What will be the default settings out of the box will be up for a poll or three held on the forums. 5 or 6 people do not make a majority.
Glad to hear you say so, as I totally don't agree bomb range calculations should be optional : they're the realistic option and should be the default.
It's about time that the inertia of hundreds of old scenarios stop being used as a reason not to change anything : a dangling, damocles sword always over the devs...
A few people are confusing their personal investment of time and skills with what's better for the sim.
If any scenario is so closely tied to a particular implementation, one might ask about the validity of the scenario in the first place (not saying that's the case, just raising a point. But, no doubt, I'll be shot down for that too: if you don't agree with Herman & co, or AGSI, you don't have a voice atm, or can't be heard for the surrounding noise)
Having bombs behave as in reality is a plus for me, and it shouldn't be an issue.
I truly hope this feature is properly developed further, with appropriate flags in the DB for high drag and other aerodynamic aspects, etc. so that bomb ranges not only vary with launch altitude, but also the flight envelope of its casing.
Whining that it makes it possible to attack from outside the SAM defense coverage is not a bug : it's modelling reality in certain cases.
Using this to underline a certain trend, or undercurrent that seem to prevail in all dealings between the community and AGSI.
I'd venture to say that now is the time to break free from the past, and not wish for wholesale backwards compatibility : the good scenarios and DBs will find loving hands to take care of them.
There is no absolute need for them to be all available in ANW from the get go, or automatically translated.
It's totally unrealistic to wish for such backwards compatibility, as a lot of those classic scenarios include numerous workarounds of their own to overcome engine limits at the time, as well as mostly undocumented DB hacks (the fact that all a/c can land on carriers in PDB was only documented, fleetingly so, by Herman when I complained about it)
Flame on if you have to.
The only way to move forward, people seem to forget, is to let go and break stuff. There is no way around that, period.
Yes, mistakes have been made, yes I'm also unhappy with the current state of ANW, but the vocal minority is taking up way too much space and polarizing the debate in a AGSI vs Them (not us) battle, where only their very personal interests are represented, not the common good as they like to think.
The argument about the hundreds of scenarios that could be left behind because of changes is passe and dead stupid when we're talking about adding realism to a game/sim... (and yes I'm going to take a ton of flak from both people I don't know and my harpoon buddies, I bet on this one
)
You guys clamoring for backwards compatibility to boot, already have legal copies of 3.6.3, so you can play those scenarios with AI intact as much as you want.
The way it's going, you want 3.6.3 with MP. You've been told again and again, it's not going to happen.
Get over it already and let's work on the future
Special note to Herman : You know I like and respect you (went so far as to vote for your as Pooner of the year, remember ?), but I'm considering reducing my very limited involvement in ANW vs public forums to nothing. I'm tired of having to wade through litteral tons of your vicious ranting to find the elusive needle of good data in the haystack (hint, more often than not, NOT in your posts nowadays)
You don't want to beta, fine, we know.
Could you stop telling us that little fact and the countless others you're so keen on repeating ? For someone who refuses to beta-test, and thus be part of the solution, your attitude makes it hard for anyone else to have any pleasure in trying to move things forward.
I know for a fact I'm not the only one who's disturbed by your incessant rantings and your co-opting if not outright derailing of most if not all threads where Russell, the only regular AGSI contact we have, shows himself around here.
With 2 or 3 guys acting like that you know what happens ? Yes, you have it on the tip of your tongue : the old situation with AGSI and ANW, with multi tiered closed betas, and a closed content management group, whatever it was called.
You want people to be responsible, in this case, show the example and start with yourself.
Or please, STFU : I also paid for ANW, and I've had enough of you holding us hostage in your vendetta against AGSI.
Sorry for using some strong words, but I've refrained myself long enough from addressing this (litterally months)
You're not just "hurting" AGSI or Matrix with your demeanour, you're also affecting us, the community for which you so often posture as championing.
[end of special note to Herman]
Food for thought, I hope.
Now, I crawl back in my hole
(incidentally, my hole is in no way financed by AGSI or Matrix Games, I have no vested interest, financial or otherwise, in either company, beyond wishing they keep on doing what they do
)
Be Kind. Everyone is fighting a hard battle.
