Jump to content

sc_neo

Members
  • Posts

    754
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sc_neo

  1. Yep he stated he wanted to move all bug reports back to the unresolved section that were wrongly placed here by the "other dude".
  2. The Hornet owner rebate was from the days before the turbulant days around the Viper release and the adjustments to the pricing model. At the time, people might have expected the usual 20% discount during the pre-pruchase phase, an maybe another 10-15% on top for Hornet owners. I recon only very few might have thought it might be as high as 45-50%. The Carrier module seems to be the first with the new pricing model that was hinted at a couple months back with 30% off during pre-pruchase, and maybe somthing like 20% during EA, and full price on full release when the module is bug free and feature complete. My hunch is that the Carrier module will be priced around 60 dollar which gives everyone a 40ish dollar pricetag during pre-pruchase. Hornet owners might at most have expected an overall rebate of 35-40% i imagine, which translates to saving an additional 3-6 dollars. Not really sure whether hussling over that amount is a good time investment.
  3. I am not sure how the "we finish our products before doing other things" was worded exactly, but Razbam is apparently working on their new projects besides finishing hte Mirage and Harrier. I guess they will just hold off from starting to sell those before letting the other ones go out of beta. And this will be a pivotal point for me and my inclination of spending further money on DCS. There is a host of bugs on the Harrier that are not even on the bug tracker, that have been reported years back and that Decoy has promised to move back from the "resolved" section in the Harrier sub forum. But if the Harrier leaves EA without all of them being addressed beforehand and ED letting this slide, that'll be my personal tipping point. Anyway, lets hope for the best for the Harrier in 2020!
  4. Still; if there is a significant difference in HUD visibility between VR and 2d now, one of the two representations must be less realistic. In the end i prefer realism of experience over realism of 1to1 ratios, angles and lenghts. If in real life one sees the entire HUD from the proper resting seating position, one should see it then both in VR and 2d, even if this means ED has to code a proper and geometrically correct HUD for VR that is completly visible due to parallax vision in VR, and a second compressed HUD that is completly visible on a monitor. What counts is to have an experience that is as close to reality as can be, not whether this or that value or lengths is on a one to one scale.
  5. I count 6 dots meaning 6 newsletters until the anouncement :)
  6. I just checked Razbams official bug tracker and i don't see anything related to this issue on there. So it seems the devs have totally forgotten about this and there won't be any fix in the forseeable future. And looking at the bug tracker, it seems most of dev. efforts are geard towards the Mirage atm.
  7. Comes in 2020 with the RC 2 candidate patch.
  8. Getting the Red Flag i already bought a year ago instead of something brand new is slightly disappointing, but i'll get over it. Sometimes resources are spread to wide and thing and you gotta cut a deal. Anyway, looking forward to the Viggen leaving EA next year, and i would like to encourage you to add an english cockpit. I use the modded version, but if an english pit became part of the official package without the fear of it breaking and maybe never to be fixed, that would put my mind at ease.
  9. "Originally Posted by sc_neo The eyepoint has been moved 5cm foward and 10cm upwards to account somewhat for a real humans neck. And to accomodate for that change they had to move the default player position a bit backwards. Now the HUD behaves like it should, like a real collimated HUD as far as i understand it at least. I guess this warrants round two on the discussion on what a real pilot sees when sitting in the relaxed position resting his back on the seat's back cussion. Last thing i heard was that pilots have to lean forward a bit to have the HUD in good view when doing gun runs." Hope you didn't understand me wrong. I actually called for that adjustment of the eyepoint in the lead-up to the cockpit update. So i am very happy you introduced that! My post was just an explanation of what has been changed so others would understand why it looked and behaved differently. Actually, when i tweaked those values in the server.lua myself a couple of months back, i obviously had to move back the seating position myself as well, which gave me issues with the midpoint/deadzone on the zoom-axis that i have bound to an analog rotary on my throttle. Different story. Anyway, i think this neck-tweak makes looking around in the cockpit a bit more realistic. With these changes in place, whether the HUD is rendered in the correct place from the default resting position is another question, something people with real life experience can give input on.
  10. The eyepoint has been moved 5cm foward and 10cm upwards to account somewhat for a real humans neck. And to accomodate for that change they had to move the default player position a bit backwards. Now the HUD behaves like it should, like a real collimated HUD as far as i understand it at least. I guess this warrants round two on the discussion on what a real pilot sees when sitting in the relaxed position resting his back on the seat's back cussion. Last thing i heard was that pilots have to lean forward a bit to have the HUD in good view when doing gun runs.
  11. Jetzt hatse endlich ein richtiges Genick bekommen, und das HUD verschiebt sich wenn man links/recht und hoch/runter guckt. Sehr nice.
  12. @irfanahmed1979 and @LanceCriminal86 Come on guys, please, be a bit more balanced with the quote function. Don't make everyone reading this thread scroll past those screenshots like 3 times only to save yourself the split second of copy*pasting the name of the person you want to reference.
  13. The lighting is very dim on my end as well. I fired up the nttr landing quick start mission and turned every light and backlight to it's max and the cockpit stayed very dark.
  14. The oxygen hose on the pilot model misses it's textures on my end. Do you see a proper texture?
  15. And a proper neck has been finally implemented. The HUD shifts in both horizontal and vertical plane when you turn your head left and right and up and down. Very nice! As far as i can tell it's now the first module that has not only an eyepoint that is moved a bit forward from the neck, but a bit upward as well.
  16. I don't have the Tacmanual, but i take it you have reported this to Razbam in detail before?
  17. @Viper2097 Ok, i bite :) What is the Tacmanual, and can you outline like five things that you found are modeled wrong? Without breaking forum rules of course.
  18. PC has officially stated that they are working on a new flight model for the Gazelle. So patience is king i reckon.
  19. Actually, i prefer the longer dev. time for the Viggen, even that it had to fall back in effort because of the F-14 for quite some time....because the end product is and will be much better compared to it being finished within 12 or 18 months and never to be touched later on except for bug fixes. So i'd rather have all those tech. upgrades that came with the F-14 project coming to the Viggen as well instead of the Viggen finished and done earlier. Still, having it feature complete at some point would be nice of course.
  20. Nice to see things are happening on the Viggen, but to manage expectations a bit on my end: will the Viggen be finished this year as stated at the beginning of 2019, or will finalizing of the project take a longer timeframe?
  21. In the end it comes down to the following question: do we want ED to keep making vehicular modules (aircraft/ships whatever) AND do the base game stuff in paralell, or do we want them to totally quit on the module side of things and focus solely on the engine/tech/game side of things. And one thinh i think is worth remembering; i surely can believe that a lot of people at ED really like building aircraft. So its not just about what we want, but the people going to the office every work day must finally make that decision as a group. We do like companies that are not only top-down....hey, you guys freaking do what management wants, do we? So, if they keep making aircraft or other modules in parallel with the game stuff, then there really is no reason to change the business model right now. First, it probably does not make sense to hire 100 new tech guys and hope that the speed up on the game side of things translates into higher income that balances the increased costs. Secondly, if the man-hour balance between modules and tech/game development does not change, then there really is no point in charging for non modules stuff that everyone gets so the playbase is not split. So the best way to ensure further game development still remains buying new modules (yeah especially ED ones like F/A-18 and F-16), forget about the EA issues, and rather take them as a "thank you and appreciation by ED" for your continued support. So, i kinda changed my mind on the "let us pay directly for the core game development" because; this would only make sense if A. they hired a bunch of new staff that would only work on the engine and tech or B. they shifted more and more staff away from module development. And both are decisions that the guys at ED should decide by themselves, not us. Additionally, i bet DCS would be a worse product if ED would withdraw completely from module development. A good deal of the tech we want like the ground radar or IFF are probably better developedd as part of an aircraft project than in isolation. Finally, maybe a slight shift in the staff allocation from 50/50 to a golden 66/33 for game and module development would be a more suitable framework. But thats just a ratio that feels good to me, i have no clue whether this would speed up or better the game side of things in any way.
  22. Whatever way of financing: it is a balancing act and staying on the good side of the consumers always means you have to deliver fair value for money. And overall, i feel that people paying for DCS are pretty observing and critical towards what they are getting for money spent.
  23. I am usually not a supporter of a subscription model. I just dislike the fact that it's emotionally harder to step away from something for weeks/months if you continue to pay for it. And i like the fact that i can purchase the stuff i want or want to give support on, but still can let DCS rest for some time without that nagging feeling. And if it was a monthly fee that could be canceld on a monthly basis as is the case with most video streaming services, what would be the point? Hopping on and off doesn't provide ED with the stable income that would be the intention behind a subscription model. But, a subscription on the price level of about 5-6 dollar/euro could work if it was delivering something new and tangible, something where it is more obvious for the enduser that it is a continous cost for the producer and that does not put a second pricetag on somehting you already paid for. Meaning: moving away from hand crafted maps (yeah, based on sattelite imagery) that we purchase individually now, to the whole globe that you invariably need to stream from the cloud because of the sheer amout of data space required. We see this technology coming on other products on the market, if you want that amount of detail covering pretty much everywhere, than this will likely not be a thing you can put on your hard drive in all its stunning glory. How that would be paid for, is another matter of course. But since it would likely require some streaming aspect from EDs/third party servers, a monthly fee or one-time-payment for a specific time period would be an option that doesn't sound too unreasonable. So the model could be like this: pay individually for specific aircraft/modules, no strings attached. Pay monthly/yearly for getting access to that ever evolving streamed "spherical globe" that has got it all. Key to whatever route ED will take in regards to future financing; is to be more open about what the costs are for certain aspects of development and product continuation. On reddit Mr. Grey stated that he as (singular?) owner has as of yet not taken out a single dollar as profit for himself. Which should mean all income goes to keeping the business alive, i.e. employee sallaries, rent, equipment, licencing and other upkeep costs. So if ED was open and honest about what would be directly financed from a subscription in regards to the overall world terrain and engine/tech, i actually might consider this. And yeah, they don't have to give us numbers on how much they earn through their consumer side products, but other companies do this too. The video streaming portals do tell how many subscribers they have and one can come up with rough numbers on how much income that generates and whether the service you get is fair for what you and everyone paying for that service chime in. So the price of one module per year to ensure a hopefully "speedier" development of the base game would be ok in my opinion.
×
×
  • Create New...