"Is USAF still being supported by Electronic Arts? If so, why haven't we heard or seen any response, from Pixel or EA, to the many posts on forum sites, regarding new patches to fix User Mission Editor? It is impossible to place airfields, firebases, troops, and other necessary components to make a convincing, challenging and surprising mission. There are far too few options in the User Mission Editor to make it worthwhile to use. There were far more options in Jane's Fighters Anthology Mission Builder than in this products. For me and many others this is a step backwards for Jane's.

There are also discrepancies in the flight model of the planes. The roll rates are almost impossible to control. The turn rates are also incorrect and the gun cannons never miss. The first USAF patch did very little to correct the deficiencies in this product. Therefore, will we see further patches that will make USAF the best multiplane Simulation ever?

The Graphics and flight recorder, in USAF, are simply the best that anyone has ever seen up to this point. But the inability to use the User Mission Editor to make solid missions and discrepencies in other areas of this product are real concerns for us who purchased it.

At the present time, EA has a credibility problem with us who have purchased USAF, with the understanding, that it would be fully supported. Without further patch support, USAF is much less than what I and others expected from Jane's/EA. And without further patch support, EA's reputation will be greatly tarnished.

I and others will not continue to purchase products from a software company that does not stand behind its products.

The letter was sent to: support1@ea.com

Douglas Helmer responded that he would contact Pixel. So far no response from combatsim on this issue.

Actually, I was trying to get in touch with the Jane's folks first---but no luck so far.

People are disappearing off their corporate voice mail database pretty fast these days. Pixel is in Israel, so I have to give them a call at about 4 AM here, which I will do on Monday.

> There are also discrepancies in the flight model of the planes. The roll rates are almost impossible to control. The turn rates are also incorrect and the gun cannons never miss.

I wanted to ask somebody about this. Quite often, I find that trying to make small corrections in altitude (elevators) or heading (rudder) results in "rubber-banding" - that is, the plane swings like a bloody pendulum. This means it is difficult for me to make a decent landing or a smooth bombing/strafing run. Is that realistic?

Another thing: should turn rates be higher or lower?

Here is the response that I received in regard to my letter to EA Support for USAF, see below. It is not good news.

"I apologize, we here at Electronic Arts cannot support any type of editors since we don't test them. We include editors as an unsupported feature for you the customer to experiment and have fun with. I hope you understand because due to the sophisticated architecture of editing it would be very
difficult to troubleshoot any type of editor that we include with our games.

We would like to thank you for the enthusiasm and interest you have expressed toward our products as well as for the time you have taken to let us know the kind of software we can make for you. This input is valuable in helping us make better products, not to mention that we simply enjoy hearing
your views and suggestions.

We appreciate having you as a customer and thank you for your thoughtfulness in sending us your comments. All of us at Electronic Arts share your interest in making the finest products that we can."

Thank you,

Erik

I take it from Erik's reply that there will be no additional support in the way of a patch or upgrade to improve USAF. This is what all of us have been fearing. We have been abandond by Electronic Arts.

I, for one, do not believe I can trust them to support any of their products. They may tell us they will, but what is to keep them from doing again, what they have done to us with USAF.

Could I post your letter and EA's response thereto on my site (http://fly.to/dogfight.com).

You and anyone who wishes to, may post my letter and EA's response.

I too am greatly disappointed. I was hoping USAF would be one of Jane's best products. But without a real patch or upgrade, Jane's should be embarressed to have their name associated with it.