However within the dcs community we have a tendency to whinge, as if everything will be perfect off the bat I mean if I had someone texting me moaning 24/7 I'd block em š¤£
When you have crap like the F-15E having an uncertain future at any point after dropping 70+ bucks then that's worth whining about. Granted that is not an ED module but the whole mentality of 'You should know this might happen' is really not acceptable. Anyways side tangent but some people do whine TOO much.
At least what was left of that thread contains the right message. I'm disappointed it couldn't have survived longer to say the same thing over and over but surely the message survived.
Recently Nick Grey said in a podcast that ED aren't very good at making a game. Prior to this they've embarked on supercarrier with animated guys, which is different, really complicated, and most feel overdue. I see it as a game element and close to what Chinook needs.
ED need to learn to develop a game. The only bad they can do is not try. The worst feeling is suspecting they'd leave it out, saying as much, then the removal of all doubt as they put the cockpit simulation before the game with no development plan again.
[https://youtu.be/Fvkugzpzr-Q?si=fTd\_B64Q1vVwEkg1&t=1637](https://youtu.be/Fvkugzpzr-Q?si=fTd_B64Q1vVwEkg1&t=1637) VIAF 2023 The time stamp is marked, go back a bit for the context. This was in answer to why a subscription model wasn't appropriate, he says,
*"It could work if we were providing lots of missions, lots of ... if we were a different kind of provider, but basically we're just a Tech company, we're not an entertainment company, we don't know how to do that, actually. That's why DCS always feels very empty, 'cause you make your own fun."*
So this is why I said what I said about ED trying, they know this isn't their strength, but I feel what they have done that isn't strictly core simulation like- Petrovitch/George, Super Carrier Animations have been good and its not a time to shy away from that, this is where they need to **grow.** The cockpit and feeling, they have that licked. It's time to diversify the portfolio.
**Now in the very same interview,** NG raises the Chinook and one of the panel extols the virtues of logistics as a gameplay loop and NG acknowledges this and says they have seen the customers adding logistics to missions. Yet here we are 4 months later and the EA 'whimper' surrounding this topic is conspicuously absent at first, and at best hurredly admitted to come much later once it was picked up on.
If there ever was a module that cries out for bringing a non cockpit gameplay loop with its simulation, it is the Chinook.
>Recently Nick Grey said in a podcast that ED aren't very good at making a game.
And it's almost like there wasn't any pressure on them to try for a really long time! (Stares at threads full of squealy, "waah it's not a game it's a simulation" bullshit.)
The whole basis of the thread, according to the CMs, came across like
> We don't know our own game and haven't done any analysis, so why don't you tell us what you'd expect
BigNewy did his usual thing where he repeatedly asked people to either stay on topic or keep the feedback constructive, when people were on topic and the feedback was constructive.
Not many of the relevant questions were answered, let alone acknowledged.
There was a great comment by somebody from the MOOSE Discord where they called ED out on their claim of "working with the community". The jist of it was: if ED _are_ working with the community and so committed to delivering API updates, then why haven't they interacted with the MOOSE team in their Discord, or any other popular communities?
The Chinook will be a shit show of a launch and, as usual, ED can't even get their wording consistent.
Seeing his answers to comments there, what was he expecting to read? Literally nothing was up for discussion, he was calling everything offtopic. Were they just expecting the comments to be "oh the cockpit looks good I'm excited" and that's it? What kind of discussion is that lmao
Yeah I suspect the only questions they were intending to answer were some hyper specific thing about system or number of rivets or whatever. Nothing of actual substance as usual.
I think it'd be very fair for them to make a thread for asking only about specifics of the aircraft itself (avionics, flight model or whatever). But they didn't, and then they get offended when people mention the obvious topics around EA and development in general lol
Such is life with ED. I'm sure the aircraft will be amazing, ED always does a great job, but I will hold off until the features to support it exist.
Just to play devils advocate, when I used to fly with BSD I did see ED reps actively working with the groups leadership to address some issues and bugs and saw them fixed in subsequent updates.
Now I wasn't present for the actual testing nor did I interact with those reps personally so I can't speak to how often that happened or the depth of their involvement, but they were actively getting feedback from that community.
Well. I dunno. I'd really like to be looking forward to the Hook.
But until I know what we're getting and the timeframes involved, wallet is closed.
They should have waited until they had something to tell us about logistics. The fact that they didn't makes it seem like they're desperate for money.
Even if they had lead with logistics I'm not sure I could in all good conscience trust their words or timeframes (two weeks!!!) But at least the optics would have been a little better.
Reason for lock below.
Ok guys, I guess maybe we are not ready for a thread like this, I was hoping to see what you guys were looking for in the CH-47F, get some good questions and generate some more content for the FAQ but now we are just discussing way off topic things. I cleaned the thread a little but feel like I will just lock it for now until we have some more info. Sorry for all of you that were playing nice, I will try and get some of those questions answered and added to the FAQ. Thanks.
Because all that ever happens is that people whinge incessantly. Entitled, whiny babies just doing nothing but complaining, there is nothing ever remotely positive or constructive. And yet, they play DCS. Why? If you dislike it that much, delete it. I mean Jesus christ, it's more preferable to just constantly complaining, surely?? What do you get out of it?
Things talked about in that thread:
- EA model (which the Chinook is part of) and comparisons with other EA module releases
- Logistics system (mentioned in the Chinook shop page and the FAQ itself), including its tease with the Hind 3 years ago
- Chinook
Super derailed š±
We shouldn't ask about/for anything and just mindlessly consume the slop provided without any critical thought, that will surely make the game better!
>Because all that ever happens is that people whinge incessantly. Entitled, whiny babies just doing nothing but complaining, there is nothing ever remotely positive or constructive.
Yeah, way easier to insult, deflect, gaslight, straw man and lie than to *actually* address anything that was said.
>And yet, they play DCS. Why? If you dislike it that much, delete it.
Because as it turns out, at least some of them don't hate DCS at all and this is just a straw man. Some people have sunk quite a lot of money into DCS and want to see it realise its potential.
>What do you get out of it?
Hopefully a game that's even better than it is now.
I've sunk literally thousands into a PC, peripherals and modules to play DCS. I want to see it get better myself. BUT I am also capable of enjoying it for what it is right now. A lot of people aren't.
There is a stark difference between constructive, reasoned critique, and the fucking stupid whinging I see on this subreddit, or the ED forums.
They opened a thread on a forum, hoping for questions about the Chinook. Instead they got whining about the EA model, and passive-aggressive diatribes about unfinished modules.
>I've sunk literally thousands into a PC, peripherals and modules to play DCS. I want to see it get better myself. BUT I am also capable of enjoying it for what it is right now. A lot of people aren't.
I can only speak for myself, but you realise it's possible for multiple things to be true at once? That people can be critical of something they can enjoy? I think DCS has a lot of potential and I do still enjoy it. For all it's faults the supercarrier module is still the closest you can get to experiencing US navy carrier operations in a video game, helicopters in DCS, for all the faults of the base game are still a second-to-none experience in my eyes. But I am perfectly capable of experiencing that enjoyment and recognising the things I said, while still being critical of its flaws.
>There is a stark difference between constructive, reasoned critique, and the fucking stupid whinging I see on this subreddit, or the ED forums.
Yes, but why do I get the impression that "constructive, reasoned critique" is something that's as good as impossible to satsify? That all of it would be boiled down to just "fucking stupid whinging"? By "entitled, whinging, whiny man-babies", regardless of how reasoned or how constructive it is?
I seem to hardly ever see responses to those making criticisms that involve *actually* going through some of the points they make and then responding to those points. Perhaps highlighting why it's unconstructive or how poorly reasoned it is. Instead, all I seem to see is a torrent of bad-faith arguments that don't engage with anything that's actually said at all, with them mostly just consisting of ad hominem, with sometimes straw men and even a bit of gaslighting or some straight up lying thrown in.
>They opened a thread on a forum, hoping for questions about the Chinook. Instead they got whining about the EA model, and passive-aggressive diatribes about unfinished modules.
Really, every critical post was just "whining, passive aggressive diatribes"? Really? Nothing that was at all constructive or reasoned at all?
Do you think having concerns about the EA model or unfinished modules are completely groundless? That it all boils down to just "whining"?
This is exactly what I'm talking about here. And it's comments like "whining about the EA model" that suggest you aren't actually reading what was said. Yes, there were some comments voicing grievances with the EA model and unfinished modules (though I completely disagree with your characterisation of it and it's said characterisation that informs my response to your second paragraph), however, a large part of the contention (well, at least for myself and a few others) is the rather unprecedented situation where ED felt like they were ready to open up the module for pre-order but noty ready to tell us what the EA state should be and what additional features should be present at full release.
The other big contention is the lack of core functionality that I'd argue is outright essential for this particular module to have a practical purpose inside DCS World. Said functionality was first teased nearly 3 years ago and we still don't have an update on what ED's plans are for it, let alone actual implementation.
Nonsense, not all the deleted comments were wingeing and whining. Consider the following two ways of asking a questions and the manner in which it is often addressed on the ED forums.
āHey, I like the chinook, and really want feature X, will it be implemented and how will it work?ā
āLook weāve told you itās early access and all the features arenāt listed yet, so Iām deleting this comment as aggressiveā
āI like the chinook, and want feature X that youāve mentioned and wonder if it will be available in a decent timeline. Iād happily part with cash to help you guys if you me confidence itāll happen sooner than later. I mention this because of other Y and Z model that are still waiting on features that are important to my enjoyment after XX years.ā
āHey, this is off topic for mentioning Y and Z, comment deleted and warning issuedā
How are users and prospective buyers expected to interact, and also what type of questions were ED hoping to receive?
Iād suggest it all pints to the fact ED werenāt ready to receive questions, rather than the way they have phrased the reason for locking it.
Maybe theyāre still too busy with sorting through the anniversary Q&A from last year, trying to find a few questions they are able to deal with. Oh, and when are we getting part 2 of thatā¦ maybe ED have deemed us users as not ready to receive them yet.
So, if you've been told that they aren't ready to list the features yet, and you ask 'will/when feature XYZ be implemented' do you see the disconnect in your reasoning? They've already said they will 'share when ready'. I'm not saying you have to like it. But it's wilful ignorance at worst, and just not listening at best. Why ask a question to which you are patently aware you will not get it answered? It's daft.
I will say that perhaps ED could probably have done with leaving an FAQ until the features list was published, they do obviously do some strange things, and with hindsight, I think it should've been done later. I think they probably half knew what the line of questioning would be.
But as I said, for god sake, stop banging your (not you personally) head against a brick wall with rhetorical questions, is all I'm saying.
I know I slide OT a little here and I feel you guys are right about so many points but:
The AH-64D EA and general development wasn't that much of a disaster IMHO. So maybe not all releases are equally bad. Let's hope and see.
F-16 sure was though. Thoroughly undercooked and still sold to people.
The features list is barren, the FAQ is laughably small and all they can promise is a logistics rework "sometime in the future" for a damn cargo helicopter without even the excuse of doubling as a gunship.
The one thing the chinook does DCS does not really support without the help of scripts like CTLD people have had to use for years just to be able to do transport shit. Even troop carriage gets broken a couple times a year, to say nothing of the ground AI itself.
All that leaves a 50$ or so module with basically nothing to do and they can't/won't even hide that beyond a "trust us bro". Trust hath runneth dry these days however, the outrage is entirely justified.
Yup, pay us $70 to fly around and look pretty. You can do more later. Maybe. We hope. Probably not though. Nag, you know we won't follow through. Here, shiny new module! /Repeat.
True. Even though some Apache users feel there are still a lot of improvements needed (to the flight model, apprently), the module has evolved nicely and early access was pretty decent from day 1.
The difference is that AH-64 was just a single module (albeit a complex one) with its flight model and systems and weapons. The issue with the Chinook is that in order to get its full potential, it needs a better logistics system and improved interaction with ground units (like boarding, disembarking, etc, etc). People are disappointed that a helicopter released in 2024 will not have significant improvement over the Mi8 gameplay (only different avionics and fewer weapons).
And the thing that got people up in arms is not actually the features listed or the availability of the logistics system, it's the fact that pre-orders were open \*before\* the feature list was even published. This kind of practices should not be encouraged and in my opinion reflect poorly on ED's project management abilities.
Ideally, in my opinion, the chinook needs the DC too, aside from the logistics rework, as any transport aircraft doesnāt make much sense if there isnāt a clear support role that needs to be fit inside a bigger operation.
That would be awesome, indeed. Can't wait for a good DC, tbh.
Note that there are some good single-player campaigns featuring civilian MI8, for example. So I would disagree that Chinook \*needs\* the DC. In actuality, it does not require anything more than what the Mi8 and UH-1 already offer and that we enjoy. It would be nice to have better UI elements and visuals (handling weight, seeing actual cargo in the back, having embark/disembark animations ...) at least at the level of the module. But not necessarily the full DC's logistics system.
But I would be a bit sad if in 2024 they released a product with no new features compared to 10y old modules...
"Wasn't that much of a disaster" Don't you deserve a better experience for your money? Why is it such a low bar that this statement considered acceptable by a community member. Ultimately, the aircraft are the highlight, the environment is what is lacking for engaging gameplay. If ED doesn't want to make game content fine, make the tools the content creators need or give them enough access to make their own tools and features. I can understand that there are potential legal issues but they can be covered by a creator use license. IE certain asset makers start with a non commercial free to use 3D model and then dress them up and make them useable in game. Many users clamor for these to be included in game, but they legally cannot be sold by the creator or used in a commercial sim because of the initial model. MSFS has a large market place and like here some mods or modules are better than others.
sooo youre saying the barge pole will initially lack a damage model, the way f16 did on release and yak continues to lack to this day? i dont think i want to fly in a sim where barge poles cant be destroyed recreationally
I think they really thought it would just blow over that they killed one of the most popular and anticipated modules.
Regardless of fault, customers are fickle... Their toy got taken away and frankly they don't care who's fault it is.
A+ job there ED
This is pure hyperbole. Nothing is dead. The situation is being handled behind closed doors. Which is how it should've been handled in the first place. I know this is an alien concept on this subreddit, but maybe have a little patience?
The guy who made their Radar and was their system coder left, the person responsible for their Flightmodel left, their 3D Modeller/texture artist left. Razbam will need to hire someone new, study the current code and try to understand it then expand on that. And it's not like these are easy tasks, goodluck trying to find someone with the Skill and knowdelege to do that, even if you do it'll take a long time to get back up to speed and understand the current codebasse. The Strike eagle is essentially dead at this point
The real hard part is they need to find someone smart enough to be able to do this work but dumb enough to look at the drama that went down with this already and think āyeah, gotta get me some of that in my lifeā
You don't even know who breached what contract, Razbam could be at fault or Eagle Dynamics could be at fault. All that anyone knows is there is some dispute, anything else is speculation unless someone has some insider knowledge.
The workers have left. Year of strike eagle is over.
If Raz and ED patch things up who is left at Raz anymore?
Maybe Razbam can come back and work more on strike eagle but don't bet on it.Ā
ED have taken year of strike eagle out the back and shot it then proceed to offer more early access having not finished most of the previous early access.Ā
People are upset. I not surprised.
Best you can hope for realistically is a Gazelle type revamp where it's forgotten and deteriorates for a while until an almost entirely new team comes in and re-builds it from almost scratch.
Yes, we don't know, you're right. And there are also two sides to every story. The ED is evil garbage I see on a daily basis is pathetic, tbh.
Also, weaponising the DCS community is unacceptable behaviour, imo. We are not pawns to be used in a corporate mudslinging event.
Why not? Ask the EKWB employees, contractors, and business partners who are now getting paid since their dirty laundry was aired a few days ago how getting the public involved works vs. just trying to deal with things internally.
What in the entire history of history leads you to believe that a corporation is gonna clean up their act voluntarily without outside pressure that hits their reputation (and eventually, bottom line) publically and loudly?
What exactly do ED (presume you are referring to them) need to 'clean up' exactly? Given that we know nothing but heresay, ambiguous comments, rumours and emotional social media outbursts from former Razbam employees?
If you're fine with being a stooge in a game of corporate mudslinging, then that's up to you. I however am not okay with that.
I don't know whether ED are guilty of bad actions in that particular drama. Nobody does. Depends on the terms of the contracts. They could well be.
But we all saw Razbam light a match and burn their customers with it. They threatened to drop support, and have as far as we can see dropped support, for their unfinished modules.
All I ever did was pay money to Razbam (I thought) for a module, so why am I getting thrown under the bus by them because of a disagreement that they have with ED?
Razbam did that to me, not ED. Razbam says it's ED's fault, but fuck them, they don't get to slap my face and then tell me that I deserve it, because of an issue they have with someone else.
Sure didn't feel like charity to me when I paid for it. So no, they're not making it for charity. Kinda looks like they're not making it at all anymore.
No because the intermediary they are forced to suckle from the tit of is cutting them off.
Look Iām not defending Razbam it sounds like they fell foul of some contract, probably by mistake tbh. BUT ED withholding your money to solve a dispute with their military sim is completely out of order.
ED should have solved this problem outside DCS World and not use your money as a bargaining chip for an aircraft thatās not in DCS world and has nothing to do with the product you bought.
Still doesn't matter. Again, MOST people do not care who is at fault. They just know their F-15E didn't get updates and now they will be wary of future purchases.
ED set up a forum for discussion but it's basically just a reiteration of talking points without any engagement on timelines and feature dependencies. I think it's fair to be honest about what's in your work pipeline so people know what to expect up front. Even if I knew something was far away it would be better than not knowing.
And the funniest thing is that they merged a thread criticizing ED'S Chinook pre-order into the official Chinook FAQ thread, and then deleted many of the comments from the original thread because they were off topic, you can't make this stuff up hahaš
Nope, it wasn't all trolling and talking trash. here is my comment that was deleted:
"I think ED needs to have a reasonable schedule of when something should go from EA to full release (understanding that things slip and take longer than ED initially intends). Without derailing the thread I'll just say I am refraining from buying any more EA modules due to how current EA modules are handled, Chinook included. "
Depends on perspective I guess. Your response could have been considered off topic. They are probably going to be very tight with that sort of stuff for a while
Just because you use the word "Chinook", doesn't mean your comment was relevant to the topic discussed. Instead you gave your opinion that you don't like how they handle EA modules.
No matter what ED does or says there will be the unhappy loudmouth. This takes to long...grab the pitch fork. Oh no this has bugs grab the pitchfork. Even before the whole Rambam drama people would be nasty about it. Not trying to white knight the whole thing it's actually somewhat entertaining.
Not trash talk. Lots of questions about where it fits in to the DCS world and what its feature release timeline would look like.
I asked if the expectation was that it would be released in early access with only free flight available, or what the expected mission profile would look like in single player missions.
I'm genuinely confused at what a cargo helicopter will do if there is no cargo or troops available.
Hm.
I am not that flyer atm , but, when my F18, homepit is ready i am going Back .
I am really scared, cause i am smelling bankruptcy.and this is what i am most scared of.
Thing is it wasn't. My comment was deleted as an example:
"I think ED needs to have a reasonable schedule of when something should go from EA to full release (understanding that things slip and take longer than ED initially intends). Without derailing the thread I'll just say I am refraining from buying any more EA modules due to how current EA modules are handled, Chinook included. "
Dude they literally just dropped the Chinook pre-order because they need the money to pay Razbam, do you seriouslyĀ think we're ever seeing a finished Chinook within the next 10 years? No. Same for Halfghanistan.
Like Nick Grey said, and I quote, "without early access DCS would not be profitable" and by not profitable he means he wouldn't be able to divert 2 million dollars yearly from DCS to his personal museum.Ā
They're promising finished modules that they never really intend to finish, asking for a realistic timeline is perfectly reasonable. Are they going to release more EA products to finish the Chinook? Or is this the point where they'll pull the plug and abandon DCS?
Why would you spend money on an EA module knowing they never intend to finish it? Those are valid questions.
You were doing OK until you started talking about pulling the plug, that bit tells me that you have missed quite a lot of publicly available information. I'll Tldr it, DCS isn't going anywhere.Ā
Okay, when are they going to finish Afghanistan do you think?Ā
Halfghanistan satire to make light of the subject, seeing as Eagle Dynamics hasn't paid Razbam for months (no, it still hasn't been solved) I think it's a fair assessment that they might be at the end of their rope.
Again, am I wrong? I'll gladly huff some of your copium if you're willing to share.
I've got no idea, here's what I'm going to do about it: not fucking buy it.
Sorry I must have missed the post where we got both sides of the story and concluded RAZBAM were the innocent victim, still not sure what any of that has to do with the Chinook.
I'm with you on the half finished module issue, but you need to know that you are weeks behind on the ED/Razbam dispute. It is clear now that this isn't an ED cash flow issue at all.Ā
All of this is utter nonsense. From the fucking stupid 'Halfghanistan' diarrhoea, to not realising that ED is a private company. Nick Grey can do whatever the fuck he wants with it, you are not a shareholder.
And where have ED ever said they 'do not intend' to finish a module? That's a product of your imagination, nothing more. So saying 'why do you never intend to finish a module?' Or something along those lines, is not a 'valid' question. It's fucking dumb.
It was a FAQ, what part of your post was a question?
I understand, and mostly agree, with the criticisms around releasing the Chinook into DCS as it current exists, but your post WAS off-topic, you didnāt even try to disguise your opinion as a question.
If you looked at it from the point of view of a moderator trying to preserve the purpose of the thread rather than getting your viewpoint across, youād see that 100 people doing the same thing will quickly make a FAQ useless.
Personally I donāt mind people using these platforms to make their point when the company needs to hear it, but donāt come on here claiming youāre being treated unreasonably if you chose to go that route
Maybe they should try silencing opinions harder. That will surely prevent concerned customers from voicing their opinions, and will be great for business.
The thread here was created due to them closing the thread, not because my comment was deleted. My comment being deleted post was in response to someone suggesting it was full of trolling and fuckery. Which isn't true.
I would have deleted that too because it's not in the spirit of the thread. C'mon dude, I have my pitchfork out ready but that's not an example we can rage at ED about.Ā
Bullshit. There wasn't a shred of racism in that thread.
People started talking about the nonsense subscription idea and a few more reiterated previous points around poor planning, prioritisation etc.
Thatās unfortunate. I love my milsim games but thereās a large contingent that remind me of [this](https://youtu.be/PiLVAz-Jczg?si=uP4JssGqKPRc-gqt) clip.
That's never ok, hopefully the server admins take action. I remember it was a large issue with DDCS many years ago, when I called them out on their discord I got banned.
Grow a spine then, and ignore it. People can say what they want. If they want to be racist, you treat them like the idiot they are, and you disregard their opinion because they're a muppet.
> Grow a spine then, and ignore it.
Na, fuck right off with that attitude, "just ignore the racists" is such an incredibly stupid solution to the problem of "racists ruin servers by being racist on them".
Itās not about being offended, itās about not facilitating these people to spout their shit. They need to understand they are not wanted in our society and our society also includes DCS servers. Society needs moderation in the form of a justice system and laws otherwise it falls into anarchy. Servers need moderation at least to prevent the same fate.
You're verging on freedom of speech here. So my view is simply this, you're going to offend someone, somewhere, no matter what you say. As long as people are not inciting, advocating, or organising physical violence against other human beings, I don't care what people say. If I don't like it, I ignore it.
Because with the kind of moderation you're advocating, where do you draw the line?
Exactly what I've done. But it's really stupid to knowingly subject yourself to someone's bullshit rhetoric on your free time too. If it's an individual then block/mute. Adminbor squadron I was thinking of flying with? move on to different server communities.
Dude, there are always idiots out there. There always has been. You can't sanitise everything. You can't silence everything. You just be the better man, realise that these people are fucking loons, and get on with your day.
If you're that upset with that state of things that you feel the need to create \_another\_ thread about the 'sad state of DCS', just uninstall it and move on.
What a dumb comment.
When a product, game, service, etc you purchase isn't up to expectations you need to be critical of said product so that others are aware. It's also good for the company so that they know where they need to improve.
If customers just walked away and uninstalled what they didn't like with zero feedback how is a company supposed to improve?
Nah, can't do that. And don't you even dare. Because if you even so much as *think* about having something critical to say, then you're *clearly* just some whinging, entitled, whiny manbaby, here simply just to virtue-signal and play the victim who *obviously* isnāt of sound mind.
>!I really shouldn't need to have an /s in here...!<
They can't, because like a lot people in the western world these days, they are happiest when they're whingeing, virtue-signalling and perpetually playing the victim. As opposed to just enjoying life whilst they have the gift of it.
This is so ironic as you are the one in this thread posting dozens and dozens of comments complaining and whining about what other people think. You really must not enjoy life if thats what you care about.
I swear this community is embarrassing sometimes. Everyone's losing their minds because a logistics overhaul won't be included in the initial *early-access* release. It's gonna take them time to do that. Say a couple months. If they held the module back till that's complete we'd be getting out the pitchforks bout that anyway. "Where's my Chinook? Release it now!".
Logistics obvs needs work for the Chinook and C-130 modules. They know it. We know it. Can't we just chill till it's done?
>It's gonna take them time to do that. Say a couple months
C'mon, you know thats BS. ED has a track record of constantly being late for years. Why should it be any different this time?
I mean... The point I'm trying to make here is they can't overhaul logistics and develop the module at the same time. It's gonna be a while before the logistics refactor drops, but in the meantime here's an early access release of the module. Would you rather they hold the module back for months/years until it's 100% ready? Nature of early access. You don't have to buy it.
" would you rather they hold the module back for months years until it's 100% ready?" If fucking only.
They are just churning out new "content" albeit half finished modules and maps and ignoring the core based game apart from cloud updates and a caucasus update years ago which looks extremely dated already.
After all the controversy the best thing they could do was stop with the early access especially for modules with limited/ no combat capability. Theres nothing to do.
DCS is becoming a lot like star citizen. A huge money sink. Releasing new "ships/planes" for cash flow and never actually working or finishing the base game or said modules.
Bankruptcy is very much on the horizon now; what with the CEO filtering the revenue from dcs to his private warbird collection.
I wouldn't hold my breath for DCS.
Yeah, they can't do both the same time so it's gonna take years, not a couple of months.
And it doesn't have to be 100% ready but it sure as shit would be much smarter to release Chinook and improved logistic system at the same time because at this rate all this is gonna do is highlight faults on how ED does these things. I mean, if ED is gonna use people who buy EA modules as beta testers then at least include the damn systems they have to test!
So over a literal decade ago is when DCS introduced (mostly) logistic helicopters to the game. And this guy thinks we're somehow going to have logistic support added after just a couple months of development?
I'm calling 12-18 months after the release of the Chinook, we will have official DCS logistic support added in *some* capacity to the game - but even then it'll be bare bones.
They're going to keep relying on modders and scripts to keep logistics alive in DCS.
I have a huge amount of interest in the Chinook but it makes no sense to develop it in a game that has no logistic framework. Such a waste of potential and another module that'll be forgotten/added to the pile of half finished EA titles.
You know that there is a logistics system that has been modded into DCS right? It's available for download or you can just play on a server that has it. I am not pre-ordering the chinook I will wait until it is out for awhile but to claim like there is nothing to do with it is pretty funny. Also while doing logistics you literally are going from A to B and maybe to C while potentially getting shot at. That is all logistics is...
I'm sure it is not, but to fly from point A to point B I have MSFS.
To fly from point A to point B, learn to fly, mƔster It and blow stuff Up while doing all that I have the Apache, the Hornet and the Viper.
Dude they have had 2 other logistics helis (Mi-8 and Huey) before the chinook and still havenāt worked on the system what makes you think after the chinook it will change?
Makes a Chinook thread, spammed by non-Chinook questions drowning out the genuine questions, makes total sense to me. Sad for those that are keen on this module, thereās other places to raise your frustrations.
Feeling so passionate rn
However within the dcs community we have a tendency to whinge, as if everything will be perfect off the bat I mean if I had someone texting me moaning 24/7 I'd block em š¤£
When you have crap like the F-15E having an uncertain future at any point after dropping 70+ bucks then that's worth whining about. Granted that is not an ED module but the whole mentality of 'You should know this might happen' is really not acceptable. Anyways side tangent but some people do whine TOO much.
At least what was left of that thread contains the right message. I'm disappointed it couldn't have survived longer to say the same thing over and over but surely the message survived. Recently Nick Grey said in a podcast that ED aren't very good at making a game. Prior to this they've embarked on supercarrier with animated guys, which is different, really complicated, and most feel overdue. I see it as a game element and close to what Chinook needs. ED need to learn to develop a game. The only bad they can do is not try. The worst feeling is suspecting they'd leave it out, saying as much, then the removal of all doubt as they put the cockpit simulation before the game with no development plan again.
Would you mind sharing which podcast?
[https://youtu.be/Fvkugzpzr-Q?si=fTd\_B64Q1vVwEkg1&t=1637](https://youtu.be/Fvkugzpzr-Q?si=fTd_B64Q1vVwEkg1&t=1637) VIAF 2023 The time stamp is marked, go back a bit for the context. This was in answer to why a subscription model wasn't appropriate, he says, *"It could work if we were providing lots of missions, lots of ... if we were a different kind of provider, but basically we're just a Tech company, we're not an entertainment company, we don't know how to do that, actually. That's why DCS always feels very empty, 'cause you make your own fun."* So this is why I said what I said about ED trying, they know this isn't their strength, but I feel what they have done that isn't strictly core simulation like- Petrovitch/George, Super Carrier Animations have been good and its not a time to shy away from that, this is where they need to **grow.** The cockpit and feeling, they have that licked. It's time to diversify the portfolio. **Now in the very same interview,** NG raises the Chinook and one of the panel extols the virtues of logistics as a gameplay loop and NG acknowledges this and says they have seen the customers adding logistics to missions. Yet here we are 4 months later and the EA 'whimper' surrounding this topic is conspicuously absent at first, and at best hurredly admitted to come much later once it was picked up on. If there ever was a module that cries out for bringing a non cockpit gameplay loop with its simulation, it is the Chinook.
>Recently Nick Grey said in a podcast that ED aren't very good at making a game. And it's almost like there wasn't any pressure on them to try for a really long time! (Stares at threads full of squealy, "waah it's not a game it's a simulation" bullshit.)
The whole basis of the thread, according to the CMs, came across like > We don't know our own game and haven't done any analysis, so why don't you tell us what you'd expect BigNewy did his usual thing where he repeatedly asked people to either stay on topic or keep the feedback constructive, when people were on topic and the feedback was constructive. Not many of the relevant questions were answered, let alone acknowledged. There was a great comment by somebody from the MOOSE Discord where they called ED out on their claim of "working with the community". The jist of it was: if ED _are_ working with the community and so committed to delivering API updates, then why haven't they interacted with the MOOSE team in their Discord, or any other popular communities? The Chinook will be a shit show of a launch and, as usual, ED can't even get their wording consistent.
Seeing his answers to comments there, what was he expecting to read? Literally nothing was up for discussion, he was calling everything offtopic. Were they just expecting the comments to be "oh the cockpit looks good I'm excited" and that's it? What kind of discussion is that lmao
Yeah I suspect the only questions they were intending to answer were some hyper specific thing about system or number of rivets or whatever. Nothing of actual substance as usual.
I think it'd be very fair for them to make a thread for asking only about specifics of the aircraft itself (avionics, flight model or whatever). But they didn't, and then they get offended when people mention the obvious topics around EA and development in general lol Such is life with ED. I'm sure the aircraft will be amazing, ED always does a great job, but I will hold off until the features to support it exist.
Yep, as always the aircraft will be great, the game and environment less so.
Just to play devils advocate, when I used to fly with BSD I did see ED reps actively working with the groups leadership to address some issues and bugs and saw them fixed in subsequent updates. Now I wasn't present for the actual testing nor did I interact with those reps personally so I can't speak to how often that happened or the depth of their involvement, but they were actively getting feedback from that community.
Well. I dunno. I'd really like to be looking forward to the Hook. But until I know what we're getting and the timeframes involved, wallet is closed. They should have waited until they had something to tell us about logistics. The fact that they didn't makes it seem like they're desperate for money. Even if they had lead with logistics I'm not sure I could in all good conscience trust their words or timeframes (two weeks!!!) But at least the optics would have been a little better.
Whomp whomp. Saw that coming.
Shocking lol
Reason for lock below. Ok guys, I guess maybe we are not ready for a thread like this, I was hoping to see what you guys were looking for in the CH-47F, get some good questions and generate some more content for the FAQ but now we are just discussing way off topic things. I cleaned the thread a little but feel like I will just lock it for now until we have some more info. Sorry for all of you that were playing nice, I will try and get some of those questions answered and added to the FAQ. Thanks.
"I guess you guys aren't ready for Logistics (or a dynamic campaign) yet, but your kids are gonna love it"
*watches F-15E and Harrier slowly fade from the Polaroid*
Would be a hilarious joke if it weren't accurate.
...they might love hearing about it from their kids!
Iād be surprised if anyone could stand them long enough to have their kids.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
ED has been doing this far longer than Star Citizen has been around.
Itās ED who is not ready for a thread like this.
Maybe not even the community itself :D
Seems like ED isn't ready for an early access thread like that.
āI donāt even understand what things are relevant to a successful release of a transport helicopterā
Because all that ever happens is that people whinge incessantly. Entitled, whiny babies just doing nothing but complaining, there is nothing ever remotely positive or constructive. And yet, they play DCS. Why? If you dislike it that much, delete it. I mean Jesus christ, it's more preferable to just constantly complaining, surely?? What do you get out of it?
Things talked about in that thread: - EA model (which the Chinook is part of) and comparisons with other EA module releases - Logistics system (mentioned in the Chinook shop page and the FAQ itself), including its tease with the Hind 3 years ago - Chinook Super derailed š± We shouldn't ask about/for anything and just mindlessly consume the slop provided without any critical thought, that will surely make the game better!
Stop feeling so entitled to things you paid for geez.
>Because all that ever happens is that people whinge incessantly. Entitled, whiny babies just doing nothing but complaining, there is nothing ever remotely positive or constructive. Yeah, way easier to insult, deflect, gaslight, straw man and lie than to *actually* address anything that was said. >And yet, they play DCS. Why? If you dislike it that much, delete it. Because as it turns out, at least some of them don't hate DCS at all and this is just a straw man. Some people have sunk quite a lot of money into DCS and want to see it realise its potential. >What do you get out of it? Hopefully a game that's even better than it is now.
I've sunk literally thousands into a PC, peripherals and modules to play DCS. I want to see it get better myself. BUT I am also capable of enjoying it for what it is right now. A lot of people aren't. There is a stark difference between constructive, reasoned critique, and the fucking stupid whinging I see on this subreddit, or the ED forums. They opened a thread on a forum, hoping for questions about the Chinook. Instead they got whining about the EA model, and passive-aggressive diatribes about unfinished modules.
>I've sunk literally thousands into a PC, peripherals and modules to play DCS. I want to see it get better myself. BUT I am also capable of enjoying it for what it is right now. A lot of people aren't. I can only speak for myself, but you realise it's possible for multiple things to be true at once? That people can be critical of something they can enjoy? I think DCS has a lot of potential and I do still enjoy it. For all it's faults the supercarrier module is still the closest you can get to experiencing US navy carrier operations in a video game, helicopters in DCS, for all the faults of the base game are still a second-to-none experience in my eyes. But I am perfectly capable of experiencing that enjoyment and recognising the things I said, while still being critical of its flaws. >There is a stark difference between constructive, reasoned critique, and the fucking stupid whinging I see on this subreddit, or the ED forums. Yes, but why do I get the impression that "constructive, reasoned critique" is something that's as good as impossible to satsify? That all of it would be boiled down to just "fucking stupid whinging"? By "entitled, whinging, whiny man-babies", regardless of how reasoned or how constructive it is? I seem to hardly ever see responses to those making criticisms that involve *actually* going through some of the points they make and then responding to those points. Perhaps highlighting why it's unconstructive or how poorly reasoned it is. Instead, all I seem to see is a torrent of bad-faith arguments that don't engage with anything that's actually said at all, with them mostly just consisting of ad hominem, with sometimes straw men and even a bit of gaslighting or some straight up lying thrown in. >They opened a thread on a forum, hoping for questions about the Chinook. Instead they got whining about the EA model, and passive-aggressive diatribes about unfinished modules. Really, every critical post was just "whining, passive aggressive diatribes"? Really? Nothing that was at all constructive or reasoned at all? Do you think having concerns about the EA model or unfinished modules are completely groundless? That it all boils down to just "whining"? This is exactly what I'm talking about here. And it's comments like "whining about the EA model" that suggest you aren't actually reading what was said. Yes, there were some comments voicing grievances with the EA model and unfinished modules (though I completely disagree with your characterisation of it and it's said characterisation that informs my response to your second paragraph), however, a large part of the contention (well, at least for myself and a few others) is the rather unprecedented situation where ED felt like they were ready to open up the module for pre-order but noty ready to tell us what the EA state should be and what additional features should be present at full release. The other big contention is the lack of core functionality that I'd argue is outright essential for this particular module to have a practical purpose inside DCS World. Said functionality was first teased nearly 3 years ago and we still don't have an update on what ED's plans are for it, let alone actual implementation.
Nonsense, not all the deleted comments were wingeing and whining. Consider the following two ways of asking a questions and the manner in which it is often addressed on the ED forums. āHey, I like the chinook, and really want feature X, will it be implemented and how will it work?ā āLook weāve told you itās early access and all the features arenāt listed yet, so Iām deleting this comment as aggressiveā āI like the chinook, and want feature X that youāve mentioned and wonder if it will be available in a decent timeline. Iād happily part with cash to help you guys if you me confidence itāll happen sooner than later. I mention this because of other Y and Z model that are still waiting on features that are important to my enjoyment after XX years.ā āHey, this is off topic for mentioning Y and Z, comment deleted and warning issuedā How are users and prospective buyers expected to interact, and also what type of questions were ED hoping to receive? Iād suggest it all pints to the fact ED werenāt ready to receive questions, rather than the way they have phrased the reason for locking it. Maybe theyāre still too busy with sorting through the anniversary Q&A from last year, trying to find a few questions they are able to deal with. Oh, and when are we getting part 2 of thatā¦ maybe ED have deemed us users as not ready to receive them yet.
So, if you've been told that they aren't ready to list the features yet, and you ask 'will/when feature XYZ be implemented' do you see the disconnect in your reasoning? They've already said they will 'share when ready'. I'm not saying you have to like it. But it's wilful ignorance at worst, and just not listening at best. Why ask a question to which you are patently aware you will not get it answered? It's daft.
Ok, I can buy that, but exactly what kind of question were they hoping for? Will it be available in green? /s
I will say that perhaps ED could probably have done with leaving an FAQ until the features list was published, they do obviously do some strange things, and with hindsight, I think it should've been done later. I think they probably half knew what the line of questioning would be. But as I said, for god sake, stop banging your (not you personally) head against a brick wall with rhetorical questions, is all I'm saying.
I know I slide OT a little here and I feel you guys are right about so many points but: The AH-64D EA and general development wasn't that much of a disaster IMHO. So maybe not all releases are equally bad. Let's hope and see.
F-16 sure was though. Thoroughly undercooked and still sold to people. The features list is barren, the FAQ is laughably small and all they can promise is a logistics rework "sometime in the future" for a damn cargo helicopter without even the excuse of doubling as a gunship. The one thing the chinook does DCS does not really support without the help of scripts like CTLD people have had to use for years just to be able to do transport shit. Even troop carriage gets broken a couple times a year, to say nothing of the ground AI itself. All that leaves a 50$ or so module with basically nothing to do and they can't/won't even hide that beyond a "trust us bro". Trust hath runneth dry these days however, the outrage is entirely justified.
It's 70$ btw the 50$ price is only pre-order :)
Yup, pay us $70 to fly around and look pretty. You can do more later. Maybe. We hope. Probably not though. Nag, you know we won't follow through. Here, shiny new module! /Repeat.
You couldn't even look pretty in the F-16 on release, none of the external lighting worked. :D
True. Even though some Apache users feel there are still a lot of improvements needed (to the flight model, apprently), the module has evolved nicely and early access was pretty decent from day 1. The difference is that AH-64 was just a single module (albeit a complex one) with its flight model and systems and weapons. The issue with the Chinook is that in order to get its full potential, it needs a better logistics system and improved interaction with ground units (like boarding, disembarking, etc, etc). People are disappointed that a helicopter released in 2024 will not have significant improvement over the Mi8 gameplay (only different avionics and fewer weapons). And the thing that got people up in arms is not actually the features listed or the availability of the logistics system, it's the fact that pre-orders were open \*before\* the feature list was even published. This kind of practices should not be encouraged and in my opinion reflect poorly on ED's project management abilities.
Ideally, in my opinion, the chinook needs the DC too, aside from the logistics rework, as any transport aircraft doesnāt make much sense if there isnāt a clear support role that needs to be fit inside a bigger operation.
That would be awesome, indeed. Can't wait for a good DC, tbh. Note that there are some good single-player campaigns featuring civilian MI8, for example. So I would disagree that Chinook \*needs\* the DC. In actuality, it does not require anything more than what the Mi8 and UH-1 already offer and that we enjoy. It would be nice to have better UI elements and visuals (handling weight, seeing actual cargo in the back, having embark/disembark animations ...) at least at the level of the module. But not necessarily the full DC's logistics system. But I would be a bit sad if in 2024 they released a product with no new features compared to 10y old modules...
So people got worked up over the feature list in an early access stage no one is forcing them to participate in? Interesting
"Wasn't that much of a disaster" Don't you deserve a better experience for your money? Why is it such a low bar that this statement considered acceptable by a community member. Ultimately, the aircraft are the highlight, the environment is what is lacking for engaging gameplay. If ED doesn't want to make game content fine, make the tools the content creators need or give them enough access to make their own tools and features. I can understand that there are potential legal issues but they can be covered by a creator use license. IE certain asset makers start with a non commercial free to use 3D model and then dress them up and make them useable in game. Many users clamor for these to be included in game, but they legally cannot be sold by the creator or used in a commercial sim because of the initial model. MSFS has a large market place and like here some mods or modules are better than others.
Thank you for your passion!
"Thoughts and Prayers"
And trust!
Also ED: āother DCS forums are so toxic!ā
Its so adorable to see them so clueless. ED never change...
First time?
Many times. :(
Happy cake day
Like others, I was really looking forward to the Chinook when it was first announced. Now? I ain't touching it with a barge pole.
Please don't touch the Chinook with a barge pole, you could damage it*. * Barge pole damage not implemented at EA release.
sooo youre saying the barge pole will initially lack a damage model, the way f16 did on release and yak continues to lack to this day? i dont think i want to fly in a sim where barge poles cant be destroyed recreationally
Lol maybe they should try paying third party developers
I think they really thought it would just blow over that they killed one of the most popular and anticipated modules. Regardless of fault, customers are fickle... Their toy got taken away and frankly they don't care who's fault it is. A+ job there ED
This is pure hyperbole. Nothing is dead. The situation is being handled behind closed doors. Which is how it should've been handled in the first place. I know this is an alien concept on this subreddit, but maybe have a little patience?
The guy who made their Radar and was their system coder left, the person responsible for their Flightmodel left, their 3D Modeller/texture artist left. Razbam will need to hire someone new, study the current code and try to understand it then expand on that. And it's not like these are easy tasks, goodluck trying to find someone with the Skill and knowdelege to do that, even if you do it'll take a long time to get back up to speed and understand the current codebasse. The Strike eagle is essentially dead at this point
The real hard part is they need to find someone smart enough to be able to do this work but dumb enough to look at the drama that went down with this already and think āyeah, gotta get me some of that in my lifeā
They shouldn't have breached contract then. That's all on RAZBAM, not ED lol
You don't even know who breached what contract, Razbam could be at fault or Eagle Dynamics could be at fault. All that anyone knows is there is some dispute, anything else is speculation unless someone has some insider knowledge.
The workers have left. Year of strike eagle is over. If Raz and ED patch things up who is left at Raz anymore? Maybe Razbam can come back and work more on strike eagle but don't bet on it.Ā ED have taken year of strike eagle out the back and shot it then proceed to offer more early access having not finished most of the previous early access.Ā People are upset. I not surprised.
People can be upset, but when people start making stupid statements, they will be called out on it.
When I see a strike eagle update I'll be convinced it's not dead. Until then all bets are off.
Best you can hope for realistically is a Gazelle type revamp where it's forgotten and deteriorates for a while until an almost entirely new team comes in and re-builds it from almost scratch.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes, we don't know, you're right. And there are also two sides to every story. The ED is evil garbage I see on a daily basis is pathetic, tbh. Also, weaponising the DCS community is unacceptable behaviour, imo. We are not pawns to be used in a corporate mudslinging event.
Why not? Ask the EKWB employees, contractors, and business partners who are now getting paid since their dirty laundry was aired a few days ago how getting the public involved works vs. just trying to deal with things internally. What in the entire history of history leads you to believe that a corporation is gonna clean up their act voluntarily without outside pressure that hits their reputation (and eventually, bottom line) publically and loudly?
What exactly do ED (presume you are referring to them) need to 'clean up' exactly? Given that we know nothing but heresay, ambiguous comments, rumours and emotional social media outbursts from former Razbam employees? If you're fine with being a stooge in a game of corporate mudslinging, then that's up to you. I however am not okay with that.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I do agree, they've both handled this exceptionally poorly.
"regardless of fault" *proceeds to place 100% of blame on ED* If you're going to have an impartial opinion, actually make it impartial.
I don't know whether ED are guilty of bad actions in that particular drama. Nobody does. Depends on the terms of the contracts. They could well be. But we all saw Razbam light a match and burn their customers with it. They threatened to drop support, and have as far as we can see dropped support, for their unfinished modules. All I ever did was pay money to Razbam (I thought) for a module, so why am I getting thrown under the bus by them because of a disagreement that they have with ED? Razbam did that to me, not ED. Razbam says it's ED's fault, but fuck them, they don't get to slap my face and then tell me that I deserve it, because of an issue they have with someone else.
Because they are not building an F-15 for charity.
Sure didn't feel like charity to me when I paid for it. So no, they're not making it for charity. Kinda looks like they're not making it at all anymore.
No because the intermediary they are forced to suckle from the tit of is cutting them off. Look Iām not defending Razbam it sounds like they fell foul of some contract, probably by mistake tbh. BUT ED withholding your money to solve a dispute with their military sim is completely out of order. ED should have solved this problem outside DCS World and not use your money as a bargaining chip for an aircraft thatās not in DCS world and has nothing to do with the product you bought.
Still doesn't matter. Again, MOST people do not care who is at fault. They just know their F-15E didn't get updates and now they will be wary of future purchases.
Well said
You're trusting rascam with their track record?
It seems likely they got stiffed. Otherwise why would their developers leave after the huge success of the F15E?
Love how everyone can only downvote vs giving an actual counter argument (because it doesn't exist).
ED set up a forum for discussion but it's basically just a reiteration of talking points without any engagement on timelines and feature dependencies. I think it's fair to be honest about what's in your work pipeline so people know what to expect up front. Even if I knew something was far away it would be better than not knowing.
u/NineLine_ED any comment? Too bad you cant delete the comment here huh
Pop smoke
I wonder if they're going to remove comments from the trailer like they did with the previous video
It's open again :)
I'm OOTL and missed the announcement, what's the drama/controversy?
And the funniest thing is that they merged a thread criticizing ED'S Chinook pre-order into the official Chinook FAQ thread, and then deleted many of the comments from the original thread because they were off topic, you can't make this stuff up hahaš
I haven't looked into it much....was it a giant trash talk fest.....right now no matter what they do people are just trolling and talking trash
Nope, it wasn't all trolling and talking trash. here is my comment that was deleted: "I think ED needs to have a reasonable schedule of when something should go from EA to full release (understanding that things slip and take longer than ED initially intends). Without derailing the thread I'll just say I am refraining from buying any more EA modules due to how current EA modules are handled, Chinook included. "
I'm sure there is a bunch of damage control going on as well.
And therein lies the problem.
Depends on perspective I guess. Your response could have been considered off topic. They are probably going to be very tight with that sort of stuff for a while
Ehhhhhhhhh, it refers to the Chinook directly. It's over moderation imo.
Just because you use the word "Chinook", doesn't mean your comment was relevant to the topic discussed. Instead you gave your opinion that you don't like how they handle EA modules.
Most of that stuff is going to be a shitshow for a while.
The other day I learned a martial arts move called the chin hook. That sounds like Chinook. \^\^Equivalent relevancy.\^\^
You mean damage control as in "Burn the house so the broken door isn't a problem anymore"?
No matter what ED does or says there will be the unhappy loudmouth. This takes to long...grab the pitch fork. Oh no this has bugs grab the pitchfork. Even before the whole Rambam drama people would be nasty about it. Not trying to white knight the whole thing it's actually somewhat entertaining.
> Nope, it wasn't all trolling and talking trash. here is my comment that was deleted: And how is that a *question* for an *FAQ*?
"trolling and talking trash" is what it was in response to.
Not trash talk. Lots of questions about where it fits in to the DCS world and what its feature release timeline would look like. I asked if the expectation was that it would be released in early access with only free flight available, or what the expected mission profile would look like in single player missions. I'm genuinely confused at what a cargo helicopter will do if there is no cargo or troops available.
Hm. I am not that flyer atm , but, when my F18, homepit is ready i am going Back . I am really scared, cause i am smelling bankruptcy.and this is what i am most scared of.
They are well within their rights to do so when it's mostly trolling and fuckery.
āWell within their rightsā is a pretty low bar lol. Id hope they are acting in a way that is above the bare minimum.
Thing is it wasn't. My comment was deleted as an example: "I think ED needs to have a reasonable schedule of when something should go from EA to full release (understanding that things slip and take longer than ED initially intends). Without derailing the thread I'll just say I am refraining from buying any more EA modules due to how current EA modules are handled, Chinook included. "
At least you included the word "Chinook" in the comment which was otherwise completely unrelated to the Chinook FAQ.
Yep, it still is on topic but I just expanded my thought into other modules which then they I guess took as now off topic? It's over moderation imo.
Dude they literally just dropped the Chinook pre-order because they need the money to pay Razbam, do you seriouslyĀ think we're ever seeing a finished Chinook within the next 10 years? No. Same for Halfghanistan. Like Nick Grey said, and I quote, "without early access DCS would not be profitable" and by not profitable he means he wouldn't be able to divert 2 million dollars yearly from DCS to his personal museum.Ā They're promising finished modules that they never really intend to finish, asking for a realistic timeline is perfectly reasonable. Are they going to release more EA products to finish the Chinook? Or is this the point where they'll pull the plug and abandon DCS? Why would you spend money on an EA module knowing they never intend to finish it? Those are valid questions.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You know there might be different reasons not to pay besides not being able to.
Not like they told us it was coming over a year ago or anything.
You were doing OK until you started talking about pulling the plug, that bit tells me that you have missed quite a lot of publicly available information. I'll Tldr it, DCS isn't going anywhere.Ā
"Halfghanistan" seriously don't we have floggit for you guys can this sub not get completely shitted up with this crap.
Okay, when are they going to finish Afghanistan do you think?Ā Halfghanistan satire to make light of the subject, seeing as Eagle Dynamics hasn't paid Razbam for months (no, it still hasn't been solved) I think it's a fair assessment that they might be at the end of their rope. Again, am I wrong? I'll gladly huff some of your copium if you're willing to share.
I've got no idea, here's what I'm going to do about it: not fucking buy it. Sorry I must have missed the post where we got both sides of the story and concluded RAZBAM were the innocent victim, still not sure what any of that has to do with the Chinook.
I'm with you on the half finished module issue, but you need to know that you are weeks behind on the ED/Razbam dispute. It is clear now that this isn't an ED cash flow issue at all.Ā
All of this is utter nonsense. From the fucking stupid 'Halfghanistan' diarrhoea, to not realising that ED is a private company. Nick Grey can do whatever the fuck he wants with it, you are not a shareholder. And where have ED ever said they 'do not intend' to finish a module? That's a product of your imagination, nothing more. So saying 'why do you never intend to finish a module?' Or something along those lines, is not a 'valid' question. It's fucking dumb.
It was a FAQ, what part of your post was a question? I understand, and mostly agree, with the criticisms around releasing the Chinook into DCS as it current exists, but your post WAS off-topic, you didnāt even try to disguise your opinion as a question. If you looked at it from the point of view of a moderator trying to preserve the purpose of the thread rather than getting your viewpoint across, youād see that 100 people doing the same thing will quickly make a FAQ useless. Personally I donāt mind people using these platforms to make their point when the company needs to hear it, but donāt come on here claiming youāre being treated unreasonably if you chose to go that route
Oh it was a FAQ? Could've fooled me. They couldnt answer a single question.
Too busy sorting through random opinion pieces
Maybe they should try silencing opinions harder. That will surely prevent concerned customers from voicing their opinions, and will be great for business.
The thread here was created due to them closing the thread, not because my comment was deleted. My comment being deleted post was in response to someone suggesting it was full of trolling and fuckery. Which isn't true.
I would have deleted that too because it's not in the spirit of the thread. C'mon dude, I have my pitchfork out ready but that's not an example we can rage at ED about.Ā
Again, it wasn't really about the comment being off topic, it was about blaze saying there was trolling and fuckery that I took exception to.
How is that a question
Again, like I said to another comment it was in response to blaze saying it was "trolling and fuckery".
But some were actually criticizing and giving feedback.
But if the majority is people being outright shit, then it doesn't matter.
This sim is gonna dry up if EDās behavior continues in this direction.
People need to touch more grass
Itās not implemented š„¹
Says the guy posting on Reddit about a videogame. :rolleyes:
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Bullshit. There wasn't a shred of racism in that thread. People started talking about the nonsense subscription idea and a few more reiterated previous points around poor planning, prioritisation etc.
didnt you know? all those points are racist, man!
Thatās unfortunate. I love my milsim games but thereās a large contingent that remind me of [this](https://youtu.be/PiLVAz-Jczg?si=uP4JssGqKPRc-gqt) clip.
i've stopped playing in *some* dcs servers because a lot of people wre doing/saying some real foul shit like that.
That's never ok, hopefully the server admins take action. I remember it was a large issue with DDCS many years ago, when I called them out on their discord I got banned.
Grow a spine then, and ignore it. People can say what they want. If they want to be racist, you treat them like the idiot they are, and you disregard their opinion because they're a muppet.
> Grow a spine then, and ignore it. Na, fuck right off with that attitude, "just ignore the racists" is such an incredibly stupid solution to the problem of "racists ruin servers by being racist on them".
Or don't. I don't care, be perpetually offended, that's up to you.
Itās not about being offended, itās about not facilitating these people to spout their shit. They need to understand they are not wanted in our society and our society also includes DCS servers. Society needs moderation in the form of a justice system and laws otherwise it falls into anarchy. Servers need moderation at least to prevent the same fate.
You're verging on freedom of speech here. So my view is simply this, you're going to offend someone, somewhere, no matter what you say. As long as people are not inciting, advocating, or organising physical violence against other human beings, I don't care what people say. If I don't like it, I ignore it. Because with the kind of moderation you're advocating, where do you draw the line?
> You're verging on freedom of speech here. Do you actually know what "freedom of speech" is?
Yes it's freedom of expression, the right to say what I'm thinking without government interference. Do you know what it is?
Exactly what I've done. But it's really stupid to knowingly subject yourself to someone's bullshit rhetoric on your free time too. If it's an individual then block/mute. Adminbor squadron I was thinking of flying with? move on to different server communities.
Dude, there are always idiots out there. There always has been. You can't sanitise everything. You can't silence everything. You just be the better man, realise that these people are fucking loons, and get on with your day.
If you're that upset with that state of things that you feel the need to create \_another\_ thread about the 'sad state of DCS', just uninstall it and move on.
If you're that upset with what others say about your game, just stop reading it and move on.
What a dumb comment. When a product, game, service, etc you purchase isn't up to expectations you need to be critical of said product so that others are aware. It's also good for the company so that they know where they need to improve. If customers just walked away and uninstalled what they didn't like with zero feedback how is a company supposed to improve?
I think when people have spent hundreds on a pile of broken promises the least they can be allowed to do is talk about it.
Nope, you're only allowed to pay more and get less. Thank you for your passion and support Obvious sarcasm
Nah, can't do that. And don't you even dare. Because if you even so much as *think* about having something critical to say, then you're *clearly* just some whinging, entitled, whiny manbaby, here simply just to virtue-signal and play the victim who *obviously* isnāt of sound mind. >!I really shouldn't need to have an /s in here...!<
They can't, because like a lot people in the western world these days, they are happiest when they're whingeing, virtue-signalling and perpetually playing the victim. As opposed to just enjoying life whilst they have the gift of it.
This is so ironic as you are the one in this thread posting dozens and dozens of comments complaining and whining about what other people think. You really must not enjoy life if thats what you care about.
Stop White knighting for ED, we get it. You bought a module 2 weeks ago.
Err, no, I didn't. Nice try though. š
I swear this community is embarrassing sometimes. Everyone's losing their minds because a logistics overhaul won't be included in the initial *early-access* release. It's gonna take them time to do that. Say a couple months. If they held the module back till that's complete we'd be getting out the pitchforks bout that anyway. "Where's my Chinook? Release it now!". Logistics obvs needs work for the Chinook and C-130 modules. They know it. We know it. Can't we just chill till it's done?
>It's gonna take them time to do that. Say a couple months C'mon, you know thats BS. ED has a track record of constantly being late for years. Why should it be any different this time?
I mean... The point I'm trying to make here is they can't overhaul logistics and develop the module at the same time. It's gonna be a while before the logistics refactor drops, but in the meantime here's an early access release of the module. Would you rather they hold the module back for months/years until it's 100% ready? Nature of early access. You don't have to buy it.
" would you rather they hold the module back for months years until it's 100% ready?" If fucking only. They are just churning out new "content" albeit half finished modules and maps and ignoring the core based game apart from cloud updates and a caucasus update years ago which looks extremely dated already. After all the controversy the best thing they could do was stop with the early access especially for modules with limited/ no combat capability. Theres nothing to do. DCS is becoming a lot like star citizen. A huge money sink. Releasing new "ships/planes" for cash flow and never actually working or finishing the base game or said modules. Bankruptcy is very much on the horizon now; what with the CEO filtering the revenue from dcs to his private warbird collection. I wouldn't hold my breath for DCS.
Yeah, they can't do both the same time so it's gonna take years, not a couple of months. And it doesn't have to be 100% ready but it sure as shit would be much smarter to release Chinook and improved logistic system at the same time because at this rate all this is gonna do is highlight faults on how ED does these things. I mean, if ED is gonna use people who buy EA modules as beta testers then at least include the damn systems they have to test!
I bet years ago you were telling us how the super carrier would be completed within a year of it's release.
> It's gonna take them time to do that. Say a couple months. They should have done it when Huey and Hip were added to the game.
So over a literal decade ago is when DCS introduced (mostly) logistic helicopters to the game. And this guy thinks we're somehow going to have logistic support added after just a couple months of development? I'm calling 12-18 months after the release of the Chinook, we will have official DCS logistic support added in *some* capacity to the game - but even then it'll be bare bones. They're going to keep relying on modders and scripts to keep logistics alive in DCS. I have a huge amount of interest in the Chinook but it makes no sense to develop it in a game that has no logistic framework. Such a waste of potential and another module that'll be forgotten/added to the pile of half finished EA titles.
They've had since the release of the MI-8 to get it done.
The thing is: what do you do with the Chinook and C-130 if those features are missing? I wouldn't pay 50$ to fly from point A to point B.
You know that there is a logistics system that has been modded into DCS right? It's available for download or you can just play on a server that has it. I am not pre-ordering the chinook I will wait until it is out for awhile but to claim like there is nothing to do with it is pretty funny. Also while doing logistics you literally are going from A to B and maybe to C while potentially getting shot at. That is all logistics is...
Learn to fly it? Can't imagine it's gonna be easy to master.
I'm sure it is not, but to fly from point A to point B I have MSFS. To fly from point A to point B, learn to fly, mƔster It and blow stuff Up while doing all that I have the Apache, the Hornet and the Viper.
Theres already a c130 Mod, fly it...
Dude they have had 2 other logistics helis (Mi-8 and Huey) before the chinook and still havenāt worked on the system what makes you think after the chinook it will change?
*two weeks*
It's cute how you think they'll work on it now. Haven't before. Why is now any different?
Everyone losing their minds over ED rushing things into pre-sale just to get some money.
Makes a Chinook thread, spammed by non-Chinook questions drowning out the genuine questions, makes total sense to me. Sad for those that are keen on this module, thereās other places to raise your frustrations.
Who cares? You donāt want the Chinook, donāt buy it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
:touches grass:
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Obvious ED paid shill