statrekmike

Yes. They didn't get the discount percentage correct. That being said. It is pretty safe to say that a lot of folks bought the early access Iraq map based on what it will eventually end up becoming. As such. It is understandable that we would want even some pretty basic indications that things are moving along even if no fine details can be revealed. Iraq is very much a "big deal" map for DCS and development for it has been quite quiet.

Yeah. Even a little update of some kind would be good. Just some indication that things are happening.

If it were on a pretty significant sale, I would say that it could potentially be a safe purchase but even when we don't specifically talk about the RAZBAM/ED situation, the module isn't finished. I know that some are happy enough with what is there but that doesn't negate the fact that it is missing a good chunk of its intended feature-set and that is not something that should be overlooked. As it stands. I would honestly hold off. There are plenty of other modules that are in a much better overall state of completion.

DCS being a combat flight simulator does not automatically mean that it needs to offer some kind of balanced set of opposing player controlled aircraft. When you ask "what are they supposed to fight?" the answer that the vast majority of the playerbase would give (if they bothered to argue on forums and most of them don't) is "whatever AI controlled aircraft makes sense in a given mission". Given the maps we have and the aircraft we have available, that is usually going to mean flying in modern multi-role USAF and USN aircraft versus older aircraft operated by forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and the like. Good mission design and an eye towards realistic force compositions can make that pretty interesting but mission designers would need to want to go to that level of detail. Only if you ignore the openly stated difficulties that ED has when it comes to simulating Russian aircraft after Russia started clamping down on that kind of thing. You might not like it but that doesn't make it a less valid reason.

This is an absolutely silly idea. Such a poll would only be seen by the more active, more vocal parts of DCS's enthusiast community. Likewise. It would only attract those who have strong opinions and see such a poll as a way to express said strong opinions directly. Either way, it wouldn't provide ED with any useful data about how much the playerbase as a whole would want such a thing. To be blunt. We are really just the audience here and we don't even know a fraction of what ED does about how well certain modules will do versus others. It is embarrassing when we pretend otherwise just to suit our own narratives.

This isn't really in dispute at all. I agree fully that these kinds of scenarios are commonplace online (especially in larger, more popular public servers for example) but the popularity and prevalence of these scenarios isn't really what I am talking about at all. I am talking about how well DCS as a platform handles those missions as it is right now and having spent a lot of time with the mission editor over the years, I have found that the larger and more complex you make a scenario, the more DCS (as a platform) struggles to meet the needs and expectations you might have. Perhaps a more straightforward way to put this is to say that as things are right now, DCS's various underlying design choices favor "more realistic" scenarios. Eagle Dynamics has certainly tried to offer some capacity for larger scenarios that are often seen on the more popular public servers but they (and third parties) put a lot of emphasis on realistic aircraft procedures and as that side of things gets more and more detailed (as it has), the harder it will be to fit those elements in a more "casual" multiplayer scenario experience without creating some kind of friction. The various aircraft modules and even the maps are just more suited for smaller scenarios focused around a single player controlled aircraft (or complimentary aircraft). Again. To be very clear, this isn't a value judgement. I don't have any problem with how others play DCS because I don't play on public servers as a rule anyway. What people do doesn't have any impact on me (at least not yet). All I am saying here is that there will always be friction between DCS's focus on realism/authenticity as a platform and the desires of those who want larger, more open multiplayer scenarios. Heck. I am pretty sure that this friction will only get more of a spotlight when the dynamic campaign setup comes along since a realistic dynamic campaign generated sortie will be very different from a viable dynamic campaign scenario for a public server. The players who want something that feels very "true to life" in terms of scenario design and structure have very different needs when compared to those who want a good large scale public server dynamic campaign.

Popularity doesn't really factor into what I am saying. Just because something is popular doesn't mean that there are not some issues with implementing it with the platform by nature of that platform's basic foundational design. It is interesting. The popular public servers generally seem to attract the portion of the playerbase that is also quite active on the various forums. They spend a lot of time complaining about the limitations of the platform as it relates to the aforementioned public servers/scenarios they frequent. There is a reason for this. Without making any real judgements about how one chooses to play the game or one's priorities and personal biases, it is hard to not see how focused DCS World is on the "small scale single mission simulator" aspect and how uncomfortably it handles larger public PvP/PvE servers just by nature of its subject matter and basic design. The repair time thing is one tiny example of this (to a degree). For smaller co-op missions, the repair timer isn't likely to be encountered to any great degree since you are more likely to find "one and done" missions with a fixed beginning, middle, and end. When you land after doing whatever it is that you were doing, you are likely done with the mission entirely. In contrast, that repair timer becomes an issue when you are on a larger public server where things have to run for a long period of time and players are (if they don't get shot down and understand how to land with some degree of reliability) likely to make several trips and need rearming and repair. This process can't really be realistically timed for blatantly obvious reasons (nobody wants to wait at least thirty minutes for rearming/refueling and perhaps hours or days for repair in a flight simulation) so scenarios that require that will really highlight some of the realism weaknesses of the platform (and of consumer level combat flight simming in the most general sense). The more you configure a scenario for large scale public server consumption, the more resistance you are going to get from DCS as a platform in terms of design and functionality.

My point isn't to make a personal value judgement on any one style of play. It is to point out that DCS as a platform is really geared towards more structured, smaller scale experiences. This is likely why the server list at any given time is pretty heavily dominated by locked/private servers for small groups. Obviously one can choose to play however they want but the further you get from that smaller, "single mission simulator" format, the more issues you will have and the more workarounds will be required.

You are jumping to an absurd extreme that is outside the obvious scope of the sim to support your argument. Don't get me wrong. I do think the mission maker or the server host should have control over the repair time but at the same time, I think it is pretty obvious that DCS is really all about the "in-cockpit" experience and doesn't need to account for real-world aircraft turn-around and repair times. Granted. It would be interesting to let players get a bit closer to the real-life turnaround time of some aircraft (like the A-10 for example) as a way to make players more carefully think about their loadouts and how they use them but that would depend greatly on the intent of the scenario and the server involved. To be honest. I am kinda surprised that certain parts of the DCS community haven't yet grasped that DCS as a platform isn't exactly suited for fast paced public server "air quake" action gameplay. It "kinda" works but it is like trying to hammer a square peg into a circular hole.

I gotta be a bit blunt here. I have seen a few RAZBAM members (either developers, former developers, or SME's) make statements but until Ron Zambrano himself actually makes a statement about the sequence of events that led us to this debacle and the steps that he personally undertook both before and after his first major statement, we don't really know anything factual. It does seem that some of the developers who left RAZBAM were told something about the situation but that doesn't mean they were given all the necessary facts/context. Likewise. There is an SME making some pretty bold statements but when you ask him if he represents RAZBAM or has first-hand knowledge of Ron Zambrano's interactions with ED, they will be pretty quick to say that they don't. When one looks at the way information is being handled on the RAZBAM Discord, it is hard not to get the sense that there is just enough being said to get particularly vulnerable people angry but not enough to actually shed real light on what is going on and why.

It isn't so much about "need" exactly. That said. I do think that when you factor in all the other multi-crew modules that do have some kind of AI (either Jester, George, or Petrovich), the F-15E's lack of AI stands out. Even more so when you consider other elements that are not yet implemented or don't work properly.

This is a really good idea. Right now, the tanker lights don't even act as light sources and while they are apparently somewhat hard to see in real life, they still should be better than they are in the sim. A pop-up in the style of the Supercarrier lights would be pretty idea and would certainly compensate not just for the poor tanker lighting but also help offset issues that come from different default head (camera) positions in the cockpit. I know doing such a thing wouldn't be trivial but it really should be at least an option at this point.

I was clarifying my original position because there seemed to be some confusion as to why someone might want access to parts of the map that cover specific bases and such. Obviously this isn't a long-term issue since it has since been clarified that the limited scope of the map is an early access thing and will not reflect the final product (the entirety of Afghanistan). Still. I wanted to answer that specific comment since it missed the point I was making originally. Again. I want to make it very clear that the post that the other user was trying to mischaracterize was made before there was clarification of what would be early access and what would be in the final product. It would perhaps have been a good idea to include something to the effect of "After early access, the map will be expanded to encompass the whole of Afghanistan". I am not going out of my way to find negativity here. I just politely wanted to give my opinion and when another user decided to characterize that opinion as something else, I clarified.

The Persian Gulf map is set up in such a way that one can (with some minor bending of reality) create Coalition/NATO focused missions based off either an appropriately placed carrier or an airbase that such forces could actually work out of. The early access portion of the Afghanistan map allows for neither and is more suited for helicopter operations as a result. There is a specific subset of DCS players that won't care either way but considering the realism that Eagle Dynamics is going for with the modules, it makes sense to also want maps that allow those modules to operate in at least mostly realistic contexts. Both Syria and the Persian Gulf maps are very well designed in this regard. They allow for quite a bit of versatility when it comes to realistic mission design. In contrast. The early access portion of the Afghanistan map will be similar to the Caucasus map in that it is basically impossible to make even a semi-convincing/plausible mission that isn't entirely devoted to either helicopters, Russian made aircraft, or perhaps L-39s.

At the risk of sounding overly critical. Is there any long term plan to expand out to Bagram? At the moment, the map doesn't really offer much in regards to GWOT era aviation and since ED has put so much effort into airplanes like the Hornet and F-16, it seems odd not to give at least one of them a viable staging area. This is especially the case when you consider the historic weight that Afghanistan has when it comes to modern combat aviation. Without a viable spot for a carrier or Bagram airbase. There isn't really any room for even semi-authentic GWOT combat flights in anything but perhaps helicopters. It is going to be tough not to think about that when it comes time to pre-order.