statrekmike

I also appreciate the more frequent updates, more news on upcoming projects is never unwelcome and it is always good to know where one stands.

While this thread has gotten very big, I don't think anyone here who had concerns (including myself) really wanted to give the impression that we want it our way or else, in fact, I think this thread was actually very civil and often times rather diplomatic (aside from a couple of stumbles but only a few). I noticed that after Matt Wagner posted his reply to the controversy, all of those who complained about the "negativity" of this thread immediately used that post as a rallying call to further marginalize the opinions and concerns posted by those who wanted to share their feelings as customers. We don't think we should be shareholders or anything, we just wanted to voice our feelings about the rapidly changing landscape of DCS world and how it relates to our ever present fear that our already small numbers (those who like study sims over survey sims) are simply not ever going to be a loud enough voice to matter. I am going to speak for myself here but I think that many will agree, the DCS series is literally the only place that a combat study sim fan can go to for new content, ED is literally holding the entire future of the modern combat sim genre in it's hands alone and that means that all of our eyes are on them. Before I go on, I am going to get something out of the way, I don't think many on this thread ever thought that ED was just going to stop building study sims, I know I didn't. Nobody here thinks that ED is lying to us and nobody here thinks that ED owes us something outside of what they have already talked about releasing but it seems that some on this thread wanted to make it a "us vs them" fight and that helps nobody. We like the more frequent news updates and we are not being so "negative" that they should reasonably stop, in fact, as I have said before, this thread was actually rather reasonable and never really got to the point where anyone was acting childish or anything, I read every page and just saw two camps kinda debate for awhile in a somewhat subdued way. So, in closing, telling me as a loyal, paying customer that I am somehow overstepping my bounds when I voice a reasonable (and carefully worded) set of concerns (as did several others here) about the future of DCS level study sims is not really productive at all, it is only made worse when some feel the need to "win" the argument and marginalize those who don't agree after the fire dies down. I will continue to support ED, they are the only ones who are actually doing the type of sim I actually like and thus I will support them until they stop doing so, I however don't think I am obligated to blindly support them on every project in hopes that I will eventually get the one that was announced that I am waiting for. IF this is offensive to anyone, I am sorry, I tried to word it carefully as to not sound adversarial, I am simply trying to put some things into perspective here.

When he talks about years without a good study sim, he is talking about before ED came on the scene, I mean, he is right, we have not seen a really solid study sim since about 1999 with the release of Jane's F/A-18, between that and ED's first DCS offering (Black Shark 1) was mostly just IL-2 and Lock-on. Also, I think you are taking his post to personally, you are making it sound like he is insulting ED when he is not, he is simply trying to convey how some of us feel (including myself) in a way that is not at all offensive or rude. I don't think anyone here is just bellyaching because we feel that ED owes us something, we just feel let down due to a lack of actual communication (yes, before you say it, I am aware that we are _now_ getting better weekly communication but it was mostly guesswork before and we still don't really have a clear idea of what to expect, this is made worse when incorrect information (like the DCS being put in front of the F-15C and the Su-27 in the May 3rd post) is relayed. We are all going to have our opinions of this, it seems we have broken into two camps for no real reason, nobody is saying that ED sucks or is lying or whatever, we just feel let down and some of us are also concerned at the current way things are going, at this stage there is no telling just how far along they are in some of the projects they keep talking about and it would be nice to know even a little bit at this point.

This is hardly a flame war, I am sorry but this is nothing compared to what you would see in other forums. What we see here is genuine disappointment due to lack of clarification early on, this could have been avoided if ED had told us what to expect much earlier. Also, many DCS fans just found out that they are going to be waiting a lot longer than they might have thought for the official DCS fast mover and that is enough to make anyone a bit cranky. If you want to see flame wars, go to the Rise of flight forums right before they released the weapon modifications, perhaps you could swing by the 1C forums (otherwise known as the Banana forums) after they announced that 777 was going to make the next IL-2, that was nothing but a cesspool of anger and name calling of the likes that I have never seen.

I appreciate your response but I will say that the onus is not on me to buy multiple copies of the same product to "show support", I understand that not as many bought the DCS level stuff but perhaps that was more to do with a lack of marketing than because of complexity of the product scaring players away. When I said that ED was slow to bite down on that rumor, I was referring to the fact that they have only just now told us that the aircraft they have talked about in interviews a month or more ago are not actually going to be DCS level aircraft but what else are we supposed to assume when these very same aircraft are in FC3. I don't want ED to stop what they are doing, I only hope that they can write up a detailed roadmap that lays out all the products (and what level of fidelity they will have) that they are planning to make and if they are or are not in production yet, this will allow us to know what to expect without giving us release dates to agonize over and prevent sad surprises like the one we just had where a lot of folks were really looking forward to these aircraft getting the full DCS treatment and now they are not (at least not in the near future, perhaps a few years from now). All I am really saying is that they need to give us something to hope for and right now the Hornet is a long way away it seems (it could even be two or three years away) and perhaps so far away that many players won't really feel the need to wait for it. Again, not trying to be all doom and gloom, I will continue to support any DCS level effort by ED without hesitation but I hope I don't need to wait more than two years to see the Hornet (though the MiG does look really nice and I will be buying that on release).

I don't think one can just casually brush this under the rug and call it elitism, there is much more to it than you seem to be taking into account. (please note, I am not trying to be mean or have a internet fight or anything, this is just something I have been interested in a great deal as of late). Lets face it, hard core flight simming as a genre is not getting much bigger, ED is the only company right now that is actually making a fully featured combat flight sim for a consumer market and that leaves very little choice for the audience that is now used to a smaller and smaller market footprint. To put it bluntly, if ED does not make a study sim than who will? I mean, sure we have BMS to fall back on but it is dated and lacks the convincing feel of a polished DCS product, you have Tacpack for FSX but that still does not solve FSX's shortcomings as a platform for a combat sim so as of right now, ED is the only channel on TV for many flight simmers. Imagine how you would feel if that company started spending more and more time on less complex experiences, what started with FC3 is now moving into the F-15 and Su-27 lite modules and Matt Wagner himself pretty much indicated that the hardcore simmers don't have a lot of a vote here, hearing that kind of thing hurts when you are trying to support a company so it can keep making product that no other company is willing to invest in. Now, we can go all day long about the market share issue, the fact that ED has to make money and all of that, I agree, ED needs to make mid level products that will bring in users but it also needs to be aware that many buy those products to support ED so that they will continue to make the DCS level sims we love. To be honest, I am unsure of the future of DCS level sims at this stage, at least those coming from ED (where if you had asked me yesterday, I would have said the exact opposite), it seems (to me and clearly others here) that ED is not really giving us a clear picture of what is going on, I am not talking about release dates or anything, I am talking about a basic information that we need to make informed buying choices. For example, in some online interviews Matt Wagner indicated that they were working on a selection of aircraft, later on May 3rd, he again talked about development of the F-15C and the Su-27, now, before you say "he never said DCS level", yes, you are right but we also already know that FC3 includes those aircraft, one would have no choice but to assume that he meant honest to goodness DCS level aircraft as a result. So, instead of biting that rumor in the tail right off, they instead hit us with this now and while they assure us that they will eventually work on DCS level versions, it is probably not something that it actually happening any time soon. Instead of three DCS level modern aircraft to look forward to, we now only have one and that one is clearly a long way off, so long in fact that it's release is not certain. So, it is a bad time to be into DCS level aircraft it seems, I will use the analogy that I used before when I say that being into DCS level aircraft is not unlike being living in the state of Vermont during voting times, you have three electoral votes for your state while a state like California (FC3 audience) has 55 electoral votes, in the end, you can't help but feel a little helpless as a result. We are willing to wait but we need to know what we are waiting for, this kind of news casts doubt on ED's stated commitment (as seen in the BS manual) to detailed combat simulators as a primary focus. As I said before, I will support any DCS level endeavor that comes out but I am starting to wonder if we will ever actually see a DCS fast mover at this point.

Here is what I do. 1.) Start the aircraft normally and ensure the prop/RPM lever is all the way forward. 2.) Taxi to runway. 3.) Pull the prop/RPM lever back a bit, just a little bit though. 4.) While holding the brakes, bring your manifold pressure up (SLOWLY) to about 40 on the gauge and release the brake when ready. 6.) Right after take-off, bring your prop/RPM lever back enough so that the RPM needle is in the green and make sure your manifold pressure is at about 40 to 45. You should have no trouble with those settings, don't EVER push the throttle all the way forward during takeoff or cruise, it will seize your engine.

I don't really mind paying for upgrades but he cost has to reflect that it is indeed a upgrade and not a whole new product. In other words, I would be willing to pay maybe $30 for the base module of each aircraft but ONLY if that means that they are in fact going to expand those modules bit by bit and in a timely manner, finally, I don't want each "upgrade" to cost another $30 or more and even more so, I don't want to keep paying for the same content over and over again. In short, I want to really know where we stand at this stage, I want to know what they are working on and what is just being planned in the long term because we really don't know at this stage and since we are clearly going to be waiting even longer for a fast mover of DCS quality, it would be nice to know if it has even been started yet or if we are looking at a five or more year dev cycle for it.

This leaves me feeling very sad, I mean, I can't be the only one that interpreted Wag's May 3rd post as saying that they are indeed working on a DCS level F-15 and Su-27, now we find out that he really meant that we are just going to get FC3 level aircraft with a FM upgrade, that kinda feels like something that should have been made clear from the get go. I agree with many on this thread that feel that the money they spent on FC3 was taken the wrong way, that ED saw those numbers and assumed that not enough people want a DCS level sim, I don't think that is the case at all, in fact, I can't really understand why we even need multiple product lines when the DCS level aircraft have realism options that one can tailor to their needs. A lot of us are here because ED did something really amazing with it's DCS line of sims, it seemed like ED was the last bastion of combat flight simulation and that they were going to dedicate themselves to keeping this genre alive for those that enjoy it, I understand that business is business but how many steps back are we going to take? how long are we going to have to wait for the F/A-18? and furthermore, how long do you think your DCS level fanbase is willing to wait for another DCS level aircraft? To put it another way, we need more information and we need it soon, the DCS level players here need to know how far along they really are on the F/A-18 so we can get a feeling for just how long this wait is going to be, many DCS level players I know are already moving back into BMS territory until we finally get a DCS level fast mover and I myself have had thoughts of joining them, now more than ever. I know that it is a ton of work to make a DCS level sim, I understand that but we need a solid (and somewhat set in stone) roadmap so that everyone knows where they stand because as it looks right now, all the DCS fans are getting told that they don't matter as much as the FC crowd, clearly we just don't have as many votes in the electoral college of simulations due to sales volume. I am glad the MiG-21 is coming out and I hope more 3rd parties come in and push hard for DCS level stuff because it is getting rather unclear when and if we are even going to see a DCS level fast mover at this rate. Sorry for being negative, I am not saying that I won't support ED but I am going to be very careful where my money goes as to not give the wrong impression.

I don't know if anyone in this thread has a problem with them, I mean, at least I have not really seen any negativity in here about them (though I am one of those who won't buy anything less than full DCS level for DCS world because I find the FC stuff kinda stale in comparison). Eagle Dynamics seems to be putting a lot of it's efforts into it's DCS level simulations and honestly that is good because we know they will do really good work, 3rd party stuff is always somewhat of a risk so I think they are best to tackle the mid-level and FC level stuff (some of the planned 3rd party modules are going to have to be FC level because of classified material anyway). I the end, I do kinda wish ED would make a official move to DCS level products only but that is more of a personal taste than anything.

This looks like a nice change list but I was really hoping to see something about the major FPS issues with smoke, P-51 gunfire smoke FPS hits and finally the CBU FPS hit. These are things that are essential parts of the sim and we need them fixed more than we need some other things, perhaps even rolling back to previous effects that were less likely to cause problems. I know bugs are part of the software development process but issues like the CBU FPS hit have been around long enough that they should have been fixed months ago, hopefully the smoke issue (not just aircraft smoke) and the P-51 gun smoke issue are not allowed to linger as long.

Bioshock infinite deals with a much smaller scale world at any given time and that world, in addition to that, it is also a far less detailed world, everything in DCS World is pretty complex and even the simple firing of a rocket or bomb can lead to some very complex problems for the CPU to chew on. The fact that Bioshock runs on a console should make things pretty clear to you.

I have to say, if they want to pick up the IL-2 community that was let down by CloD then they need to do a lot better than a F2P MMO. I mean, why would I bother with War thunder if I have IL-2 1946? I don't need to grind, I get realistic missions, I don't need to worry about other players who only want to gain XP and not really pay attention to mission goals and I don't need to invest anything beyond the purchase price of the product to get all the features held within it. The same goes for any other sim in my collection, I don't need to worry about getting enough EXP to keep flying my A-10C, I don't need to worry about paying for the damage on my Ka-50, the whole F2P MMO thing just does not jive well with me after enjoying full games for so long. I know I am probably a bit more fired up than I probably should be, I mean, it is not like War thunder is any threat to the sims I already play and enjoy but I can't help but feel like it is a bit of a rip-off both in terms of time and money. The worst part for me is the fact that I have more than a few friends who play War thunder, before it hit beta I had them all get into Rise of flight as a way to try to get at least some of them into the simulation genre (it is probably the easiest to learn on a technical level) and everything was looking good, now that War Thunder is out, they have all dropped it in favor of the arcade mode, whenever I ask if they want to play ROF I get "I can't be bothered to learn that when I can just play WT", I know it is selfish but it still kinda sucks. Honestly, I worry that WT will steal away a lot of players who might have otherwise given IL-2 (perhaps even the upcoming IL-2 Battle for Stalingrad) a try just because it is easy and does not challenge the player to learn anything beyond the normal FPS skills they already have. I am rambling, I know, I just can't help but be a little bitter in the end.

I always found hyperlobby to be clumsy, if they could do something like it without complicating the normal online server browser (like we have now), I can't say I would complain but I don't know how much I would end up using it.

How does one go about rolling back to a prior version?

I just got it myself and I found that the best way to do it was to go on a test flight, bomb some trucks and shoot a air target, that will give you a pretty good idea of what controls you need on the stick and what you should just leave to cockpit clicking. For my X-52 I have the trim on the stick hats (as I do for IL-2) where the bottom hat handles ailerons and elevator and the upper one handles the rudder. I have the lower toggle switches for gear, flaps and future additions that i Have not decided on yet. The throttle slider controls the RPM/Prop, the top rotary (in conjunction with the pinky switch) controls the view zoom and the lower rotary is for the gunsight range. The "D" button controls the brakes and the left and right on the throttle hat switch controls the right and left wheel brakes. I am still kinda working on it, I mean, I have everything I need right now and I don't want to add too much or else it won't feel right (the pilot did not have the HOTAS that we do so I want a lot of the controls to be click with mouse and not on the stick or throttle).

Here is the mission, I hope it posts it okay. Operation retrieve.miz

So, I am not super awesome with the editor but I have been slowly learning on my own, anyways, I built a mission where there are several groups that spawn after specific triggers are met, that all happens as planned but I have found a bit of a snag. Okay, so I have a group of friendly units (MBT's and IFV's) that go to the enemy depot once you have secured it, the idea is that you are to help them kill two groups of enemy vehicles that spawn once that friendly group gets into it's final waypoint, the problem is that they don't attack the enemy groups, they just sit there and allow themselves to get killed by the AI enemies. I tried to set them to attack those enemy groups but it does not let me designate a target for them in the advanced waypoints options at all, is this because the enemies spawned after the friendly unit spawned? can they not attack a unit that spawns after they do?

Wow, that is some really cool stuff! Any chance of a basic diagram that would highlight the basic attack angles as they relate specifically to DCS World? I mean, nothing crazy, just some basic stuff to keep in mind for the best possible results with the gun. Thanks for what you have given thus far, really interesting stuff!

That is true, I suppose I have 1.2.1 to tide me and my buddies over until we can go back to the versions with newer features.

I understand your point of view but I still think that one should be extremely careful how one phrases things when it comes to such a important release. I think everyone here is taking offense and being defensive for no real reason here, I am not saying that I don't want updates, I am not saying that we should not be kept informed, all I am saying is that the news we do get is usually worded in such a way that it is not hard to think "oh, okay, they are about to get this out" instead of just telling us what problems are fixed, what is being addressed and what results they have gotten thus far. In your above examples it is EXTREMELY easy to think that they are on the verge of releasing, they mention installers (which means to the layman that the patch itself is done, it might not be correct but that is the impression I got, perhaps I am simply a idiot) and they even give us a date to expect it. Please keep in mind, I am not saying this out of anger or just trying to bellyache for the heck of it, please keep in mind that many can't really do online play with the current version (at least not without playing largely gutted missions) and that makes this patch rather important, many are really anxious for it to be released. Thus, it is important to make sure that (as someone above put very well) you manage the expectations of your customers carefully. I am sorry you don't agree but that is how I feel as a customer.

What is your problem? seriously? All I am saying is that they should probably not give a strong impression that we are about to get a release and then delay it yet again, I mean, if you know 100% that it is about to come out than that is the time to say that it is about to get released, if you don't, just talk about what is going on and keep us informed. I don't know where you get that I don't want updates at all, I just think they should be mindful of the impression they give in the updates.

I don't think it is on his end, I tried very hard to get 1.2.2 to work for me, my buddy and I made simple missions and we still had random crashes 100% of the missions we ran, I just recently tried to join a 1.2.2 server and got kicked kicked to desktop both times (one on joining the server and one after getting my aircraft started). This is why I am sticking with 1.2.1 until 1.2.3 comes out, it is difficult because I can really only play online with others who still have 1.2.1 installed.

This is pretty simple, I don't know why everyone is twisting my words. If you are at a point when you are actually going to release, then tell us, until then, just tell us about the progress. It really is that simple, not sure why everyone keeps putting words in my mouth.

That is actually the only time I want to be told, assuming that it is actually coming. ;)