Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About statrekmike

  • Rank
  • Birthday 09/16/1983

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS World, IL-2 1946, IL-2 Cliffs of Dover, Rise of flight, BMS Falcon 4.32
  • Location
    Providence RI
  • Interests
    Military history, guitar, aviation
  1. Something tells me that such a movie would not be terribly watchable.
  2. One way you can potentially come to a choice is to look up each aircraft and get a sense for what roles they are best suited for and what kinds of scenarios interest you the most. For some players, it is all about air to air combat so they will focus on aircraft that specifically provide that experience. For others, it is about multi-role capability so more modern aircraft like the Hornet, Viper, or the JF-17 end up being strong contenders. The more you know about the various aircraft, the more informed your choice can be and the less likely you are to get something that doesn't quite scratch
  3. I am not sure I agree with the somewhat popular notion that it is a good full fidelity module for a beginner. On one hand, I can understand that its simplicity makes it a popular module overall and I can understand that said simplicity can make it seem less intimidating to new players at first glance. That being said, we are talking about a consumer flight simulation built largely for entertainment and as such, new players should be encouraged to only spend money on aircraft that truly excite them and they should be ACTIVELY encouraged to use the rather ample, easy to understand resources reso
  4. This gets into something I have noticed more and more as DCS's public server multiplayer scene has grown over the years. At its core, DCS is a very good "single sortie simulator" where someone builds a stand-alone, single use mission with a defined beginning, middle, and end. This is where you are going to find a lot of DCS's strengths as a platform come into their own. The problem with these kinds of missions is that they simply can't work in a public server setting. In a public server, you need scenarios that are pretty open ended, sustainable for long periods of time, and allow for players
  5. The Mirage generally meets the standard but that was most certainly not the case until the French AdA actively got involved in the project and provided data and feedback. Keep in mind, the Mirage came out in 2015 and the AdA informed overhaul didn't happen until 2018. That gap in time is important since before 2018, the Mirage module was in a pretty bad place in terms of meeting the existing DCS standard for attention to detail and the impression of realism. As I have said in the other thread. I think the big lesson that should be taken away from this controversy is that ED needs to put
  6. If I were to put forward some modules that I feel represent good ways to handle the standard we expect from DCS as a whole, it would be the A-10C, the F-14B, and the JF-17. The A-10C is a obvious one. it is quite complete and while there are bugs and some performance inconsistencies, it has a massive amount of obvious systems depth and what is changed due to classification/secrecy issues makes sense and isn't obfuscated from the player. The F-14B acts as a good part of the standard because you could see the effort Heatblur put into research and getting all the data/SME support they
  7. I have full faith that you and everyone else at ED are trying very hard to find some kind of solution to all of this. Even then, I am concerned that this will result in perhaps a six month long burst of meaningful progress and communication and then we will end up right back where we are now. This cycle isn't a new one and that is the part that I think some of us are really concerned about. We know that you are in a tricky position because you are kinda stuck in the middle with all of this. To be bluntly honest, RAZBAM themselves should really be handling this and not you. The question I
  8. There are some that keep coming into this thread with this same line of thinking and while it isn't outright correct, it is also not the whole picture. I have been playing DCS for going on a decade. I have bought just about every module with only a few specific exceptions. I know that when I buy a module, I am more than likely getting a early access product with the promise that it will eventually be a full, complete release. Obviously sometimes things go very bad (VEAO and the Hawk module is a good example) but for the most part, ED, Heatblur, and Deka have been good about (and this is
  9. Perhaps that was a aggressive word choice and for that, I apologize. I should also have made it clear that I am replying not just to your "what to expect next" list but also the post you made before it which I will quote below. Again. I am not trying to put you on tribunal here for issues that are out of your direct control. The larger issue here is not just communication from RAZBAM to us on the ED forum but also the module itself, it's overall quality based on time developed, and what its final form is to be (and how that final form compares to what other third parties and ED st
  10. To be honest, I don't really worry myself about the other modules they tease or even officially announce. What worries me is the Harrier module and the fact that has been out for so long and so many bugs, incomplete systems, and outright missing systems haven't been dealt with even when RAZBAM actually acknowledges them on either this forum, facebook, or their Discord echo-chamber. I get that you got a bad deal. I didn't envy your position as a CM at all. Still, don't try to deflect this all on us when we are here because of the quality of RAZBAM's work and their business practices.
  11. None of this helps and none of it actually confronts the real problem. Passing the blame to people who bought the modules doesn't really make sense when you consider that a good many don't even go on the forums, the discord, or anything and just buy the modules they are interested in. Are they also to blame in your eyes? Are they also responsible? It is true that the community tends to think about wishlists more than they should. It is true that some are probably too quick to defend a developer when they really, really push things to far. Still, that doesn't make this issue any less wort
  12. I would be more willing to get on board with this line of thinking if RAZBAM had made statements about flight modeling difficulties that supported it. So far, RAZBAM seems to maintain that the issue is more about secrecy and what they are and are not allowed to put into the module (or even complete if it is already there). If they could not afford to complete the rest of the systems after doing the flight model, that is on them and it is simply not appropriate at this juncture to give them more money on top of the original selling price to get the module that we were promised as part of that o
  13. My big concern right now is that the communication issue goes much, much deeper than not getting on the forums (which really should be a requirement in the contract if it is not already) or even the elevated emotions and rather rude statements. I think the big issue is that they really need to be more forthright about what they think a finished, realistic, full fidelity module looks like when it leaves early access. When ED or even other third parties announce a module, there is usually a understanding that there is a certain standard of fidelity/realism that should be met. Sometimes thi
  14. When it comes to the public server regulars, I agree with others that this is the kind of time where some folks get a bit busy and may not be able to hang out on the servers as much. It is just how this kind of thing goes. On the other side of things, I think it isn't exactly a great idea to use the public servers as a meaningful yardstick for player retention overall. Many players (like myself) have no desire to go on public servers and instead focus on private groups and private servers. For a lot of players, single player is also a big deal (even if such a statement is controversial i
  15. NineLine, I appreciate your replies and the time you have spent doing this thus far. I do have one question. When the internal bug tracker does start generating some results and all that information gets to where it needs to go, what should we (as the community) do if things don't really change for the module itself (via updates and the like)? What can we reasonably expect ED to be able to do? I don't ask to be a downer or anything. I guess I am just at a point where I struggle to even have cautious optimism about the module. I hope that there is a way to get everything on track again.
  • Create New...