Marko321

+1 But if all goes well i will support other projects. I can understand the guys who are getting inpatient but what's the point In releasing something if its not finished or buggy but the guys do need to Post more screen shots

Probably been asked for in this thread already, To lazy to check all the posts But a MI-24 would float my boat. Watched a good documentary about same yesterday, what a machine I am a armour guy but I could be drawn to the dark side, be a fly boy. LoL If this Machine ever became a DCS module

Tech Help Hi I have DCS Combined arms and I am trying to unzip it in to my DCS steam Account address. but I cant find the correct path/address to unzip it in to I use windows 7.

Try Sending a PM to a guy called Magnum.(on sim HQ) He used to be a member of the Sim HQ team, he mite give you the contact Names you need. Best of luck with you game.

That's true And the reason I have never played free to play games there no such thing As a free lunch.

Kudos on your work. Try posting some footage over at Sim HQ

http://aw.my.com/#media Promo video http://www.polygon.com/2014/3/20/5528438/obsidian-entertainment-unveils-tank-centric-tactical-military-mmo

I for one really hope your comments a correct. Yes the team seen to be taking there sweet time Better that then release a buggy unfinished product.

+1 I agree with what most of your comments If its DCS intention to create a more realistic tank Simulation. (Kudos) There is defiantly room in the market for one. I don't know how many times I have lorded praise on DCS for the whole Modular approach to anybody interested in the Subject of Military Simulations. But CA was so poor compered to your other modules Yes it was a beta release and yes you guys told the community it was not a Realistic simulation. And was a work in progress the vehicle models the Sounds the AI behaviour was way below the high standards DCS had a Reputation for. I find it strange you guys have created such a realistic . Air war environment. but a totally unrealistic ground warfare environment. My final point what's the point in creating a few highly detailed models if the other vehicle are not up to scratch if it is your intention to slowly introduce Better Tanks with realistic behaviour I for one will stick with it, Its taken years for SB to get where it is and I have been with it all the way from SB gold. if you do not intend to go the distance with CA and just Introduce Minor improvements fine just tell you customers what your plan is.

I still believe multi format is the way to go Put simply it will generate more cash. DCS is already Excellent in scalability so a arcade type version should not Be a problem to them. same world same equipment just dumbed down flight Controls. As players progress its up to them if they want more realism and switchability I suspect many would. I have been watching recent events. WOT have released a Xbox 360 version And by all accounts its doing well. Although they should have made a Xbox One version. I don't know for sure, but I bet the Xbox 1 and PS4 would run DCS

Ah reminds me of some heated exchanges I have had via email. In my last job.:lol: Got I miss that .LoL

I think this guy has nailed it on the head. I think there are a couple of reasons for this demise. But the single biggest reason is that we consumers got VERY greedy. In the mid-90's, if it had the right number of engines, and you could use flaps to land, it was accepted as "realistic". Today people try finding flight envelope charts to compare them...and promptly dismiss the entire product if it diverges from that chart. And if it uses less than 3000 poly's, or the cockpit is for an A model and not the C model in exterior view, its branded "garbage". Today high rez textures are expected for every visible item...labor intensive for artists to create. Back then 16 color textures....or even no textures at all, just a single color value for an entire wing. In the 90's, making games realistic was impressive to everyone. Today many "gamers" look at the complex switchology of a detailed flight sim... and get turned off at the prospect of punching buttons for an hour before getting airborne, before searching for enemy jets to shoot at. To most "gamers" its too much like school AND work... right when they are wanting an escape from both. In the 90's a campaign was a bonus. A dynamic campaign was amazing. And developers might come up with new features. Today...we are criticizing everything about it, regardless of what's offered. And there are no new features to add...but all features MUST be included. In the 90's we paid full retail price . By 2000 most sims could be bought in bargain bins for $10. And now its all steam sales. Which gives better revenue for the developer? Back then a programmer and a few buddies could hammer out a complete sim from the garage, funded by working part time at Subway, or off the last hit. Today a tier 1 title requires financing of perhaps a million or much more, to support the payroll of so many employees, contractors and subcontractors and purchases from music/sound/object libraries. Back then, every simulator was new...a new plane to fly, a new tank to drive. Today World of Tanks has hundreds of types and variants...and its free. And nearly all the planes have been flown by enthusiasts many times. Online and in campaigns. And back then, there was no "retro gaming" for milsims. Today, retro sims get makeovers upgrades and such from mods. How does a new company compete with an old product costing a dollar, that keeps being tweeked and modified to perfection? There are many reasons for the stunted growth of mil sims. But part of it is that we are now more demanding than the creators are able to match, on increasingly larger budgets? Personally, I would dearly love to see either a sequel or serious upgrade to DID's EF2000 2.0... one with brand new textures. But that's much more likely from mods by fans than from a company. Could any of this change in the future? Yea. It could: - reduce our expectations of absolute perfection - reduce our expectations of having every single feature - creation of new ways to make high resolution textures faster more efficiently - creation of vehicle, terrain, object, sound, and music libraries that have "entry level" pricing options. A sim that sells 40,000 units needs to pay less to purchase what it needs, than an Xbox game with a budget of 80mil and expected sales of a billion dollars in two days. Since a small sim maker can't predict its sales success, the library fees should be on a sliding scale based on sales success, just like a movie star sometimes makes a percentage of ticket sales. The libraries could be filled with objects terrain and content made by simulation enthusiasts, some of whom currently make mods. The core idea is make sims with modular components that a developer can quickly plug this or that into, on a modest budget that matches the size of the market for milsims. Similar to how so many addons for Microsoft FlightSim are available, both freeware and payware. And be more willing to accept minor imperfections that really don't have a deep impact on playing enjoyment. We've taken the notion of "voting with your wallet" to the point of nearly killing the market. Alternatively...we could use the MS Flightsim community as a model to seriously empower the mod makers, extending the life of existing sim classics well beyond the original product. But we as a community of sim enthusiasts need to do SOMETHING. Or it'll just slowly whither.

Quantity for one. Back when I first started buying Games/sims the variety was fantastic. Its a fair point some have stated by todays standards they would be considered arcade like and probably did not take as long to develop as a DCS model. Although I am a fan of DCS. Variety is the consumers friend. If the competition is fierce they have to up there game so to speak. May be I am being a bit nostalgic for the heyday of the military sim Which in my opinion was the early ninety's.

To end on a positive note, I don't think the sim market is dying or anything like that. If anything, it's slowly growing. But we have to accept it's still a small niche. In the long run it may get a little bigger or a little smaller, I don't believe we'll ever reach the FPS level of millions of players and a hit game coming out every other month, but I don't think it'll disappear either. Not as long as crazy addicts like us exist ;). You may find this interesting if not a little controversial The guy who posted is heavily involved in military sims. I am not in the flight sim business and I don't know the numbers with which the other developers are working, but just to make it clear: When I wrote "pay more" I wasn't thinking of $100 over the current $60. More like $300...400 a year on a single title (WoW makes about $150.- per player and year, and given that it has infinitely more players than a flight sim will ever have I'm applying a factor >2 here just to throw a specific number into the discussion). I think that if we're seriously talking about figures in that range, most will gasp in horror and tell me that I've lost my mind. But really, my gut feeling tells me that this is the kind of revenue that a flight sim title probably HAS to generate per customer in order to be a long-term sustainable business for a team of at least five full-time programmers and a similar number of artists and some dedicated quality assurance people - given that the market is stagnant or shrinking. A second-order problem is that for $300.- a year, people will have much higher expectations. They will invariably compare it to the number of new quests that you get in a year of playing WoW for half the price, and even if that's an apple vs. oranges type of comparison, I don't think that a flight sim could win that argument. Some of you may still remember me as the bad guy who pushed for the then-insane price of $125.- for Steel Beasts in 2006 ... which has dropped some since then (yes, we're experimenting a bit to see the sales response to price variations), and it still seems to me that this is often seen as the upper acceptable limit (or evidently beyond for most). But cutting the profit margin in half means that you need to gain more than twice as many customers as you previously had to make up for a price cut. Conversely, if you double your profit margin and lose less than half your customers you still have a net gain. That's plain mathematics, not some evil plot to rob you of more hard-earned cash. As some already mentioned, for flight simmers it isn't unusual to spend A LOT on hardware - HOTAS, the latest graphics cards, surround sound systems, multi-monitor setups, TrackIR, in some insane cases even full cockpit mockups and all. Yet the notion of paying more for software has everybody up in arms in less than a second. Which I can fully understand, mind you... I'm just ALSO seeing the other end of the equation, and with the eyes of a business manager. Even if you would think of paying $500.- a year for a flight sim subscription, it'd still be dirt cheap in comparison to the partial ownership of a Cessna with the necessary regular flight hours to keep your license, and you'd never get your hands on a fully bombed up warbird to blast baddies on the ground, or out of the sky, no matter what your disposable cash is. Simulations are about as close to the real experience as 99.99997% of all people will ever get (which is pretty amazing, if you think of it) yet we instinctively cling to an arbitrary $60.- price threshold. In conclusion, there's a bit of a mismatch here. I don't think that we'll ever see a substantial number of flight sim players spending half a grand every year. As a consequence, fewer and fewer developers will stick around, and those that remain will probably run the show as hobbyists because they have a day job somewhere else to bring in the cash that is needed to take care of life's basic necessities. I can't speak for other developers, I just know that SB Pro PE would need to cost about ten times as much if it had to finance the current team of eSim Games, and one would have to be a pretty insane tank freak to be willing to pay that much for a computer game. I'm pretty callous in price negotiations and defending unpopular decisions in public, but even I would be ashamed to ask for more than a thousand bucks for a single SB Pro PE license (even knowing that there are lawyers who charge that by the hour).

When I got my first computer. The variety of military sims was fantastic nearly every major military platform was simulated Tanks helicopters Planes ships. Ok the graphics by todays standard would be laughable but the game play missions manuals were Mostly to a pretty high standard There was a good cache of developers (most noteworthy was micropose) Then year by year there were fewer and fewer new military sim titles released with the exception of games like Delta force Ghost recon although I don't think you could class them as military sims. Was it the introduction of game consoles. I think the fall of communism played a part. Peoples around the world lived with the Possibility of a world war Till communism collapsed, But the world has seen more conflict since it fell. so who knows. There are still some decent company's out there but they a few in number. DCS and Esim Are about the only two that stand out. But I for one. Miss the variety Military sim fans use to have back in there heyday. BRING BACK MICROPOSE.LoL . Started this thread on sim hq Some very interesting comments And some insights from people in a position to make a difference. http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3911016/What_has_happend_to_the_milita#Post3911016

What an opportunity For a third party developer to make some quality armour modules Tiger Tank. T-34 /85. Sherman. It would certainly make DCS WW2 The ultimate WW2 simulation.

Agreed they have been honest about CA limitations But many of us hope that in time they will but as much effort in to CA As the do there plane/Helicopter modules. one option would be to create Nation packs like US/UK/RU. That way they could justify the expense Of making the vehicles with more accuracy . Better sounds more accurate fire control systems etc. I for one would have no problem paying forty euro/dollars for such a pack.

Personally I really hope CA can one day be a real alternative to SB At the moment its not. Its taken years and tens of thousands to get SB where it is today. the armour sim market is a small niche market in comparison to the Fighter sim market. So I don't see it happing.

Really enjoyed it

There is no doubt a high end PC will beat the PS4 and Xbox. Hands down every time. But compare the price of a high end PC To an Xbox or PS4.my guess is by this time next year net gen consoles will Be under 400 dollars/euro. I know a few people who spent many thousands On high end a pc just to run the latest memory and graphically hungry PC game. Fair enough if you have the funds. But there's a lot of people who Havant. Weather or not a hard-core sim like DCS would be popular with The console gamers. I have no idea but DCS are innovators and have led the way with there module approach.So who knows

I would have to disagree with you. console gamers cover a very wide spectrum. Although I am a dedicated PC Gamer I stated gaming on a saga mega drive. And even had a fighter sim called mig-29 that was over twenty years ago I think if a product is entertaining enough it should have no problem being a multi platform product, And IMO DCS is. There seems to be a bit of elitism within the PC simulation community when it comes to multi platform games. If the market is there exploit it in the long run the extra revenue generated Would only benefit the simulation.

I know very little about the tech specs, but I downloaded Forza 5 It was a 30 Gig download and looks amazing. If the voice command system on the Xbox1 was good enough think of the possibilities (Firefox) LoL I also read an article saying Microsoft are considering supporting a keyboard and mouse.

The Xbox does come with the connect system It seems pretty good at tracking. Not sure if it would be good enough for DCS though I don't use the Xbox1 I bought it for my Kids.

I Wonder has the DCS development team considered. Bringing DCS world to the next gen console market IE Xbox1 PS4. I recently read an article about Steam releasing a console in the near future. Also War thunder is coming to the PS4.So why not DCS world if the market Is there.

I agree with your comments. The whole concept of using modules is an excellent one. (kudus DCS) But Combined Arms does not do this approach any favours Its fun. And in fairness to the developers they have stated its a work in progress. But you could not call CA a ground warfare simulation. There is only one simulation on the market that you could say is.