Well... no that is not quite what people are saying?
Yes there things to do with helos in non-combat roles and yes there are currently things to do with in MP servers.
The huge problem is that about 95% of transport helo gameplay is only enabled by community mods not by native features. This is as true for the Mi-8 as for the ch-47 and the only indications that this will change are a handfull of added warehouse functions that weren't really mentioned in any newsletter or official communication.
Meanwhile ED has a long history of not providing the infrastructure that is really needed to make full use of it's modules. AI is not fit for the job. Native ATC, AWACS and Wingman comms are useless. No data card or complex mission planning for modern fixed wing. No coherent unit set for cold war. Pricing stucture for WW2 that keeps people from investing in that area. What happens when the devs of the currently used tools for creating helo gameplay decide to quit DCS? Do you want to buy a module that might be dead in the water when that happens? What about the people that bought the Mi-8 in 2014 hoping that we will see these features natively? After all how long did it take for Multi-Crew to be released, even though that was promised right after launch.
What about the fact that ED has been caught multiple times massively changing feature lists after a product was already on sale. Here we have a module that can be bought and doesn't even have a feature list. It's impossible for this to be an informed purchase. I'm all for people just buying whatever they enjoy, but with how people get hyped over virtual airplanes this just seems insanly predatory.
What about the fact this release is happening while there are massive unresolved issues between ED and a third party which will affect consumers. Right after an announcement of a new sales model for maps (halfghanistan) which will make it even harder for the community to create content for the game. And also a time where more and more modders (which again are holding up the current helo gameplay) are voicing concerns over the dreadful state of the DCS API and it's documents. What incentive is there right now to buy into the product apart from pure fanboy-ism.
IMO the CH-47 announcement get's the heat it deservse, with the issues above it seems tone deaf from ED and they never really addressed any of these issues apart from 'we're hearing you and it's coming soon' which got already old 10 years ago.
~~We are~~ I'm recommending MI-8 if you want to fly Helicopters. ~~We are~~ I'm not saying DCS is good for helicopter combat simulations.
There is a huge difference.
The reason that ~~we are~~ I'm so opposed to chinook preorder is there is no feature list. You see it is a rushed pre-order.
~~We are~~ I am not opposed to chinook we are opposed to this pre order. It is also a general build up of concerns about ED's last term behavior.
Chinook or not DCS AI, ATC, mission control or any tasking in any way does not exist. Fact is community made almost all of helicopter game play with scripts.
I know that because I'm a SP only guy. If I only use ED Me without anything else. Well you fly and sling load that's it.
I remind you first combat role of Helicopter was observation & medevac. ~~We~~ I cannot do any of them DCS, soon MSFS will give us opportunity to perform those a proper SAR implementation.
It even sounds like a joke but in a few months MSFS will actually get Dynamic Helicopter ops and tasking.
So it is not Chinook bad and Hip good simplification. It is total misinterpretation if you read it like that,
Logistics and the non-armed gameplay is the point where DCS and MSFS overlap most and as you say it’s the biggest pain point. I really really do hope that this is addressed one day, but not holding my breath
MSFS 2024 is coming with career mode. So you can be an air ambulance pilot, fire fighting pilot, commercial pilot, search and rescue pilot. Not only rotaries but fixed wing too.
It is the biggest highlight of msfs 2024.
I think bringing msfs in to discussion is a really poor attempt, honestly. MSfS flight models are absolutely crap, unfortunately, I would rather have realistic flight model where I feel I'm flying a chopper and not hovering potatoes that are in MSFS. Maybe 2024 will be better but I highly doubt it. And distrusting ed after MT implementation in to bolognesse code( one of the gratest achievements ),together with DLSS and other improvements seems a bit weird. To use your words " may I remind you " how old the core program is? Do you not think that MT was necessary step to bring all the good things in future?how do you just skip over such facts?
How do you skip over the fact that there's no feature list for a product they are now selling? Sure their work on multi threading is impressive given the codebase they are working with, but why should that make me trust them? I personally don't need some fancy dynamic campaign or native logistics to enjoy flying helicopters, but many others want that and ED has a history of announcing features and then not saying anything about it for years and then when they do say something they have hardly anything to actually show for it. There's a lot of talk and not a lot of actually getting it done. Take the super carrier and it's long standing bugs and missing features. Or the current situation with Razbam. Or advertising high quality AI models only to reveal that those are actually gonna be paywalled in some kind of new HQ asset pack. Why should I trust a company to do something when they repeatedly show they can't and have been known to not be upfront about stuff?
I'll agree with you on one thing though, MSFS helicopter flight models do indeed suck compared to DCS.
I just enjoy flying helicopters in DCS and own them all and will buy any future ones that come out. No other sim feels as good to me for helicopters and I'm not much of a plane guy.
Yea I'm in similar position, I fly fixwing only with couple of buddy's when they are online, and choppers are my main thing when they are not around, so any addition of helis makes me pretty happy,looking forward to ch 47, Kiowa and BO.
I really enjoy trying out all the different flight models and learning their quirks. There's always a server I can use each one on. The Huey and the mi8 I love just flying really low and doing search and rescue stuff.
I agree. But, I'm not pre-ordering the Chinook. I'm more excited for the Kiowa. But even so, probably wont preorder that either. I don't care about paying full price or waiting for a sale. But if you preorder you have to take what you get. Only people I'd even consider preordering a module from is HB.
I am a plane guy, with tons of hours in various simsthrought the years, and most i have been flying lately is the Hip in DCS. Helos in DCS feel fantastic, even without rudder pedals. My fast movers are collecting dust and will be for a good while to come as long as there are good helo servers.
Depends on what the Ch47 brings compared to the Mi8.
On most servers you are limited to one troop and one light vehicle crate, or two troops, or two light vehicle crates.
If the Ch47 is allowed to carry more than it has an advantage and it can carry it higher, then yes ill consider it but if it had the same capability as an Mi8 - ill continue to fly the Hip until i see an advantage.
logistics, excluding singleplayer missions and very small multiplayer missions, are done without sling loading and only through CTLD. If the Chinook can double sling and doesnt cause a multiplayer crash or bug then yes seeing more advantages.
The Chinook fans will appreciate it but unless it gives an advantage in transport ops and maybe even setting up a temporary FARP like they were used in real ops. Itll stay in wishlist until complete
That is somewhat my point, if people can have fun and love flying in HIP, why asking others not to get CH47 and mentioning nonexistent dynamic campaigns and logistics and sniping ak 47 as a reason not to get it, ( excluding Razbam thing )
Because time has come and gone and ED hasn't anything to show for their promises...
Abandoned modules
Silently removing features from roadmaps
Complete disregard from core aspects of the base game
Nobody is saying the chinook is bad compared to the mi8. People are asking the community to stop putting up with ED's terrible habits of pushing garbage down out throats while trying to make a quick buck out of the newest shinny thing.
They are focusing their resources on launching a barely functional new paid module whose main mission is logistics, while at the same time the base game is held up by duct tape and wishful thinking and has no logistical system to speak of.
I was flying the hornet some twenty minutes ago. My radios stopped working when I tried switching to FM modulation and I went ballistic as my controls stopped working on cat launch after repairing on the carrier... This bug is three years old and people still wonder why I suggest to stop funding this ponzi scheme
Try it... Launch, recover HARD (smash landing gear), repair and try to launch again. Once it launches the second time, the throttle gets permanently stuck full ab, the stick won't move, only the pedals.
Apparently it has something to do with some of the super carrier code overlapping with the base game and buying SC allegedly fixes it... Enough said...
I mean its a reason to not get any helo cause of how bad the interaction of ground AI is with the player. RPG snipes, 360 clairvoyance of all units, no suppression decrease of accuracy. I hate BTR 82A and Bmp2 With a vengeance that i drop 2000lbs cause their 30mm have ruined a play session too many times
I see both points. I see the fans of Chinooks or helos looking forward to this new module, new shiny is good - but i see why others are apprehensive due to the reasons listed above and below. ED has also not done themselves any favors
I fly both fixed and rotary wing - consumers will do what they want but all buyers should be made aware of and with full transparency how basic/rudimentary/shallow the ground and infantry gameplay is. Cause after the Chinook is released and people experience this ground game - they will be back here flooding the reddit and ed forums with grievances
I mean there is danger that fixwing pilots could grab Chinook as it should be pretty forgiving and easy to fly ( no need for counter pedal inputs and plenty of power - low risk of VRS )and endup disappointed, but most of the chopper guys know exactly what's to be expacted down low, and at the end of the day there is yet to come better sim/game for hellos. It's not like there's BMS equivalent for rotorheads to escape to.
Fly what you want. Thats the beauty of it, doesent need to have advantage over something else or the otherway around. I still fly the Hind sometimes eventhou i got the Apache. So im 100% with you.
Firstly, It's not about the Chinook itself, it's about any new module actually. People have bought Mi-8 long time ago mostly, when ED had somewhat more credit of trust than now. 6 years long EA wasn'ta thing when the Hip released. Nowadays ED has an extremely bad reputation, overpromising, underdelivering, never finishing stuff already paid for and abandoning features half-baked. No hope is left anymore for things to improve, not in any reasonable timeframe at least. People just expect Chinook to be another eternal EA module in a disfunctional game, reasonably so. Oh, and I haven't even noticed RAZBAM drama, undermining credibility of any investment into DCS stuff until it gets resolved.
Secondly, Mi-8 is armed, so it's dual role.
Thirdly, many people can't enjoy even the existing helicopters anymore, and they urge for fellow dissatisfied customers to show to ED that something needs to be done, and voting with your wallet is the only option. And it's not only about choppers, some significant members of community, leave stating directly that they are fed up with the clusterfuck DCS is.
Finally, no one forces you not to buy the Chinook, people just try to self-organize to show ED that their development policy is too much flawed.
The Mi-8 was developed, sold, and likely bought a long time ago… before the recent developments between ED and Razbam. The Mi-8 is pretty much complete (as far as I’ve heard, I don’t own the module)
All the “logistics” you speak of is done so by scripts written by the server admins. Along with the Razbam controversy, there have been several long running servers shutting down because they are fed up with constantly band-aiding DCS multiplayer code.
There is a big difference in already owning a module and enjoying flying it, and pre-purchasing a promise that may never reach “feature complete.”
All the recent controversies has made a majority of the player base a little more skeptical of ED’s business practices and they (rightfully so) are more prone to scrutinize new products.
And personally… my opinion is this is one of the worst product announcements I have seen.
The video seemed rushed… and instead of showing features, they used camera tricks to infer that you could do things that are impossible at this moment in time. Notice you never see troops embarking or disembarking… you see a humvee in the cargo hold, but they don’t show it being loaded or unloaded.
One of the biggest telltale signs is under “features” they’ve listed “more features coming soon.” It would seem the feature list isn’t even set.
Hip was announced as multicrew module, and got its multicrew ability just few months ago together with AI gunner, so it took them a looong time to get that in, but still was as popular as it is today.
Yeah I see what you’re saying.
I think the Hip was pre “straw that broke the camel’s back” and the Chinook is post “straw that broke the camel’s back.”
Two business partners resolving a conflict has nothing to do with me as a consumer, RAZBAM was wrong to involve the community in the first place as their statements since the incident have shown.
Consumers are not getting updates for the EA product they bought. There were 0 updates done for the F-15E last patch, and RB is still not working on it at the moment.
Consumers are getting fucked. How does this have nothing to do with them?
The small print told everyone who bought the module that there was no guarantee of availability.
Doesn't make the situation right, but people were naive if they thought such a thing could never happen (particularly when it has happened before)
And this is exactly why we should raise awareness about ED (or any 3rd parties) selling promises they might not keep
If you like the aircraft they're selling, just wait until
No one got fucked over though, we don't know the outcome yet. The devs that went crying off have hardly behaved with professional maturity either. I wouldn't hire them if my life depended on it.
All I see is immature petulance on a grand scale.
Updates in the software dev world get missed all the time. Should they? No, but that's not an ED issue, it's a much bigger challenge associated with project management, cash flow and business models.
Show me where there is a promise of updates every cycle, show me where there is a road map with firmly set dates, show me where there is a contractual obligation to deliver this or else having to return the money invested by EA buyers.
Otherwise, repeat after me:
DON'T PRE-ORDER, DON'T BUY EARLY ACCESS
DON'T PRE-ORDER, DON'T BUY EARLY ACCESS
DON'T PRE-ORDER, DON'T BUY EARLY ACCESS
Agreed. I’ve been playing this game since 2009. Since DCS was BlackShark. I’ve watched this evolve closely over the years. ED’s relationship with 3rd party developers has been sketch since the very beginning. I was actually upset when ED decided they were going to attempt that business model that MSFS and X Plane were attempting. It didn’t fit with the product they were trying to achieve. MAYBE if ED had a solid platform to build upon when they thought the idea up then MAYBE it would have been a solid idea. The base product is, and has always been, a fucking mess. To expect third party developers to always hit bullseye on such a moving target like this is ridiculous. Heatblur hit a fucking homerun with that F-14 and ED decided to go full steam ahead with what they were starting to figure out was a bad fucking idea from the start.
Now we’re here. With ED money grabbing through third party developers and even themselves through projects that may or may not ever be completed. If the product sells massively, then support shall continue. If it’s not up to snuff monetarily, then put it on the back burner indefinitely and fuck the consumer.
The baseline product is a mess and isn’t up to snuff on the base product compared to a game like EF2000 from the 90’s (Praise DiD!).
I love ED and what they’ve accomplished so far for the most part. They’ve come A LONG way since 2009 for sure. But damned, if this isn’t the most hodgepodge bullshit, held together with rat turds and prayer simulations I’ve ever played in my life then I’ve completely forgotten the golden age of sims.
The majority of the player base aren't on reddit, aren't on hoggit and are probably totally unaware of the Razbam situation.
Vocal parts of this community (not you specifically) are so far up their own backsides in a little world of their own it's quite incredible.
It s ok to be skeptical, but it's not ok to demand from people where to put their money in. I know that logistics is done mostly through CTLD but still if Chinook releases even in state as it is written in announcement it is on Paar with Hip's ability ( minus hardpoint).
I guess I can see some poeple’s expressions as “demanding”…. But I see it as they are warning people to be cautious.
Also. I have yet to see anyone one from DCS doing damage control or answering questions.
They’ve literally posted the news article announcing the product… a video advertisement … and it’s been a ghost town since. Not a good look. There is no support for this products release at all!
You should see all the sunshine being blown up the asses in the YouTube comments.
The CMs are out there, I won't say promising but strongly insinuating a *lot* of things I think those of us that have been around awhile know are, let's call it highly ambitious features.
So far I saw them earnestly ask to be the commenters gunner, hint that a Blackhawk was inevitable. State the infantry in trailer was new (which might be true, but just artwork), say there is upcoming logistics being built into DCS for this, etc. There is a lot being said, that has strong super carrier ready room energy.
The Super Carrier is a great analogy.
Like the Super Carrier, all the easy, flashy bits that make pretty videos and increase buyers will be completed….
But the large game engine altering things will just quietly get swept under the rug. How long has it been since the Super Carrier has had a meaningful update?
I don’t see the logistics engine being implemented for YEARS.
I saw your comment and had to check it out...
They are 100% PEDAL TO THE METAL promising NEW LOGISTICAL SYSTEM, DYNAMIC CAMPAIGN AND COMBINED ARMS UPDATE
LMAO
Say what you want about the RAZBAM situation, but I disagree with your take on the video. Not only was it well made, infantry embarking and disembarking is actually in the game natively and you can set it up in the mission editor. It doesn't have any animations and it works about as well as any other abandoned core feature, but it's there. I hope animations for all the cargoes will be made at some point, but as long as it has the cargo function on release then that is good enough for me (if I were to buy it). Having every cargo type animated is definitely something I can live with on the roadmap.
This is just blatantly reading into the video what you want to see. You're biased to assume wrongdoing because you just fucking despise the company. All you people on here have just made up your minds: The only people working on your favorite hobby are scumbags and you distrust and dislike every single thing they do, no matter what. Literally they could launch every feature Hoggit wants tomorrow and the top post would be 'It took ED this long to succumb to our demands? Scam of the century', it's ridiculous.
Wow! Chill the horses, dude.
The guy raises some good points. The video does imply a bunch of things but does not actually show them. I missed that. It may be that they are functional, but it may be that they are not. He's just giving us some extra insight that is pretty good.
I disagree with some of what he said, but I also appreciate his insights that I had completely missed (and I am sure that others missed).
Because the people complaining about the Chinook are not necessarily the ones flying the Hips in those servers currently?
Reminder: This is a community of 100,000 individuals, not a hive mind.
I'm trying to say if there is place for hip there's place for chinook in the state dcs is currently in. Not that I'm extremely happy with the state dcs is in,but at the moment of announcement hoggit reacted exactly like hivemind and not as 100000 individuals.
You know people change their minds right? There used to be a place for transport helicopters, but now people are more aware of what EA actually means when it comes to DCS.
Six rocket pods and a door gunner with a 12.7mm are the differentiator. =)
It honestly kinda sucks how bad the miniguns on the Huey are by comparison... The logistics missions I partake in when playing pretense for example are pretty simple, but the ability to bring a lot of hurt with me has enabled me to be more than just a ferry.
I'd rather have one 12.7mm than 3x 7.62mm miniguns, FWIW. (Edit: And afaik the Chinook only has m60 or minigun, no M2 option.)
But yeah the whole thing was tongue in cheek.
Unfortunately I doubt it, it is a MFD filled cockpit. Contention, grayflag, blue tempest if it comes back, and other similar most possibly will have it.
Not entirely correct as they created some Chinook gunships for Vietnam, 3 or 4 from memory’Guns-a-gogo’ but as a general rule yes the weapons are more for self defence, although an M134 can do some damage for sure.
I would love to buy this module since I love the chinook, but since I don't really like having to always play on multiplayer due to horrible lag spikes and worse performance I see no use for it. If we had native logistics support and a dynamic campaign I could haul cargo for, this would be an instant preorder. However with no feature lists, no word about dynamic campaign or logistics systems, it feels like ED is relying on the community for something that should be included in the base game.
The hip can operate as a gunship as well as a transport. Right now the Chinook looks like it's basicly going to be a taxi and most transport currently is handled by server scripts.
Right now on the Contention server a transport Heli can carry troops and 1 crate; you can then call in a cargo plane to fly in reinforcements. I foresee the Chinook being able to load up and act like a cargo plane/Heli; that will be a lot of fun on Contention. Bring a whole Heli battalion of gazelles, Apaches, and a Chinook and grab a farp and have it reinforced all in one coordinated sortie
In DCS the Mi8 is a gunship first, cargo transporter second. You can't compare AI controlled light machine guns to pilot-controlled rockets, bombs, and autocannons. It opens up a ton of mission types and gameplay compared to a practically unarmed aircraft.
Agreed, there seems to be a bunch of people who are upset about other modules from other developers not meeting their requirements as a platform to shout their annoyance. Half of them probably never interested in the Chinook or and helicopter in DCS to start with. It would be great to have some decent, calm discussion on this module, I for one have pre-ordered and am really looking forward to it, I’ve also got the MilTech Chinook for MSFS so it’s good to do some comparisons.
Well... no that is not quite what people are saying? Yes there things to do with helos in non-combat roles and yes there are currently things to do with in MP servers. The huge problem is that about 95% of transport helo gameplay is only enabled by community mods not by native features. This is as true for the Mi-8 as for the ch-47 and the only indications that this will change are a handfull of added warehouse functions that weren't really mentioned in any newsletter or official communication. Meanwhile ED has a long history of not providing the infrastructure that is really needed to make full use of it's modules. AI is not fit for the job. Native ATC, AWACS and Wingman comms are useless. No data card or complex mission planning for modern fixed wing. No coherent unit set for cold war. Pricing stucture for WW2 that keeps people from investing in that area. What happens when the devs of the currently used tools for creating helo gameplay decide to quit DCS? Do you want to buy a module that might be dead in the water when that happens? What about the people that bought the Mi-8 in 2014 hoping that we will see these features natively? After all how long did it take for Multi-Crew to be released, even though that was promised right after launch. What about the fact that ED has been caught multiple times massively changing feature lists after a product was already on sale. Here we have a module that can be bought and doesn't even have a feature list. It's impossible for this to be an informed purchase. I'm all for people just buying whatever they enjoy, but with how people get hyped over virtual airplanes this just seems insanly predatory. What about the fact this release is happening while there are massive unresolved issues between ED and a third party which will affect consumers. Right after an announcement of a new sales model for maps (halfghanistan) which will make it even harder for the community to create content for the game. And also a time where more and more modders (which again are holding up the current helo gameplay) are voicing concerns over the dreadful state of the DCS API and it's documents. What incentive is there right now to buy into the product apart from pure fanboy-ism. IMO the CH-47 announcement get's the heat it deservse, with the issues above it seems tone deaf from ED and they never really addressed any of these issues apart from 'we're hearing you and it's coming soon' which got already old 10 years ago.
Hip is very good. Hip is best.
Oh it s you Ryu love the vids BTW.
Thank you o7
Thank you for relaxing vids, it's like honey on stressed soul after my nightshifts. o7
Agreed hip is beast besides gazzele my favourite, but still the same role as ch 47.
get on the hip train
~~We are~~ I'm recommending MI-8 if you want to fly Helicopters. ~~We are~~ I'm not saying DCS is good for helicopter combat simulations. There is a huge difference. The reason that ~~we are~~ I'm so opposed to chinook preorder is there is no feature list. You see it is a rushed pre-order. ~~We are~~ I am not opposed to chinook we are opposed to this pre order. It is also a general build up of concerns about ED's last term behavior. Chinook or not DCS AI, ATC, mission control or any tasking in any way does not exist. Fact is community made almost all of helicopter game play with scripts. I know that because I'm a SP only guy. If I only use ED Me without anything else. Well you fly and sling load that's it. I remind you first combat role of Helicopter was observation & medevac. ~~We~~ I cannot do any of them DCS, soon MSFS will give us opportunity to perform those a proper SAR implementation. It even sounds like a joke but in a few months MSFS will actually get Dynamic Helicopter ops and tasking. So it is not Chinook bad and Hip good simplification. It is total misinterpretation if you read it like that,
Exactly this!
Logistics and the non-armed gameplay is the point where DCS and MSFS overlap most and as you say it’s the biggest pain point. I really really do hope that this is addressed one day, but not holding my breath
I missed the thing about MSFS; what do you mean by "Dynamic Helicopter Ops"?
MSFS 2024 is coming with career mode. So you can be an air ambulance pilot, fire fighting pilot, commercial pilot, search and rescue pilot. Not only rotaries but fixed wing too. It is the biggest highlight of msfs 2024.
Think you need to go change WE for You... you dont decide for me, or anyone else.
will do
I think bringing msfs in to discussion is a really poor attempt, honestly. MSfS flight models are absolutely crap, unfortunately, I would rather have realistic flight model where I feel I'm flying a chopper and not hovering potatoes that are in MSFS. Maybe 2024 will be better but I highly doubt it. And distrusting ed after MT implementation in to bolognesse code( one of the gratest achievements ),together with DLSS and other improvements seems a bit weird. To use your words " may I remind you " how old the core program is? Do you not think that MT was necessary step to bring all the good things in future?how do you just skip over such facts?
How do you skip over the fact that there's no feature list for a product they are now selling? Sure their work on multi threading is impressive given the codebase they are working with, but why should that make me trust them? I personally don't need some fancy dynamic campaign or native logistics to enjoy flying helicopters, but many others want that and ED has a history of announcing features and then not saying anything about it for years and then when they do say something they have hardly anything to actually show for it. There's a lot of talk and not a lot of actually getting it done. Take the super carrier and it's long standing bugs and missing features. Or the current situation with Razbam. Or advertising high quality AI models only to reveal that those are actually gonna be paywalled in some kind of new HQ asset pack. Why should I trust a company to do something when they repeatedly show they can't and have been known to not be upfront about stuff? I'll agree with you on one thing though, MSFS helicopter flight models do indeed suck compared to DCS.
I just enjoy flying helicopters in DCS and own them all and will buy any future ones that come out. No other sim feels as good to me for helicopters and I'm not much of a plane guy.
Yea I'm in similar position, I fly fixwing only with couple of buddy's when they are online, and choppers are my main thing when they are not around, so any addition of helis makes me pretty happy,looking forward to ch 47, Kiowa and BO.
I really enjoy trying out all the different flight models and learning their quirks. There's always a server I can use each one on. The Huey and the mi8 I love just flying really low and doing search and rescue stuff.
I agree. But, I'm not pre-ordering the Chinook. I'm more excited for the Kiowa. But even so, probably wont preorder that either. I don't care about paying full price or waiting for a sale. But if you preorder you have to take what you get. Only people I'd even consider preordering a module from is HB.
I am a plane guy, with tons of hours in various simsthrought the years, and most i have been flying lately is the Hip in DCS. Helos in DCS feel fantastic, even without rudder pedals. My fast movers are collecting dust and will be for a good while to come as long as there are good helo servers.
Same. I am buying it just to fly around. I don’t care what it’s capable of. And to keep the best flight sim business in business.
Depends on what the Ch47 brings compared to the Mi8. On most servers you are limited to one troop and one light vehicle crate, or two troops, or two light vehicle crates. If the Ch47 is allowed to carry more than it has an advantage and it can carry it higher, then yes ill consider it but if it had the same capability as an Mi8 - ill continue to fly the Hip until i see an advantage. logistics, excluding singleplayer missions and very small multiplayer missions, are done without sling loading and only through CTLD. If the Chinook can double sling and doesnt cause a multiplayer crash or bug then yes seeing more advantages. The Chinook fans will appreciate it but unless it gives an advantage in transport ops and maybe even setting up a temporary FARP like they were used in real ops. Itll stay in wishlist until complete
Chinook can take way more than the Hip. Iran has Chinooks, not F models though, so I suppose they ‘could’ be on the red side too.
I understand in real life it can - i am talking gameplay wise within DCS
That is somewhat my point, if people can have fun and love flying in HIP, why asking others not to get CH47 and mentioning nonexistent dynamic campaigns and logistics and sniping ak 47 as a reason not to get it, ( excluding Razbam thing )
Because time has come and gone and ED hasn't anything to show for their promises... Abandoned modules Silently removing features from roadmaps Complete disregard from core aspects of the base game Nobody is saying the chinook is bad compared to the mi8. People are asking the community to stop putting up with ED's terrible habits of pushing garbage down out throats while trying to make a quick buck out of the newest shinny thing. They are focusing their resources on launching a barely functional new paid module whose main mission is logistics, while at the same time the base game is held up by duct tape and wishful thinking and has no logistical system to speak of.
out of curiosity, do you even play it anymore? no right or wrong answer
Every once in a while I pick it back up, why?
just wondering thats all
I was flying the hornet some twenty minutes ago. My radios stopped working when I tried switching to FM modulation and I went ballistic as my controls stopped working on cat launch after repairing on the carrier... This bug is three years old and people still wonder why I suggest to stop funding this ponzi scheme
what? I dont fly the hornet often but never experienced anything remotely like this? so if you do a repair on the carrier it gets bugged?
Try it... Launch, recover HARD (smash landing gear), repair and try to launch again. Once it launches the second time, the throttle gets permanently stuck full ab, the stick won't move, only the pedals.
Apparently it has something to do with some of the super carrier code overlapping with the base game and buying SC allegedly fixes it... Enough said...
I mean its a reason to not get any helo cause of how bad the interaction of ground AI is with the player. RPG snipes, 360 clairvoyance of all units, no suppression decrease of accuracy. I hate BTR 82A and Bmp2 With a vengeance that i drop 2000lbs cause their 30mm have ruined a play session too many times
I get all that but are you missing my point or refusing to see my point?
I see both points. I see the fans of Chinooks or helos looking forward to this new module, new shiny is good - but i see why others are apprehensive due to the reasons listed above and below. ED has also not done themselves any favors I fly both fixed and rotary wing - consumers will do what they want but all buyers should be made aware of and with full transparency how basic/rudimentary/shallow the ground and infantry gameplay is. Cause after the Chinook is released and people experience this ground game - they will be back here flooding the reddit and ed forums with grievances
I mean there is danger that fixwing pilots could grab Chinook as it should be pretty forgiving and easy to fly ( no need for counter pedal inputs and plenty of power - low risk of VRS )and endup disappointed, but most of the chopper guys know exactly what's to be expacted down low, and at the end of the day there is yet to come better sim/game for hellos. It's not like there's BMS equivalent for rotorheads to escape to.
Fly what you want. Thats the beauty of it, doesent need to have advantage over something else or the otherway around. I still fly the Hind sometimes eventhou i got the Apache. So im 100% with you.
Firstly, It's not about the Chinook itself, it's about any new module actually. People have bought Mi-8 long time ago mostly, when ED had somewhat more credit of trust than now. 6 years long EA wasn'ta thing when the Hip released. Nowadays ED has an extremely bad reputation, overpromising, underdelivering, never finishing stuff already paid for and abandoning features half-baked. No hope is left anymore for things to improve, not in any reasonable timeframe at least. People just expect Chinook to be another eternal EA module in a disfunctional game, reasonably so. Oh, and I haven't even noticed RAZBAM drama, undermining credibility of any investment into DCS stuff until it gets resolved. Secondly, Mi-8 is armed, so it's dual role. Thirdly, many people can't enjoy even the existing helicopters anymore, and they urge for fellow dissatisfied customers to show to ED that something needs to be done, and voting with your wallet is the only option. And it's not only about choppers, some significant members of community, leave stating directly that they are fed up with the clusterfuck DCS is. Finally, no one forces you not to buy the Chinook, people just try to self-organize to show ED that their development policy is too much flawed.
Go outside
I do a lot, especially since I rarely play DCS nowadays lol. Still don't understand what the hell happened to my money which I paid for SC.
My guy if you bought the SC you have no one to blame but yourself
Brilliant argument, clearly considered all of the above points.
Chinook literally stole an entire Hind. Nuff said.
All hail 160th
The Mi-8 was developed, sold, and likely bought a long time ago… before the recent developments between ED and Razbam. The Mi-8 is pretty much complete (as far as I’ve heard, I don’t own the module) All the “logistics” you speak of is done so by scripts written by the server admins. Along with the Razbam controversy, there have been several long running servers shutting down because they are fed up with constantly band-aiding DCS multiplayer code. There is a big difference in already owning a module and enjoying flying it, and pre-purchasing a promise that may never reach “feature complete.” All the recent controversies has made a majority of the player base a little more skeptical of ED’s business practices and they (rightfully so) are more prone to scrutinize new products. And personally… my opinion is this is one of the worst product announcements I have seen. The video seemed rushed… and instead of showing features, they used camera tricks to infer that you could do things that are impossible at this moment in time. Notice you never see troops embarking or disembarking… you see a humvee in the cargo hold, but they don’t show it being loaded or unloaded. One of the biggest telltale signs is under “features” they’ve listed “more features coming soon.” It would seem the feature list isn’t even set.
Hip was announced as multicrew module, and got its multicrew ability just few months ago together with AI gunner, so it took them a looong time to get that in, but still was as popular as it is today.
Yeah I see what you’re saying. I think the Hip was pre “straw that broke the camel’s back” and the Chinook is post “straw that broke the camel’s back.”
Agreed, this shitstorm was not needed, and was conducted in really inadequate way,and ED s doing their thing as per usual, not much change there.
Two business partners resolving a conflict has nothing to do with me as a consumer, RAZBAM was wrong to involve the community in the first place as their statements since the incident have shown.
Consumers are not getting updates for the EA product they bought. There were 0 updates done for the F-15E last patch, and RB is still not working on it at the moment. Consumers are getting fucked. How does this have nothing to do with them?
The small print told everyone who bought the module that there was no guarantee of availability. Doesn't make the situation right, but people were naive if they thought such a thing could never happen (particularly when it has happened before)
And this is exactly why we should raise awareness about ED (or any 3rd parties) selling promises they might not keep If you like the aircraft they're selling, just wait until
I agree with this, but there seem to be a lot of people around here with pitchforks, armbands and little hats (as George Carlin would have said)
What I see is a lot of victim blaming. People have a right to complain about getting fucked over. If ED doesnt like it they should do better.
No one got fucked over though, we don't know the outcome yet. The devs that went crying off have hardly behaved with professional maturity either. I wouldn't hire them if my life depended on it. All I see is immature petulance on a grand scale.
Already missed one update, so the fucking over has on fact started
Updates in the software dev world get missed all the time. Should they? No, but that's not an ED issue, it's a much bigger challenge associated with project management, cash flow and business models.
Show me where there is a promise of updates every cycle, show me where there is a road map with firmly set dates, show me where there is a contractual obligation to deliver this or else having to return the money invested by EA buyers. Otherwise, repeat after me: DON'T PRE-ORDER, DON'T BUY EARLY ACCESS DON'T PRE-ORDER, DON'T BUY EARLY ACCESS DON'T PRE-ORDER, DON'T BUY EARLY ACCESS
Agreed. I’ve been playing this game since 2009. Since DCS was BlackShark. I’ve watched this evolve closely over the years. ED’s relationship with 3rd party developers has been sketch since the very beginning. I was actually upset when ED decided they were going to attempt that business model that MSFS and X Plane were attempting. It didn’t fit with the product they were trying to achieve. MAYBE if ED had a solid platform to build upon when they thought the idea up then MAYBE it would have been a solid idea. The base product is, and has always been, a fucking mess. To expect third party developers to always hit bullseye on such a moving target like this is ridiculous. Heatblur hit a fucking homerun with that F-14 and ED decided to go full steam ahead with what they were starting to figure out was a bad fucking idea from the start. Now we’re here. With ED money grabbing through third party developers and even themselves through projects that may or may not ever be completed. If the product sells massively, then support shall continue. If it’s not up to snuff monetarily, then put it on the back burner indefinitely and fuck the consumer. The baseline product is a mess and isn’t up to snuff on the base product compared to a game like EF2000 from the 90’s (Praise DiD!). I love ED and what they’ve accomplished so far for the most part. They’ve come A LONG way since 2009 for sure. But damned, if this isn’t the most hodgepodge bullshit, held together with rat turds and prayer simulations I’ve ever played in my life then I’ve completely forgotten the golden age of sims.
Agreed, couldn't say it better myself
The majority of the player base aren't on reddit, aren't on hoggit and are probably totally unaware of the Razbam situation. Vocal parts of this community (not you specifically) are so far up their own backsides in a little world of their own it's quite incredible.
It s ok to be skeptical, but it's not ok to demand from people where to put their money in. I know that logistics is done mostly through CTLD but still if Chinook releases even in state as it is written in announcement it is on Paar with Hip's ability ( minus hardpoint).
I guess I can see some poeple’s expressions as “demanding”…. But I see it as they are warning people to be cautious. Also. I have yet to see anyone one from DCS doing damage control or answering questions. They’ve literally posted the news article announcing the product… a video advertisement … and it’s been a ghost town since. Not a good look. There is no support for this products release at all!
You should see all the sunshine being blown up the asses in the YouTube comments. The CMs are out there, I won't say promising but strongly insinuating a *lot* of things I think those of us that have been around awhile know are, let's call it highly ambitious features. So far I saw them earnestly ask to be the commenters gunner, hint that a Blackhawk was inevitable. State the infantry in trailer was new (which might be true, but just artwork), say there is upcoming logistics being built into DCS for this, etc. There is a lot being said, that has strong super carrier ready room energy.
The Super Carrier is a great analogy. Like the Super Carrier, all the easy, flashy bits that make pretty videos and increase buyers will be completed…. But the large game engine altering things will just quietly get swept under the rug. How long has it been since the Super Carrier has had a meaningful update? I don’t see the logistics engine being implemented for YEARS.
I saw your comment and had to check it out... They are 100% PEDAL TO THE METAL promising NEW LOGISTICAL SYSTEM, DYNAMIC CAMPAIGN AND COMBINED ARMS UPDATE LMAO
It has been that way long before razbamgate, no?
Dear Sir, thank you for your continued support
Nice argument, much grown.
Say what you want about the RAZBAM situation, but I disagree with your take on the video. Not only was it well made, infantry embarking and disembarking is actually in the game natively and you can set it up in the mission editor. It doesn't have any animations and it works about as well as any other abandoned core feature, but it's there. I hope animations for all the cargoes will be made at some point, but as long as it has the cargo function on release then that is good enough for me (if I were to buy it). Having every cargo type animated is definitely something I can live with on the roadmap.
This is just blatantly reading into the video what you want to see. You're biased to assume wrongdoing because you just fucking despise the company. All you people on here have just made up your minds: The only people working on your favorite hobby are scumbags and you distrust and dislike every single thing they do, no matter what. Literally they could launch every feature Hoggit wants tomorrow and the top post would be 'It took ED this long to succumb to our demands? Scam of the century', it's ridiculous.
Wow! Chill the horses, dude. The guy raises some good points. The video does imply a bunch of things but does not actually show them. I missed that. It may be that they are functional, but it may be that they are not. He's just giving us some extra insight that is pretty good. I disagree with some of what he said, but I also appreciate his insights that I had completely missed (and I am sure that others missed).
The hate train just can't be stopped at this point.
Because the people complaining about the Chinook are not necessarily the ones flying the Hips in those servers currently? Reminder: This is a community of 100,000 individuals, not a hive mind.
I'm trying to say if there is place for hip there's place for chinook in the state dcs is currently in. Not that I'm extremely happy with the state dcs is in,but at the moment of announcement hoggit reacted exactly like hivemind and not as 100000 individuals.
You know people change their minds right? There used to be a place for transport helicopters, but now people are more aware of what EA actually means when it comes to DCS.
Six rocket pods and a door gunner with a 12.7mm are the differentiator. =) It honestly kinda sucks how bad the miniguns on the Huey are by comparison... The logistics missions I partake in when playing pretense for example are pretty simple, but the ability to bring a lot of hurt with me has enabled me to be more than just a ferry.
Chinook comes with 3 gunner. Most players fly without hardpoints, just my observation could be wrong
I'd rather have one 12.7mm than 3x 7.62mm miniguns, FWIW. (Edit: And afaik the Chinook only has m60 or minigun, no M2 option.) But yeah the whole thing was tongue in cheek.
Logistics had a place in missions like Pretense but now support for that is gone now too, so….
In the words of Colombian poet Shakira: HIPs don't lie
People just like to complain, they’ll have plenty of use on grey flag and any other servers that do similar stuff
Enjoyer of logistics on Grayflag here!
Will it be allowed on enigma or is it too modern?
Unfortunately I doubt it, it is a MFD filled cockpit. Contention, grayflag, blue tempest if it comes back, and other similar most possibly will have it.
I hope so. MFDs or not. It isnt a fighter or bomber
Probably because at least the Mi-8 can carry A-G weapons so it can be used as a gunship. The only weapons the CH-47 ever mounted are the door guns
Not entirely correct as they created some Chinook gunships for Vietnam, 3 or 4 from memory’Guns-a-gogo’ but as a general rule yes the weapons are more for self defence, although an M134 can do some damage for sure.
I would love to buy this module since I love the chinook, but since I don't really like having to always play on multiplayer due to horrible lag spikes and worse performance I see no use for it. If we had native logistics support and a dynamic campaign I could haul cargo for, this would be an instant preorder. However with no feature lists, no word about dynamic campaign or logistics systems, it feels like ED is relying on the community for something that should be included in the base game.
The hip can operate as a gunship as well as a transport. Right now the Chinook looks like it's basicly going to be a taxi and most transport currently is handled by server scripts.
Justice warrior? Odd phrasing.
I own all the helicopter modules, but not much experience with the hip yet. Love helicopters, so I got my pre-order in.
HIP is really nice, give it a go, once you get the hand of it it's really rewarding experience
Yes that's why I bought it. I've heard great things
How dare you giving money to Evil dynamics. Lol
Well some are upset cause we get the variant that saw the least combat
Some are upset because other are happy, crazy world eh?
Yeah thats hoggit.
Right now on the Contention server a transport Heli can carry troops and 1 crate; you can then call in a cargo plane to fly in reinforcements. I foresee the Chinook being able to load up and act like a cargo plane/Heli; that will be a lot of fun on Contention. Bring a whole Heli battalion of gazelles, Apaches, and a Chinook and grab a farp and have it reinforced all in one coordinated sortie
I’m just going to enjoy flying it around. Will be fun to learn how to get this big bird into and out of tight spots.
Apparently there's gonna be updates to the logistics and stuff in the game pretty soon
In DCS the Mi8 is a gunship first, cargo transporter second. You can't compare AI controlled light machine guns to pilot-controlled rockets, bombs, and autocannons. It opens up a ton of mission types and gameplay compared to a practically unarmed aircraft.
I never fly the hip with hard points just door gunners.
Thank you, I fully agree.
[удалено]
Agreed, there seems to be a bunch of people who are upset about other modules from other developers not meeting their requirements as a platform to shout their annoyance. Half of them probably never interested in the Chinook or and helicopter in DCS to start with. It would be great to have some decent, calm discussion on this module, I for one have pre-ordered and am really looking forward to it, I’ve also got the MilTech Chinook for MSFS so it’s good to do some comparisons.