seems any sim with a robust mission editor has the capability to have a campaign created with a dynamic feel. Pat Wilson managed to get one going for ROF with Java scripting that functions outside of the sim itself. Not too long after Cliffs of Dover came out a guy named TheEnlightenedFlorist was able to make a dynamic campaign that actually worked in the sim using the sim's UI. I'm just wondering if DCS's mission editor is a bit too complex for 3rd parties to figure out and make one for it? DCS has a huge following and I would have figured somebody would have taken up the charge as many others have done for just about every other sim that has a mission editor. Maybe it's because frequent updates change mission editor properties and would break a 3rd party system? Regardless…I think the devs need to help the community out with this because they have the most knowledge on how the editor works and how best to move forward.

I think you've hit on several of the key components. The editor is constantly in flux these days. Some people that might dive in have probably been scared off by the constant changes that tend to break missions. I also don't know how open it is to dissecting and figuring out. With the whole ED Third Party agreement stuff (or contracted? or whatever) I'm hoping the tools and doors will be flung open for not just aircraft and theaters, but things like a dynamic campaign or mission sets or whatever.

I think Jedi also brings up a good point that FC3 fidelity aircraft are not a bad thing for the series. It bridges some time gaps, and some people are content (like me) to fly something like the A-10A in a manner sort of like Strike Fighters 2 - get in, fire up, and fly.



Originally Posted By: toonces
Just something I kind of started thinking as I was reading this thread is that I'm surprised ED didn't seize the niche they carved with Ka-50 and run with it. What I mean is that instead of biting off something like the F/A-18 and carrier ops, why not stick with helicopters and evolve the sim into a successor to EECH?

I was disappointed that the AH-64 was not the immediate follow on to the initial Ka-50 project. The A-10C was a pretty good consolation prize, but I've always loved rotor operations, so the AH-64 would be greatly loved on my computer. I've probably spent more time playing rotor sims (LB2, EECH, Ka-50, UH-1H, Mi-8) than any other. The awesome heli-dynamics are a huge selling point of this sim. But, I do understand people longing for a fast jet fighter with DCS level of modeling. Personally, I wouldn't be all that jazzed about an F-15C with all the bells and whistles (full DCS modeling), but an F-15E..yeah, I'd buy one of those.

Glad we are back to talking like friends and enthusiasts. That other stuff sucked.

BeachAV8R
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/02/14 07:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Scoobe
I remember feeling sad when one of my veteran squad mates would buy the farm and did not send my good pilots on suicide missions.

I used to send ex-girlfriends on SEAD missions in JF-15. Does that make me a bad person?

BeachAV8R
Posted By: HomeFries

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/02/14 07:39 PM

Regarding the Strike Fighters mission generator, this would be great for DCS. One thing that always killed me about SF2 was that there was no multiplayer in missions that were just screaming for it (flyable F-4's escorting flyable A-4s or A-6s), and DCS has the mutiplayer and modularity to make something like this work.

The big variable is the Mission Generator (MG). Right now, just using the MG without any tweaks will generate a ground-war heavy scenario with minimal air to air. However, you can tweak your input criteria, and it looks like if you tweak the input criteria just so, you could create these SF2 types of scenarios. I've played with it a bit to create different types of scenarios, but I'm wondering if it's possible to tailor your criteria as tightly as the SF mission generator does to create its campaign missions, or if somebody has put in the effort to come up with said input criteria.
Posted By: msalama

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/02/14 08:03 PM

But then, what looks like them lacking direction could actually be some unknown parties paying them to develop stuff that seems random to us - and then, permission granted, just release said stuff later. Would explain a thing or two I think...

Or is my tinfoil hat getting too tight AAAAAGAAAAIN???
Posted By: msalama

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/02/14 08:05 PM

Quote:
Does that make me a bad person?


No. Just evil.
Posted By: near_blind

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/02/14 08:42 PM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
But, I do understand people longing for a fast jet fighter with DCS level of modeling. Personally, I wouldn't be all that jazzed about an F-15C with all the bells and whistles (full DCS modeling), but an F-15E..yeah, I'd buy one of those...


Six months ago I would have unreservedly agreed with that sentiment. I make no secret that what I really want is some sort of western multi-role fast jet. However ever since the AFM was hinted at I've been flying much more in the Eagle and Flanker, and I've got to say online, it's intense.

Even without all of cockpit simulation the air to air experience was just as intense and satisfying as any CAS/JTAC mission I've flown in the A-10C. Trying to coordinate with a wingman(men) in a shooting engagement involves just as much communication as cooperative CAS, but everything moves much faster. SA is even more vital, and much harder to maintain as you want to keep track of your wingman, your target, and his wingman, while trying to anticipate any moves they'll make while all of you are flying at near supersonic speeds. Toss in the added fun of trying to determine of that jamming contact is friendly or hostile or trying to keep a lock on a wildly maneuvering target, and you've got a mental work out. Imho it's far more satisfying to make it back in one piece in an Eagle than it is in an A-10.

I can only imagine how much more interesting it would be with all of additional avionics modelling that a DCS level bird would get.

That said I would hesitate a whole 0 seconds before buying an F-15E if one became available, -1 seconds for a naval strike fighter of any variety.
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/02/14 10:17 PM

Yeah, it's probably like deviled eggs. I never tried it until I was older and never realized what I was missing <g>. I'm sure I'd have a blast with air-to-air stuff. Like I said, I've always been into helicopters which can be a slow moving, tactical, and somewhat stressful affair (the ground is just as likely to kill you as the enemy). I could see how coordinating with wingmen to get the advantage would be fun though. Particularly if it got in close to knife fight range. I'm not a big WW2 fan, but furballs with MiG-15s and F-86s does sound pretty fun. It would be nice to have a fleshed out Korea to fly them over though...

And yeah..naval strike fighter would be my goto bird if one ever comes out. I think I could do cats and traps for hours in multiplayer without ever firing a weapon. I guess I need to find some like minded people that want to fly around the boat in the Su-33 sometime (now that I have FC3)..

BeachAV8R
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/02/14 10:19 PM

Originally Posted By: HomeFries
Regarding the Strike Fighters mission generator, this would be great for DCS. One thing that always killed me about SF2 was that there was no multiplayer in missions that were just screaming for it (flyable F-4's escorting flyable A-4s or A-6s), and DCS has the mutiplayer and modularity to make something like this work.


Yeah, if SF2 had multiplayer I think a large chunk of us would be playing it and enjoying the heck out of Vietnam, the Middle East, the Gulf, etc... Talk about a sim that has a bit of something for everyone. The lack of MP is just flat out depressing.

BeachAV8R
Posted By: streakeagle

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/03/14 12:45 AM

I hosted SFP1 multiplayer for several years. As implemented by TK, it was never good enough to keep a crowd. Personally, I loved it despite the limitations. Never had enough people online at the same time to enjoy a full 8 vs 8 team vs team co-op mission. With airplanes ranging from WWI to the early 80s, the SF series easily could have been a great core for massive multiplayer online game. So much potential wasted frown

So now I am waiting to see if DCS eventually adds the strength of the SF series: awesome planeset and terrain variety with nearly unlimited historical or hypothetical mission potential. But at the present rate, it won't happen in my life time :P
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/03/14 01:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Pielstick
Was it an F-15E? I always thought it was going to be an F/A-18C? It's been that long now i can't remember.


They did an F/A-18A for Falcon 3 after the MiG-29 came out, but for F4 it was going to be the F-15E. I remember a bit of controversy over it since Jane's F-15 was contemporary and some people were claiming that was enough and they'd rather have plane X than the F-15E. Many people said A-10A for X, BTW, but then Jane's A-10 was announced and they quieted down--of course in the end that and the F-15E were both cancelled.
I think there was some idle speculation about a Hornet after the F-15E, along with an A-10A, but it was never as solidly planned as the F-15E was. I've no idea how much work was done before the kill order came, but it was close enough that likely not too much.



The Jedi Master
Posted By: bonchie

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/03/14 01:44 PM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
I was disappointed that the AH-64 was not the immediate follow on to the initial Ka-50 project. The A-10C was a pretty good consolation prize, but I've always loved rotor operations, so the AH-64 would be greatly loved on my computer. I've probably spent more time playing rotor sims (LB2, EECH, Ka-50, UH-1H, Mi-8) than any other. The awesome heli-dynamics are a huge selling point of this sim. But, I do understand people longing for a fast jet fighter with DCS level of modeling. Personally, I wouldn't be all that jazzed about an F-15C with all the bells and whistles (full DCS modeling), but an F-15E..yeah, I'd buy one of those.

Glad we are back to talking like friends and enthusiasts. That other stuff sucked.

BeachAV8R


I think an AH-64 would of been great but the F18C is a smart choice I think. You give pretty much everybody what they want. Carrier ops/Land ops/Interception/Dogfighting/Ground pounding/SEAD, etc. They can appeal to the most people with it.

Agree that a pure A2A fighter wouldn't of excited me as much.
Posted By: bogusheadbox

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/03/14 02:40 PM

As per hooks in dcs and dynamic campaigns, I would hazard a guess that all is pretty well already there. Tacview shows an tracks all the stats needed to do this.

There was a post in here from a guy mentioning that he has something akin to il2 scorched earth working.

If so this should be consumed by the public en mass as anyone who ever flew scorched earth would certainly ken that it was a game changer.

Flying a mission and really not knowing what may be coming. Doing recon and having it count. Persistent tracking of equipment.

This is what we need more of.
Posted By: HomeFries

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/03/14 04:57 PM

It's very possible to do a dynamic head-to-head campaign using the HTML based editor, but implementation bogs down when trying to do the same thing single player. The AI is very programmable and deterministic, which makes for great canned missions but makes dynamic implementation much tougher. With the H2H, you can at least have opposing commanders with CA command the ground units, and then tweak their tasking between mission "saves" (the HTML editor saves the mission state as well).

DCS can already handle logistics and equipment tracking, and can even model supply lines. Again, it's just a matter of making the jump from the deterministic mission planner to the AI following "guidelines".
Posted By: Pielstick

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/04/14 12:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
They did an F/A-18A for Falcon 3 after the MiG-29 came out, but for F4 it was going to be the F-15E.


Now you mention it I think you've jogged my memory.


Originally Posted By: bonchie
I think an AH-64 would of been great but the F18C is a smart choice I think.


Definitely. The F/A-18C ticks more boxes than any other aircraft and that should make it a very obvious choice.
Posted By: bogusheadbox

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/04/14 12:42 PM

So the big question is.... Have they sorted out the ground radar yet ?
Posted By: ST0RM

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/04/14 05:31 PM

Originally Posted By: bonchie


I think an AH-64 would of been great but the F18C is a smart choice I think. You give pretty much everybody what they want. Carrier ops/Land ops/Interception/Dogfighting/Ground pounding/SEAD, etc. They can appeal to the most people with it.

Agree that a pure A2A fighter wouldn't of excited me as much.


True. A multi-role aircraft is needed. The F/A-18 or F-16 being logical choices. However, people would argue against the F-16 as being overly done. But it is still an exciting jet that is dual role.

A F-15E would be a good choice too, but REQUIRES proper two-person operation. Currently this is not available in DCS. Plus, it's not truly dual ole. Loaded up, it's a bomber. Even, without bombs, it's not a light weight that can mix it up with a true BFM fighter on equal terms. We've got he F-15C for that.

Jeff
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/04/14 05:59 PM

what does this post chain have to do with the actual topic?, nada.
Posted By: ST0RM

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/04/14 06:25 PM

So then, don't read them.
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/04/14 06:50 PM

Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
what does this post chain have to do with the actual topic?, nada.


I'm actually glad to see the thread evolve into suggestions and ways DCS could be improved. Perhaps you were hoping for 40 pages of railing on Luthier about his failure to finish this product? I'm glad that didn't end up being the focus.
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/04/14 08:25 PM

Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
what does this post chain have to do with the actual topic?, nada.

This is SimHQ - give it another page or so and we'll be talking about Marmite or sliced bread or something. wink

Originally Posted By: ST0RM
True. A multi-role aircraft is needed. The F/A-18 or F-16 being logical choices. However, people would argue against the F-16 as being overly done. But it is still an exciting jet that is dual role.

I just wouldn't want to hear the crap storm comparing DCS F-16 to BMS F-16. Err..actually, that would be good for an epic thread I'm sure..

popcorn

Originally Posted By: ST0RM
A F-15E would be a good choice too, but REQUIRES proper two-person operation. Currently this is not available in DCS. Plus, it's not truly dual ole. Loaded up, it's a bomber. Even, without bombs, it's not a light weight that can mix it up with a true BFM fighter on equal terms. We've got he F-15C for that.

Would kill for an -E..even without dual role. Or, of course, the Tornado. (I guess they could do air defense and attack variants of that..) I would definitely trend toward the F-18, Harrier, or helicopters because all of those require technique beyond just fighting them. I think carrier pilots, Harrier pilots, and helo pilots would all agree that sometimes the most intense part of their mission is just getting back to their base or aboard the ship. I like the value-added excitement of having to fly the aircraft (helo or aircraft) all the way back to base and have that part be a challenge too.

Funny thing is - with Crimea heating up, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to make a realistic campaign if DCS World pushed a bit further west. Of course, there are plenty of hot spots all over the world today - Korea, Taiwan, Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan..etc.. As many have mentioned in this thread, it isn't just about getting us the platforms to fly, it is about building a world to fly them in, complete with 3D objects, targets, adversaries, etc.. It is a huge task and I can sort of see why it would be extremely difficult to do.

Might be best to start with a small geographic area like the Falklands or something that at least seems achievable. (Alright - insert Jet Thunder joke here..)

BeachAV8R

Happy 4th..!
Posted By: eno75

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/04/14 08:25 PM

And railing on DCS and "how it can be improved" is different than railing on Luthier for his failure to finish a product how exactly?
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/04/14 08:26 PM

Tomcat or Bust!
Posted By: bonchie

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/04/14 08:28 PM

Originally Posted By: eno75
And railing on DCS and "how it can be improved" is different than railing on Luthier for his failure to finish a product how exactly?



Luthier is gone. DCS is still in development.
Posted By: apelles

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/04/14 08:37 PM

Lex Luthier?
Posted By: HeinKill

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/04/14 09:47 PM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
what does this post chain have to do with the actual topic?, nada.

This is SimHQ - give it another page or so and we'll be talking about Marmite or sliced bread or something. wink


The DCS of condiments...



Posted By: Gambit21

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/05/14 09:51 PM

Originally Posted By: ST0RM
So then, don't read them.


Storm!
How goes it?
Posted By: ST0RM

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/06/14 01:01 AM

It goes...

You?
Posted By: Gambit21

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/06/14 07:34 AM

Long time since Washington High eh?
It's going well.
Posted By: Gambit21

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/06/14 07:37 AM

Long time since WHS eh?
It's going well.
Posted By: MadTommy

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/11/14 08:18 AM

I think they should have simply scrapped the kickstarter project, refunded the 150k and scrapped the associated rewards. Then simply develop what they feel is a viable project under their own terms. Especially in light of the fact that it appears to be financially non viable.

This would have be the correct thing to do in relation to KS terms of use and their own finances. Why flog a dead horse?

I've requested a refund. However in light of their attitude to date I suspect I'll have to raise it with KS direct. It appears to me to be pretty black & white. KS T&Cs clearly state if the project is funded refunds should be given if the developer is unable or unwilling to honour all rewards promised. This is THE fundamental principle behind KS. When i posted the relevant T&Cs on the ED forum in response to users claiming KS backers have no protection from unfulfilled rewards my post was deleted and I was given a forum infraction warning, extremely disappointing. As a long time supporter of ED, having purchased every product they have released, this has left a very sour taste.
Posted By: msalama

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/11/14 12:49 PM

Quote:
simply scrapped the kickstarter project


This would indeed have freed them from any further responsibilities, but that notwithstanding _are_ they actually responsible for RRG's promises? Boils down to what kind of a formal partnership those companies had (if any) I would guess.
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/11/14 05:31 PM

Maybe their attitude is "wait and see if they like the outcome before handing out refunds"? Might be a longer delay, but the money is gone and spent. To refund the money now hurts more than to wait until some of these planes come out, the money is coming in from them, and they can use that to pay refunds to those that still want them.



The Jedi Master
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/11/14 06:14 PM

Assuming ED is responsible for anything, they are responsible for fulfilling the KS deal 'in good faith'.

If you believe what they are doing is 'in bad faith', you talk to KS.
Posted By: msalama

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/11/14 09:11 PM

Might explain a thing or 3, take a peek:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=126824
Posted By: Snoopy_476th

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/11/14 10:43 PM

Originally Posted By: msalama
Might explain a thing or 3, take a peek:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=126824


That didn't stay open long. I can't believe people actually believed they would get 6 DCS level aircraft for 40 bucks. I was upset at first not because I was only getting two aircraft but because I didn't get to choose. Once ED fixed that I've been fat, dumb and happy (well not really still waiting on Nevada).
Posted By: Taxman

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/11/14 11:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Snoopy_476th
Originally Posted By: msalama
Might explain a thing or 3, take a peek:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=126824


That didn't stay open long. I can't believe people actually believed they would get 6 DCS level aircraft for 40 bucks. I was upset at first not because I was only getting two aircraft but because I didn't get to choose. Once ED fixed that I've been fat, dumb and happy (well not really still waiting on Nevada).


Actually there is a thread in the discussion area titled "DCS WWII 1944 FAC Discussions". Sithspawn just put the announcement into the sticky area and then closed it so that it could be read and not lost in the discussion area. cheers
Posted By: scrim

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 05:26 PM

Originally Posted By: MadTommy
I think they should have simply scrapped the kickstarter project, refunded the 150k and scrapped the associated rewards. Then simply develop what they feel is a viable project under their own terms. Especially in light of the fact that it appears to be financially non viable.

This would have be the correct thing to do in relation to KS terms of use and their own finances. Why flog a dead horse?

I've requested a refund. However in light of their attitude to date I suspect I'll have to raise it with KS direct. It appears to me to be pretty black & white. KS T&Cs clearly state if the project is funded refunds should be given if the developer is unable or unwilling to honour all rewards promised. This is THE fundamental principle behind KS. When i posted the relevant T&Cs on the ED forum in response to users claiming KS backers have no protection from unfulfilled rewards my post was deleted and I was given a forum infraction warning, extremely disappointing. As a long time supporter of ED, having purchased every product they have released, this has left a very sour taste.



Agreed. Say what you want about the 6 modules for 40 bucks deal, that's what was on the table and motivated people to give money for something they wouldn't see for years. ED knew of the plans RRG had, they didn't question it (or at least object to something they themselves say is nonviable) despite Luthier's past history in flight sims. They then moved in and took over everything that had been accomplished, and even hired most of the RRG devs. For all intentions and purposes, that means they have benefited almost 100% from the KS money. And now they act like they're doing the pledgers a favour by doing this, and uses it as a justification to drastically alter the rewards, offering zero refunds.

Let me know how KS replies. 40 dollars for two modules is certainly a decent deal, but considering the semi-scams surrounding this, I'm not that tempted to buy many more DCS modules at all, and certainly no WW2 ones what so ever. At this stage, I'm pretty sure I'll pass completely on everything ED makes themselves, and look to 3rd party developers for modules.
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 06:55 PM

Originally Posted By: scrim
but considering the semi-scams surrounding this


Boy... if I thought a company was scamming me, I certainly wouldn't hang out on their forums anymore or be apart of their community...
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 07:05 PM

Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
Originally Posted By: scrim
but considering the semi-scams surrounding this


Boy... if I thought a company was scamming me, I certainly wouldn't hang out on their forums anymore or be apart of their community...



C'mon Sith…it's his right to feel that way…a lot of folks do. Can you spare us the ED moderator mentality and the attempt to shame a member into not posting?

Since this is his first post here…I'm guessing he isn't allowed to hang out on ED's forums anymore at ED's hands. And if you thought a company was scamming you…you would ask for a refund…which folks are doing only to get their post deleted followed with a warning about impending ban if you have the nerve to suggest that you would like a refund.

Doesn't send a message that your dealing with a company that's on the level…right?
Posted By: scrim

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 07:09 PM

Originally Posted By: MadTommy
When i posted the relevant T&Cs on the ED forum in response to users claiming KS backers have no protection from unfulfilled rewards my post was deleted and I was given a forum infraction warning, extremely disappointing.


Just to make the point about the very professional moderators on the ED forums as well. I knew for certain it'd take less than 24 hours for at least one of them to respond at least like this. And just as certainly, I would not be surprised if what I write about DCS on another forum would result in them banning me from the ED forums within, let's say a week.
Posted By: komemiute

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 07:11 PM

Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
Originally Posted By: scrim
but considering the semi-scams surrounding this


Boy... if I thought a company was scamming me, I certainly wouldn't hang out on their forums anymore or be apart of their community...


What's the sound of ussers not being there?
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 07:18 PM

The pitty party is getting old is all... and of course trying to maintain the big bad SiTh persona....

Originally Posted By: Force10
Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
Originally Posted By: scrim
but considering the semi-scams surrounding this


Boy... if I thought a company was scamming me, I certainly wouldn't hang out on their forums anymore or be apart of their community...



C'mon Sith…it's his right to feel that way…a lot of folks do. Can you spare us the ED moderator mentality and the attempt to shame a member into not posting?

Since this is his first post here…I'm guessing he isn't allowed to hang out on ED's forums anymore at ED's hands. And if you thought a company was scamming you…you would ask for a refund…which folks are doing only to get their post deleted followed with a warning about impending ban if you have the nerve to suggest that you would like a refund.

Doesn't send a message that your dealing with a company that's on the level…right?
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 07:27 PM

Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
The pitty party is getting old is all... and of course trying to maintain the big bad SiTh persona....

Originally Posted By: Force10
Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
Originally Posted By: scrim
but considering the semi-scams surrounding this


Boy... if I thought a company was scamming me, I certainly wouldn't hang out on their forums anymore or be apart of their community...



C'mon Sith…it's his right to feel that way…a lot of folks do. Can you spare us the ED moderator mentality and the attempt to shame a member into not posting?

Since this is his first post here…I'm guessing he isn't allowed to hang out on ED's forums anymore at ED's hands. And if you thought a company was scamming you…you would ask for a refund…which folks are doing only to get their post deleted followed with a warning about impending ban if you have the nerve to suggest that you would like a refund.

Doesn't send a message that your dealing with a company that's on the level…right?



You know what else is getting old? The fact that you clearly have no desire to be part of the SimHQ community…you see your role here as merely an extension of your ED moderation duties and keep using your strong arm BS to intimidate members. If it were up to me…you would be gone from here because member smearing is pretty much your only agenda.
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 07:27 PM

Originally Posted By: scrim
Originally Posted By: MadTommy
When i posted the relevant T&Cs on the ED forum in response to users claiming KS backers have no protection from unfulfilled rewards my post was deleted and I was given a forum infraction warning, extremely disappointing.


Just to make the point about the very professional moderators on the ED forums as well. I knew for certain it'd take less than 24 hours for at least one of them to respond at least like this. And just as certainly, I would not be surprised if what I write about DCS on another forum would result in them banning me from the ED forums within, let's say a week.


You are right, I shouldn't be allowed to respond when someone makes claims that ED is somehow involved in some sort of scam... sorry for interrupting your moment of slander... please... continue.

Last time I checked I was a backer too... means my opinion counts as much as anyones.
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 07:43 PM

Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN


Last time I checked I was a backer too... means my opinion counts as much as anyones.



It sure does…about the Product. Folks are voicing disappointment in a product…you are directing your BS towards members.


I put some some of the key words in bold so maybe you can understand better.
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 07:52 PM

Actually he is accusing ED of scamming its customers... thats not directed at a product. I am allowed to share my opinion as well. If not report my post.

Originally Posted By: Force10
Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN


Last time I checked I was a backer too... means my opinion counts as much as anyones.



It sure does…about the Product. Folks are voicing disappointment in a product…you are directing your BS towards members.


I put some some of the key words in bold so maybe you can understand better.
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 07:52 PM

... should we check our privilege, too? smile

Originally Posted By: Force10
It sure does…about the Product. Folks are voicing disappointment in a product…you are directing your BS towards members.


I put some some of the key words in bold so maybe you can understand better.
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 07:56 PM

Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
Actually he is accusing ED of scamming its customers... thats not directed at a product. I am allowed to share my opinion as well. If not report my post.

Originally Posted By: Force10
Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN


Last time I checked I was a backer too... means my opinion counts as much as anyones.



It sure does…about the Product. Folks are voicing disappointment in a product…you are directing your BS towards members.


I put some some of the key words in bold so maybe you can understand better.



Again…ED is a company that puts out a product…an entity…not an individual. I'm guessing you still can't see the difference?
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 07:57 PM

I wanna play with Bold fonts too.
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 07:59 PM

I love how my opinion should be discounted as I am a moderator, but under those same conditions, Force your opinion should be discounted as a disgruntled banned member... works the same way. If I am biased, then so are you.
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 08:01 PM

Nope... cuz he accused ED of scamming people... not a product of scamming people....

You still havent told me why I am not allowed to counter any claims that ED is scamming anyone... specifically when I pledge as much as that person.

Originally Posted By: Force10
Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
Actually he is accusing ED of scamming its customers... thats not directed at a product. I am allowed to share my opinion as well. If not report my post.

Originally Posted By: Force10
Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN


Last time I checked I was a backer too... means my opinion counts as much as anyones.



It sure does…about the Product. Folks are voicing disappointment in a product…you are directing your BS towards members.


I put some some of the key words in bold so maybe you can understand better.



Again…ED is a company that puts out a product…an entity…not an individual. I'm guessing you still can't see the difference?
Posted By: EjectEject

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 08:02 PM

reading
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 08:04 PM

Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
I love how my opinion should be discounted as I am a moderator, but under those same conditions, Force your opinion should be discounted as a disgruntled banned member... works the same way. If I am biased, then so are you.


The difference Sith…is I don't go around looking for folks that are happy with ED's game/policies and then attempt to smear the individual. I'm only talking about you doing just that…attempting to discredit a member because of his opinion.
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 08:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Force10
Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
I love how my opinion should be discounted as I am a moderator, but under those same conditions, Force your opinion should be discounted as a disgruntled banned member... works the same way. If I am biased, then so are you.


The difference Sith…is I don't go around looking for folks that are happy with ED's game/policies and then attempt to smear the individual. I'm only talking about you doing just that…attempting to discredit a member because of his opinion.


Funny, you try to "smear" every opinion I have because of my moderator status.

He made a claim that ED is scamming someone... I simply suggested that if I thought a company was scamming me, what I might do... how is that a smear?
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 08:28 PM

Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN


Funny, you try to "smear" every opinion I have because of my moderator status.



I haven't "smeared" any opinions you've had about ED or their products…I only confront you on your attitude towards SimHQ members. (nice try at a deflection though).

And your using the word "moderator" a little loosely…moderator's here are supposed to maintain some sort of unbiased moderation…that isn't really the case at ED.

Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN

He made a claim that ED is scamming someone... I simply suggested that if I thought a company was scamming me, what I might do... how is that a smear?


Uhhh…yeah. Your implying he shouldn't post here anymore. Who knows…if he's offered a refund…maybe he won't?
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 08:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Force10

Uhhh…yeah. Your implying he shouldn't post here anymore. Who knows…if he's offered a refund…maybe he won't?


Actually I implied that if anyone thinks they are being wronged by a company they probably shouldnt hang out at that companies forum... I wouldnt... in fact there is a few I avoid because I am not a fan of that company.

And he wont be offered a refund, thats been made pretty clear by ED.
Posted By: SlipBall

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 08:51 PM

I think the best thing to do is take the free plane and map and if any good at all...then wait for the inevitable sale, and pick up another aircraft
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 08:54 PM

Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
Originally Posted By: Force10

Uhhh…yeah. Your implying he shouldn't post here anymore. Who knows…if he's offered a refund…maybe he won't?


Actually I implied that if anyone thinks they are being wronged by a company they probably shouldnt hang out at that companies forum... I wouldnt... in fact there is a few I avoid because I am not a fan of that company.

And he wont be offered a refund, thats been made pretty clear by ED.



So…you're thinking that if someone felt they were wronged by a company and refused a refund…they should just shut up and take it in silence…got it. Probably not the best advice anyway. (even though it really wasn't meant as advice…lol)
Posted By: Snoopy_476th

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 09:01 PM

popcorn
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 09:03 PM

What is better advice? Go accuse them of stuff on their forums (thats been denied) till they get a bad case of the bans? Asking for a refund from a different company than who took their payment?.... etc etc redundant redundant...


Here is some advice... if he pledged 40, take the two modules and the map, when he gets them... sell them for 40 bucks. BOOM... mind blown. The 1$ guys have it real easy...



Originally Posted By: Force10
Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
Originally Posted By: Force10

Uhhh…yeah. Your implying he shouldn't post here anymore. Who knows…if he's offered a refund…maybe he won't?


Actually I implied that if anyone thinks they are being wronged by a company they probably shouldnt hang out at that companies forum... I wouldnt... in fact there is a few I avoid because I am not a fan of that company.

And he wont be offered a refund, thats been made pretty clear by ED.



So…you're thinking that if someone felt they were wronged by a company and refused a refund…they should just shut up and take it in silence…got it. Probably not the best advice anyway. (even though it really wasn't meant as advice…lol)



Well if this was a private companies forum here, for a specific product or brand, I would imaging the moderating would be different, dont you think? But then you are a little biased on that subject arent you? I mean you arent banned from here, but you are from ED's forum... FYI... you weren't banned by the moderator team.

Originally Posted By: Force10

And your using the word "moderator" a little loosely…moderator's here are supposed to maintain some sort of unbiased moderation…that isn't really the case at ED.
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 10:52 PM

Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
Asking for a refund from a different company than who took their payment?.... etc etc redundant redundant...




I think the point is, they're asking for a refund from the company that took over the project/code that their backing funds helped get ED to the starting point that they're at.

Basically:

Rewards were promised and enticed people to back to the tune of $158,000.
ED took over the project, and even though the Kickstarter money is gone…it was put into the project and gave ED the head start they're at.
Now with the backers funded project/code, ED is changing the reward system that enticed people to back in the first place.

Do I think it's a scam? No I don't…I think ED is doing what they can to salvage the project and maintain some sort of profitability. (they are a business after all)

Does it possibly skirt the ethical guidelines that are layed out by Kickstarter and do people have a right to be upset about it and voice their opinion?

Well…they don't have that right at the ED forums…but they do have that right here and shouldn't have to be subjected to personal attacks/harassment by ED moderators here at SimHQ for being upset with a business decision by a game company.

Anything else?

Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN


But then you are a little biased on that subject arent you? I mean you arent banned from here, but you are from ED's forum...


lol…I think I had a grand total of 8 posts over 6 years at the ED forums…so it's safe to say I'm not emotionally shattered about it. And I've been calling out these instances of "self appointed" moderating with you and others long before the ban. (keep clutching at those straws though…it's mildly amusing)
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 11:20 PM

Seems like you do a fair amount of self appointed moderating here yourself...

If I am not allowed to counter points made against another entity, then feel free to report my posts. As I said, I am a backer as well, I am allowed to have an opinion, even if I am a moderator somewhere else. I dont know how you dont get the fact that if I see comments that I believe are not truthfully, against a company I happen to have a close relationship to, then what is the point of a place like SimHQ.... is it only for the negative posts? I am not allowed to comment on them?

Seems like you are the only one clutching at straws.
Posted By: near_blind

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 11:25 PM

Can we just let it go already? We've already won a concession out of ED. Anyone capable of fogging a mirror can see we're not getting another, much less the lofty promises from the Kickstarter campaign. If you want a refund, ask KS for a refund, that's your business. But I must ask, other than animosity, what is being contributed to these forums by dragging this out?
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 11:36 PM

Originally Posted By: near_blind
Can we just let it go already? We've already won a concession out of ED. Anyone capable of fogging a mirror can see we're not getting another, much less the lofty promises from the Kickstarter campaign. If you want a refund, ask KS for a refund, that's your business. But I must ask, other than animosity, what is being contributed to these forums by dragging this out?


Fair enough, I apologize for my part in all this hoopla... I would much rather spend my time getting excited about the 190 coming soon smile
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 11:44 PM

Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
Seems like you do a fair amount of self appointed moderating here yourself...



I'm just trying to avoid members getting flogged personally because they have a negative opinion of a company. I guess that's a difference you can't understand...because SimHQ is my home…and since your sole presence here is more or less to be the hired gun of a developer that makes sure to intimidate members. This is clear from your 100% post rate only in the DCS forum.

Want to be taken seriously? How about posting up some screenshots of your DCS gameplay in the screenshots forum?

Or better yet…take a look at the hundreds of DCS related screenshots in the screenshot forum…or the AAR's that are related to DCS in the AAR forum and say "Looks great" or "Nice AAR". Just something that shows you want to be part of the SimHQ community in a fashion other than extended ED moderation.
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 11:48 PM

Thanks, but I doubt taking advice from you on forum etiquette is a wise practice... but we have been requested to play nice now, care to do so, or would you rather carry this on further?

Originally Posted By: Force10
Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
Seems like you do a fair amount of self appointed moderating here yourself...



I'm just trying to avoid members getting flogged personally because they have a negative opinion of a company. I guess that's a difference you can't understand...because SimHQ is my home…and since your sole presence here is more or less to be the hired gun of a developer that makes sure to intimidate members. This is clear from your 100% post rate only in the DCS forum.

Want to be taken seriously? How about posting up some screenshots of your DCS gameplay in the screenshots forum?

Or better yet…take a look at the hundreds of DCS related screenshots in the screenshot forum…or the AAR's that are related to DCS in the AAR forum and say "Looks great" or "Nice AAR". Just something that shows you want to be part of the SimHQ community in a fashion other than extended ED moderation.

Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 11:49 PM

Originally Posted By: near_blind
Can we just let it go already? We've already won a concession out of ED. Anyone capable of fogging a mirror can see we're not getting another, much less the lofty promises from the Kickstarter campaign. If you want a refund, ask KS for a refund, that's your business. But I must ask, other than animosity, what is being contributed to these forums by dragging this out?



LOL…oops…sent that last post and then read this. I'm ready to stop.

But…most folks to come to the 45 page "Luthier out. ED is in" to see fresh information…just saying…lol
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/14/14 11:50 PM

Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
Thanks, but I doubt taking advice from you on forum etiquette is a wise practice... but we have been requested to play nice now, care to do so, or would you rather carry this on further?



I'm game…truce for now? thumbsup
Posted By: BeachAV8R

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 12:31 AM

So.

Luthier's out huh?

biggrin

BeachAV8R
Posted By: FearlessFrog

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 12:43 AM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
So.

Luthier's out huh?

biggrin

BeachAV8R


Is he - wow? Where'd you read that? So what happens to the kickstarter now..
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 12:43 AM

Originally Posted By: BeachAV8R
So.

Luthier's out huh?

biggrin

BeachAV8R


lol…I've been on the fence wether I believe it or not…starting to think so. I will say it's hard to tell cause we are still getting updates from him at about the same rate as when he was running the show. biggrin
Posted By: Bumfluff

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 01:15 AM

Reading between the lines even DCS couldn't get hold of Luthier. So you've got to wonder if they've been able to retrieve much of the work that was done.

They posted pics a while back of the 109k but little else.

It might be a case of having to start from scratch.
Posted By: scrim

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 02:24 AM

No, they've even hired most of the RRG dev team, so there's nothing missing. Which in turn is why a bunch of backers want their pledges refunded after the rewards were cut down to 1/3. It's beyond me why they would consent to RRG promising those rewards when they themselves found them unviable, especially considering that this isn't the first time drama's ensued with Luthier and flight sims.
Posted By: Pizzicato

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 03:17 AM

Originally Posted By: scrim
No, they've even hired most of the RRG dev team, so there's nothing missing. Which in turn is why a bunch of backers want their pledges refunded after the rewards were cut down to 1/3. It's beyond me why they would consent to RRG promising those rewards when they themselves found them unviable, especially considering that this isn't the first time drama's ensued with Luthier and flight sims.


I tend to agree with your closing point, but your first point doesn't necessarily make sense. The fact that you hire a bunch of people from a given team doesn't even remotely guarantee that you'll get the code and assets they worked on. That's not to say that ED didn't get them - just that it's far from a given.
Posted By: scrim

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 11:10 AM

Well, that is what they said. And since they've said they still have Luthier on board for some manuals, I doubt they haven't gotten a hold of what has been finished so far.
Posted By: SlipBall

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 11:40 AM

The dream we all shared for a high fidelity WW II sim is still alive for each of us...its just gonna cost us more. If its a good map I think the KS rewards debacle will fade rather quickly for all of us
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 01:39 PM

Originally Posted By: scrim
Well, that is what they said. And since they've said they still have Luthier on board for some manuals, I doubt they haven't gotten a hold of what has been finished so far.


It really depends, for example, what if he was using outside model makers? So say the 262 model was being made outside of RRG, and lets say Luthier couldnt pay his bills... that 262 model is not going to be transferred anywhere without payment. I am not saying that is what happened, just stating that it isnt so cut and dry as we really dont know all the specifics...
Posted By: scrim

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 02:29 PM

Quote:
Q: ED bought out RRG and all its assets right?
A: ED didn’t buy, acquire or takeover RRG. The details of how it all transferred may never be known, but what we do know is it appeared Luthier surrendered all the assets created with the Kickstarter money, and some of the employees were hired by ED to help continue the project as not to disrupt their other projects.


That's what you wrote on the ED forums, so I'm just gonna go ahead and assume that's the case.

What I think is in order is for ED to explain to the backers A, why they didn't take any sort of precautions to prevent something like this from happening considering how CloD ended up, and B, more specifically, why they did not react to RRG promising rewards that they themselves consider 100% financially impossible?


They could've said "no, the way you've set things up, we're not interested in DCS:WW2, because for one, you can't explain to us how this will be financially viable". They didn't. Now this drama has ensued, and they don't seem to grasp why most people, bar the small percent consisting of ED forum fanatics, distrust them and/or want a proper explanation behind the all aspects, and not ED forum mods who delete posts they consider aggressive and hand out infractions galore.
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 02:36 PM

Well it appears you have a chip on your shoulder, if you want to have a reasonable conversation with out calling the people ok with how ED has responded fanatics, or continuing to judge moderators, then I can do so, otherwise I dont see much point in wasting anymore time on this.

Also if you read what I wrote, it does say it appears he surrendered his assets... that said, if their were items not in his possession as things fell apart, then of course they would not be given to ED... again see my last post.
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 03:17 PM

Originally Posted By: scrim
Quote:
Q: ED bought out RRG and all its assets right?
A: ED didn’t buy, acquire or takeover RRG. The details of how it all transferred may never be known, but what we do know is it appeared Luthier surrendered all the assets created with the Kickstarter money, and some of the employees were hired by ED to help continue the project as not to disrupt their other projects.


That's what you wrote on the ED forums, so I'm just gonna go ahead and assume that's the case.

What I think is in order is for ED to explain to the backers A, why they didn't take any sort of precautions to prevent something like this from happening considering how CloD ended up, and B, more specifically, why they did not react to RRG promising rewards that they themselves consider 100% financially impossible?




TBH, It's not ED's job to Babysit Luthier/RRG.
Posted By: scrim

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 03:30 PM

Babysit them, no, that's not their job. Ensure that they, especially considering past history and very liberal pledge rewards, have a sound and functioning business plan in regards to development and finances to ensure that their customers (people who buy 3rd party products are also customers of ED) don't get screwed over, that is definitely their job. In this case, they most certainly failed at living up to that, and now seemingly refuse to own up to their blame, or at least explaining why they thought this was a good idea, by having their forum mods delete posts and issue bans (and pick even more fights than they already do, both on theirs and other forums) to avoid having anything but positive posts on their forums in response to taking over the project and slicing all rewards by 2/3, offering no refunds despite KS being very clear on that (another fact they are very keen on deleting from the ED forums).
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 03:41 PM

Originally Posted By: scrim
avoid having anything but positive posts on their forums


Guess you dont visit the forums much huh...


Originally Posted By: scrim
offering no refunds despite KS being very clear on that (another fact they are very keen on deleting from the ED forums).


Are you sure about that?? Making claims all this negative stuff has been deleted just isnt a fair comment.


http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=126790

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2113458&postcount=273

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2113123&postcount=203

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2113167&postcount=207

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2085463#post2085463


See many negative posts still in the update threads as well... so I am not sure what forum you are referring too...


I know I am gonna get accused of moderating over here again, but I take this personally, I am heavily involved with the moderation over there, specifically for this issue... I take accusations of hiding the truth or deleting the negative personally. I DO feel attacked at this point. SOrry for wasting everyones time on this again, but if SimHQ didnt allow these unfounded accusations, I wouldnt have to answer them... leaving them here for others to read without response isnt a fair compromise either...
Posted By: scrim

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 04:35 PM

It's nice to see that you completely ignore anything else than comments about the (very un-professional) moderating on the ED forums, and completely ignore the remaining 90% of my posts concerning how ED has yet to explain why they got involved in DCS:WW2, how they failed to ensure that it wouldn't completely collapse withing a few months (or weeks if we're to go off the communication) or the long repeated lie that RRG are not obliged to issue refunds.

This was a joint venture between RRG and ED (not my words, but the exact words of the KS campaign), and ED is acting like they are doing the pledgers a favour by "honouring" their investments with only a fraction of what they were promised.
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 04:39 PM

Originally Posted By: scrim
It's nice to see that you completely ignore anything else than comments about the (very un-professional) moderating on the ED forums, and completely ignore the remaining 90% of my posts concerning how ED has yet to explain why they got involved in DCS:WW2, how they failed to ensure that it wouldn't completely collapse withing a few months (or weeks if we're to go off the communication) or the long repeated lie that RRG are not obliged to issue refunds.

This was a joint venture between RRG and ED (not my words, but the exact words of the KS campaign), and ED is acting like they are doing the pledgers a favour by "honouring" their investments with only a fraction of what they were promised.


I am ignoring everything else because everything else has been beaten to death...
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 04:50 PM

Originally Posted By: scrim
and completely ignore the remaining 90% of my posts concerning how ED has yet to explain why they got involved in DCS:WW2,


He doesn't know because ED and RRG had a reciprocal NDA, which ED has with all 3rd parties (AFAIK). Bluntly put, it means it's none of your business as far as they're concerned.

Quote:
This was a joint venture between RRG and ED (not my words, but the exact words of the KS campaign), and ED is acting like they are doing the pledgers a favour by "honouring" their investments with only a fraction of what they were promised.


ED is not RRG and RRG is not ED. ED didn't make the promises, they don't have any responsibility to police the 3rd party either. The 3rd party licenses certain things from ED (again AFAIK) to develop their product, and they get to sell it on ED's DCSW platform.

Did ED believe that the WW2 project is worthwhile? They obviously do. Are they responsible to refund the 150k or keep the rewards as they are? Ask a lawyer and let us know; I imagine ED doesn't have 150k to pull out of wherever to refund, especially since that money was not paid to them. That money is gone.
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 05:25 PM

Originally Posted By: GrayGhost

especially since that money was not paid to them. That money is gone.


While that money is gone in dollar form…the backers money is not gone as far as it's in the models/code that ED now has in their hands.

So just to be clear…it's OK for ED to take the project that the backers money helped create…and can pick what rewards they want to honor?

I doubt that's how the folks at Kickstarter see how things should work.
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 05:26 PM



Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 05:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Force10
While that money is gone in dollar form…the backers money is not gone as far as it's in the models/code that ED now has in their hands.


Yep, ED could have just let them go instead and not touched the thing with a 10' pole.

Quote:
So just to be clear…it's OK for ED to take the project that the backers money helped create…and can pick what rewards they want to honor?


Yes, it is. They didn't make any promises. Again, they could have chosen to do nothing, and then backers would also get precisely nothing as well.
I'm fairly confident that if Luthier is sitting in Russia, you'd have a bit of tough luck reaching him for any sanctions. He might not be able to use KS ever again though and his rep would be fried. As things are, we don't really know what transpired, and those who do know aren't going to talk - that's where the NDA comes in.
Think about that while you're deciding whether what ED did is ok or not.

I see two options - but since I lack imagination, and I'm obviously horrifically biased, go ahead and throw in more if you like:

1) ED (or anyone else, really) takes it over and restructures rewards so they make sense financially ( because ED is not in the business of losing money).
2) ED leaves it be, and backers get diddly squat.

Quote:
I doubt that's how the folks at Kickstarter see how things should work.


You can ask KS. You can also ask a lawyer - I really don't know enough to answer that.
Posted By: scrim

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 06:04 PM

Let's say you hire a builder to mend your roof, pipes and driveway. You agree to a price, pay him, he starts working, and disappears before he's finished anything. Then his employer turns up and tells you he's going to take over, because the builder simply couldn't be trusted to do his job. His employer uses all the materials the builder purchased with your money, and starts working on what had been started on the driveway.

At this point he says "my employee told me how much he was payed and what he was going to do for that money, and I accepted it. However, personally I have found that the costs won't work out. I'll finish the driveway, which will take about four times longer than you were told, but nothing else."

When you protest, he says he's doing you a favour, and that you should've realised that the first offer was too good to be true, both in terms of costs and time schedule, and therefor you should shut up and stop being such an ungrateful fool.


And you would find that acceptable because?
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 06:06 PM

ED wasnt RRG's employer.... so your analogy is flawed... try again.
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 06:10 PM

I'm waiting for someone to compare the ED->RRG Situation to Hostess Bakery........ :facepalm

"The Sweetest Comeback Ever"
Posted By: tagTaken2

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 06:19 PM

Lets say that the original builder quoted you an insanely low price, and you understand that quality costs money. Let's also say that if you were to get your money refunded, all the work done at this point will be undone, and the mending of roof etc, will now never take place.

Perspective should be maintained. In the long haul, I'd rather ED were in business than not.
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 06:20 PM

Originally Posted By: GrayGhost


Quote:
So just to be clear…it's OK for ED to take the project that the backers money helped create…and can pick what rewards they want to honor?


Yes, it is.


Well then…I guess there is nothing to stop:

An individual to set up a dummy company…promise rewards and collect Kickstarter funds
Fold his dummy company after a period of time…than turn over the assets the Kickstarter funds created to his real company
Not be responsible for any rewards promised

I'm guessing the ED mod team don't see this as a problem for gamers…it's kinda setting a president for gamers to truly get swindled in the future. I guess that's what happens when your not really a gamer anymore.
Posted By: Murphy

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 06:23 PM

Personally speaking, I hope someone, someday, comes out with a modern WWII flight sim that encompasses the air war, from the landings at Normandy, to Berlin. Not just the Russian war, not the German view, but the whole war. Everyone flies their aircraft, across the European struggle.
Most of the 'major' players, bombers, fighters, etc.
Some realistic maps, and a single player campaign.

You develop that, and I'll buy it.
Price doesn't really matter much.
I have thousands in my computer, peripherals, sound, etc.....
Most of us now have the ability to run the game, but we have no real WWII Flight Simulator.
We had several about a decade ago, CFS, EAW, Janes, etc...and they were developed in less than a year.
Now we have much faster computers, better displays, but no good flight sims to match, not one.

All I have is IL2/FB/1946, which is a 'joke', when it comes to the true abilities of the Mustang, and many of the other aircraft. It's a Russian view, that obviously is incorrect.
I really would like a realistic combat flight simulator, and a US campaign.
The market is there. If you don't wait too long wink . I'm sure they'd pay what was asked.

But if you can't hand me the game, I don't hand you my money.

Just my take on things.
Sad someone doesn't have the backing to develop that, when the small market, is so eager to buy it.
IMHO, for 'any' price.

Best wishes to ED, and their vision.
And thanks to DCS for developing the Mustang.
But if you don't put it all together, it's worthless to most people.

Sad it's been such a struggle, for such a viable product.
You've got a lot of the aircraft being developed in DCS, the terrain can't be that difficult.
Developers have had over a decade to come up with something....it's just baffling to me.
DCS has a nice Mustang, that fly's.
I dunno. The community has been waiting for over a decade.

But I'm just a consumer.....with money wink
I'm not an 'investor'.
You want my money, give me a product.

That's how you get rich.
That's how I get a flight sim I like.

Or not, that's life.
Hope it works out for all of us.

Here is a clue to people who have 'given away' their money. When you buy stock in a company, you get a 'stock certificate', and you give them your cash. It's an exchange. Sometimes you make money, sometimes you don't.

But when you just give people your cash, and have no legal promises to show for it.
It's their cash now, and you have nothing. And can expect 'nothing', legally. If the company goes broke, you have nothing. If they don't wish to return your money, your screwed. That's the way the world works.
Some lessons are learned the hard way. Some are more expensive than others.

It's nice some people have 'donated' their cash for a 'promise'. But that's just what it is, a 'donation'.
That is not a 'investment'. Move on, when it doesn't work out. Some lessons are much more expensive.

Live and learn. wink
Posted By: scrim

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 06:24 PM

Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
ED wasnt RRG's employer.... so your analogy is flawed... try again.


What part of "joint venture between RRG and ED" is it that you refuse to accept? Not their employer, but certainly a party very much holding a mentionable degree of accountability and influence over the works undertaken by RRG. RRG came to them asking for their permission, they said yes. RRG specifically called it a joint venture between them and ED, they didn't object. RRG openly promised their rewards, ED didn't object, despite finding them so unviable that they're acting like they've made a sacrifice by only living up to 1/3 of the promised rewards. ED had no objections to Luthier (who's got a less than splendid history regarding WW2 flight sims) offering huge rewards that they say they themselves can't fulfil.

These things you claim have been beaten to death. That may be true for the questions, but ED has yet to pipe up even once and answering any of them.
Posted By: TychosElk

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 06:27 PM

How about the people who think that ED has a legal responsibility for what RRG did go find a lawyer, and then report back on what the lawyer thinks, and everyone else just drops the subject? This endless speculation, name-calling and going around in circles is achieving precisely nothing.
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 06:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Force10

Well then…I guess there is nothing to stop:


Whining about it here isnt going to stop that.

Accusing ED without concrete proof isnt going to stop that.

Accusing ED mods of not buying into your conspiracy theories.... not going to stop that.

I told you how to get a refund. In fact, if you pledged 40 bucks... sell your rewards for an extra 10 bucks so you can get some cheese to go with that whine.
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 06:33 PM

Originally Posted By: scrim
Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
ED wasnt RRG's employer.... so your analogy is flawed... try again.


What part of "joint venture between RRG and ED" is it that you refuse to accept? Not their employer, but certainly a party very much holding a mentionable degree of accountability and influence over the works undertaken by RRG. RRG came to them asking for their permission, they said yes. RRG specifically called it a joint venture between them and ED, they didn't object. RRG openly promised their rewards, ED didn't object, despite finding them so unviable that they're acting like they've made a sacrifice by only living up to 1/3 of the promised rewards. ED had no objections to Luthier (who's got a less than splendid history regarding WW2 flight sims) offering huge rewards that they say they themselves can't fulfil.

These things you claim have been beaten to death. That may be true for the questions, but ED has yet to pipe up even once and answering any of them.


Joint venture doesnt mean they were employed by ED, you refuse to accept the fact that ED allowed another company to run their own show. You refuse to look at the facts, or even read what has been posted already (a fact you just proved on the ED boards moments ago).

And you keep going back to Ilya's history... well shame on you for backing a project of his knowing his history... you are now part of the problem as well.
Posted By: TychosElk

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 06:42 PM

Sithspawn, the facts are that we don't know what the facts are. Just drop it...
Posted By: SkateZilla

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 06:50 PM

Originally Posted By: Murphy
Personally speaking, I hope someone, someday, comes out with a modern WWII flight sim that encompasses the air war, from the landings at Normandy, to Berlin. Not just the Russian war, not the German view, but the whole war. Everyone flies their aircraft, across the European struggle.
Most of the 'major' players, bombers, fighters, etc.
Some realistic maps, and a single player campaign.

You develop that, and I'll buy it.
Price doesn't really matter much.
I have thousands in my computer, peripherals, sound, etc.....
Most of us now have the ability to run the game, but we have no real WWII Flight Simulator.
We had several about a decade ago, CFS, EAW, Janes, etc...and they were developed in less than a year.
Now we have much faster computers, better displays, but no good flight sims to match, not one.

All I have is IL2/FB/1946, which is a 'joke', when it comes to the true abilities of the Mustang, and many of the other aircraft. It's a Russian view, that obviously is incorrect.
I really would like a realistic combat flight simulator, and a US campaign.
The market is there. If you don't wait too long wink . I'm sure they'd pay what was asked.

But if you can't hand me the game, I don't hand you my money.

Just my take on things.
Sad someone doesn't have the backing to develop that, when the small market, is so eager to buy it.
IMHO, for 'any' price.

Best wishes to ED, and their vision.
And thanks to DCS for developing the Mustang.
But if you don't put it all together, it's worthless to most people.

Sad it's been such a struggle, for such a viable product.
You've got a lot of the aircraft being developed in DCS, the terrain can't be that difficult.
Developers have had over a decade to come up with something....it's just baffling to me.
DCS has a nice Mustang, that fly's.
I dunno. The community has been waiting for over a decade.

But I'm just a consumer.....with money wink
I'm not an 'investor'.
You want my money, give me a product.

That's how you get rich.
That's how I get a flight sim I like.

Or not, that's life.
Hope it works out for all of us.

Here is a clue to people who have 'given away' their money. When you buy stock in a company, you get a 'stock certificate', and you give them your cash. It's an exchange. Sometimes you make money, sometimes you don't.

But when you just give people your cash, and have no legal promises to show for it.
It's their cash now, and you have nothing. And can expect 'nothing', legally. If the company goes broke, you have nothing. If they don't wish to return your money, your screwed. That's the way the world works.
Some lessons are learned the hard way. Some are more expensive than others.

It's nice some people have 'donated' their cash for a 'promise'. But that's just what it is, a 'donation'.
That is not a 'investment'. Move on, when it doesn't work out. Some lessons are much more expensive.

Live and learn. wink



We'll be gettin' a Normandy map.

Betwix the DCS WWII Aircraft and VEAO's Collection... we should have most countries covered (minus Japan).

I just like being able to start the 'stang in like 5 seconds and taxi away lol.
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 06:51 PM

Originally Posted By: TychosElk
Sithspawn, the facts are that we don't know what the facts are. Just drop it...


Soon as Scrim, who knows even less of the facts, stops posting his BS, I will be more than happy to drop it.
Posted By: TychosElk

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 06:59 PM

Do you really that attitude is going to achieve anything?
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 07:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Force10
Well then…I guess there is nothing to stop:

An individual to set up a dummy company…promise rewards and collect Kickstarter funds
Fold his dummy company after a period of time…than turn over the assets the Kickstarter funds created to his real company
Not be responsible for any rewards promised


There are laws against fraud, so, yes, there's definitely something to put a stop to such a thing.

Quote:
I'm guessing the ED mod team don't see this as a problem for gamers…it's kinda setting a president for gamers to truly get swindled in the future. I guess that's what happens when your not really a gamer anymore.


ED isn't in the business of protecting people from their own investments, be they successful or not. KS is an investment. You hand over your money for a promise that may or may not be successful. KS' rules about refunds are neat and all, but guess what happens if that money's gone: Yep, you don't get to see any of it. And there's nothing that KS or the investor can do anything about it.

People who were paid out of that KS money aren't going to return it. Luthier isn't going to return it. I doubt ED has the slightest inclination of paying it out of their own pockets either, especially since they were not the ones to make promises.
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 07:02 PM

Here? No... I dont think anything is achievable here.
Posted By: Murphy

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 07:04 PM

Originally Posted By: SkateZilla
Originally Posted By: Murphy
Personally speaking, I hope someone, someday, comes out with a modern WWII flight sim that encompasses the air war, from the landings at Normandy, to Berlin. Not just the Russian war, not the German view, but the whole war. Everyone flies their aircraft, across the European struggle.
Most of the 'major' players, bombers, fighters, etc.
Some realistic maps, and a single player campaign.

You develop that, and I'll buy it.
Price doesn't really matter much.
I have thousands in my computer, peripherals, sound, etc.....
Most of us now have the ability to run the game, but we have no real WWII Flight Simulator.
We had several about a decade ago, CFS, EAW, Janes, etc...and they were developed in less than a year.
Now we have much faster computers, better displays, but no good flight sims to match, not one.

All I have is IL2/FB/1946, which is a 'joke', when it comes to the true abilities of the Mustang, and many of the other aircraft. It's a Russian view, that obviously is incorrect.
I really would like a realistic combat flight simulator, and a US campaign.
The market is there. If you don't wait too long wink . I'm sure they'd pay what was asked.

But if you can't hand me the game, I don't hand you my money.

Just my take on things.
Sad someone doesn't have the backing to develop that, when the small market, is so eager to buy it.
IMHO, for 'any' price.

Best wishes to ED, and their vision.
And thanks to DCS for developing the Mustang.
But if you don't put it all together, it's worthless to most people.

Sad it's been such a struggle, for such a viable product.
You've got a lot of the aircraft being developed in DCS, the terrain can't be that difficult.
Developers have had over a decade to come up with something....it's just baffling to me.
DCS has a nice Mustang, that fly's.
I dunno. The community has been waiting for over a decade.

But I'm just a consumer.....with money wink
I'm not an 'investor'.
You want my money, give me a product.

That's how you get rich.
That's how I get a flight sim I like.

Or not, that's life.
Hope it works out for all of us.

Here is a clue to people who have 'given away' their money. When you buy stock in a company, you get a 'stock certificate', and you give them your cash. It's an exchange. Sometimes you make money, sometimes you don't.

But when you just give people your cash, and have no legal promises to show for it.
It's their cash now, and you have nothing. And can expect 'nothing', legally. If the company goes broke, you have nothing. If they don't wish to return your money, your screwed. That's the way the world works.
Some lessons are learned the hard way. Some are more expensive than others.

It's nice some people have 'donated' their cash for a 'promise'. But that's just what it is, a 'donation'.
That is not a 'investment'. Move on, when it doesn't work out. Some lessons are much more expensive.

Live and learn. wink



We'll be gettin' a Normandy map.

Betwix the DCS WWII Aircraft and VEAO's Collection... we should have most countries covered (minus Japan).

I just like being able to start the 'stang in like 5 seconds and taxi away lol.





Please PM me when all this gets straightened out, and I can fly combat in a 'real' Mustang P-51D, in a WWII European setting. Just the major aircraft, B-17's, 109's, 190's, Spitfires, P-38's.....etc...
A campaign from Normandy to Berlin.
You put a price on it. I'll buy it.
I'll be the first customer.

Do it before this box you designed is outdated wink

ASUS SABERTOOTH Z77; LGA 1155 Intel Z77 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard
CASE; Cooler Master HAF 932 RC-932-KKN5-GP R
PSU; CORSAIR HX750 750W RT
Intel CPU i5-3570K Ivy Bridge 3.4GHz (3.8GHz Turbo) 77W Quad-Core HD Graphics
MEM; CORSAIR Vengeance 16GB (4 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800)
VIDEO; EVGA GeForce GTX 670 FTW 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP SLI Support
HDD; 2 - Seagate Barracuda's 1TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s
LITE-ON Black 12X BD-R 2X BD-RE 16X DVD+R 12X DVD-RAM 8X BD-ROM SATA 12X Blu-ray Burner with Blu Ray 3D Feature
ASUS 24X DVD Burner - Black SATA Model
COOLING; Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO
MNTR; SMSNG LED 23.6" 2MS HDMI
Win7 Professional SP1 64-bit
MSSWFF2 stick
Pro Throttle
Pro Pedals

I've been waiting a long, long time.
Posted By: scrim

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 07:06 PM

Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
Joint venture doesnt mean they were employed by ED, you refuse to accept the fact that ED allowed another company to run their own show. You refuse to look at the facts, or even read what has been posted already (a fact you just proved on the ED boards moments ago).


I know it doesn't mean employed, which is something I stated very clearly. If ED allowed Luthier to run this with no supervision, calling it a joint venture, promising huge rewards, well then, that'd be about just as irresponsible.


I am utterly amazed that it only took me writing "sem-scam" for you to, in lieu of being a moderator here, set off on almost by yourself filling 6 pages with all this drivel, and start provocing me on the ED forums supposedly so you can get an excuse to ban me there.
Is it really that hard for you to accept that other people don't agree with you, and state so on forums where you can't delete their posts, or ban them?
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 07:08 PM

Originally Posted By: scrim
What part of "joint venture between RRG and ED" is it that you refuse to accept?


Here's a legal definition of joint venture:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Joint+Venture

It says nothing about obligations to anyone but the other business, and even then, in good faith. Also, this is north-american based definition, and I haven't the slightest clue if/how it would apply to a business in Russia.

Also, IANAL.
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 07:09 PM

They stated what they were overseeing... it certainly wasnt management of his company, otherwise why have RRG at all? Come on man... you cant be that dense.

I dont need to provoke you on the ED site... you earned all that attention yourself...

If you cant handle someone with an opposing opinion to yours here, sorry to hear that... but TS.

Originally Posted By: scrim
Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
Joint venture doesnt mean they were employed by ED, you refuse to accept the fact that ED allowed another company to run their own show. You refuse to look at the facts, or even read what has been posted already (a fact you just proved on the ED boards moments ago).


I know it doesn't mean employed, which is something I stated very clearly. If ED allowed Luthier to run this with no supervision, calling it a joint venture, promising huge rewards, well then, that'd be about just as irresponsible.


I am utterly amazed that it only took me writing "sem-scam" for you to, in lieu of being a moderator here, set off on almost by yourself filling 6 pages with all this drivel, and start provocing me on the ED forums supposedly so you can get an excuse to ban me there.
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 07:21 PM

I'll just add here that the Supreme Court disagrees with Force10 and as far as it is concerned ED is a person. smile

So saying ED is scamming is indeed the same as saying some guy named Ed is scamming. biggrin





The Jedi Master
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 07:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
I'll just add here that the Supreme Court disagrees with Force10 and as far as it is concerned ED is a person. smile

So saying ED is scamming is indeed the same as saying some guy named Ed is scamming. biggrin





The Jedi Master


Nothing better than a bunch of us pretend pilots discussing the law wink Futility at its best...
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 07:31 PM

Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
They stated what they were overseeing... it certainly wasnt management of his company, otherwise why have RRG at all? Come on man... you cant be that dense.




Again…from the Kickstarter page:

Quote:
and in partnership with the experts at the Fighter Collection and Eagle Dynamics, the simulation aims to satisfy seasoned aces as well as attract new pilots to the genre



Wow…calling someone dense even though it's clearly stated that they are partners on the Kickstarter page…classy.
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 07:32 PM

The dense part is not getting what the responsibilities are in that partnership, which has been stated many times ARE NOT running RRG and its KS... so yes... very dense.

What can I say Force.... you guys bring out the "clASS" in me.

Originally Posted By: Force10
Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN
They stated what they were overseeing... it certainly wasnt management of his company, otherwise why have RRG at all? Come on man... you cant be that dense.




Again…from the Kickstarter page:

Quote:
and in partnership with the experts at the Fighter Collection and Eagle Dynamics, the simulation aims to satisfy seasoned aces as well as attract new pilots to the genre



Wow…calling someone dense even though it's clearly stated that they are partners on the Kickstarter page…classy.
Posted By: Snoopy_476th

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 07:35 PM

This thread just needs to be locked. Nothing good is going to come of it.
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 07:38 PM

Well, which is it? Partnership or joint venture? Does it even matter?

Originally Posted By: Force10
Wow…calling someone dense even though it's clearly stated that they are partners on the Kickstarter page…classy.
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 07:39 PM

Yep, agreed.

Originally Posted By: Snoopy_476th
This thread just needs to be locked. Nothing good is going to come of it.
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 07:40 PM

I 3rd that...
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 07:44 PM

Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
Yep, agreed.

Originally Posted By: Snoopy_476th
This thread just needs to be locked. Nothing good is going to come of it.


Well of course you would agree…if this was the ED forum it would have been locked and bans handed down long ago. This isn't the ED forum though…and if folks stay within the forum rules…there is no harm in discussing the issues gamers are having with this deal. This isn't a forum strictly for developers (fortunately).
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 07:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Force10
Originally Posted By: GrayGhost
Yep, agreed.

Originally Posted By: Snoopy_476th
This thread just needs to be locked. Nothing good is going to come of it.


Well of course you would agree…if this was the ED forum it would have been locked and bans handed down long ago. This isn't the ED forum though…and if folks stay within the forum rules…there is no harm in discussing the issues gamers are having with this deal. This isn't a forum strictly for developers (fortunately).


No matter how made up some users issues might be....
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 07:53 PM

Originally Posted By: SiThSpAwN


No matter how made up some users issues might be....



I bet a lot of Backers getting 2/3 of their rewards slashed wish it was made up
Posted By: NineLine

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 07:54 PM

<---Backer
Posted By: GrayGhost

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 07:59 PM

I'm sorry, I tried to answer your questions generally since you seemed to be sensitive to it, but I guess you don't see it fit to return the same respect.

So let's see what happened:

- You made an allegation of fraud/scam on the ED forums. You got banned for that, I figure - wasn't me.
- You repeated this here (You posted your own post, otherwise I wouldn't be talking about it)
- You're upset about the ban (My guess, but your behavior points that way)
- You decided to continue with the conspiracy stuff here
- You tried to turn that into some sort of precedent-setting action by ED and how they're doing an evil thing
- You decided that peeps who are ED moderators shouldn't have an opinion because, as representatives of ED, they shouldn't. Apparently, we don't count as part of the community. (BTW. What you've done with this is called 'poisoning the well'.)

My conclusion: You don't want a discussion of issues, you just want a soap box.

So yes, in my opinion it should be locked, because your antics in part have caused it to circle the drain.

Originally Posted By: Force10
Well of course you would agree…if this was the ED forum it would have been locked and bans handed down long ago. This isn't the ED forum though…and if folks stay within the forum rules…there is no harm in discussing the issues gamers are having with this deal. This isn't a forum strictly for developers (fortunately).
Posted By: Force10

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 08:04 PM

Wow…just wow Ghost. Are you reading between some lines?


Originally Posted By: Force10
Do I think it's a scam? No I don't…I think ED is doing what they can to salvage the project and maintain some sort of profitability. (they are a business after all)


So your saying it's wrong to say this:

Originally Posted By: Force10

Does it possibly skirt the ethical guidelines that are layed out by Kickstarter and do people have a right to be upset about it and voice their opinion?


I know you think we are just supposed to be sheep and take whatever ED says/does as gospel without question but that's not how the world works.
Posted By: Murphy

Re: Luthier out. ED is in. - 07/15/14 08:09 PM

OK....I'll lock it, with this last page, I think it's time to start a new thread.
Maybe it'll turn out better.

Everyone take a deep breath, and we'll start again.

Any personal insults, or violations of this forum's rules, will result in an immediate ban.
I can assure everyone of that.

I'm going to tighten up.

Be fore warned, and don't be the first.

Murphy.
© 2024 SimHQ Forums