MiG21bisFishbedL

Only if your project managers reconsider their outlook, honestly. Because, as it stands, the vast majority of the user base probably wants just a few core developments and actual fixes paid to their products.

It's hard to buy that they have the best picture when certain minor fixes take literal years to get published. Sure, it's great we're getting fixes and updates, but that doesn't excuse the situation a lot of modules are in. Again, I'm abstaining from ED's piston offerings as a result of this prioritization. I feel like my interest and purchase are always going to be secondary with those.

You assume that this money will go back into sims. It doesn't necessarily have to. It might go into other games or even other means of entertainment and fulfillment. My larger point is that DCS' position is a little more tenuous than we'd like to believe.

Insert wistful sigh here.

It's really feeling that way. And, as these issues mount because ED doesn't want to listen? My money will go else where. Simple as, I have no real loyalty to DCS or ED. We really need to be encouraging new players to use free trials with gusto since it's honestly a fantastic program.

Eventually, they do. But, some things? Some things are just hand waved. And yes, there will always be negative feedback, there's no avoiding that. But, there really would be less. Some things ED has done defy logic. They've been provided with hard proof of certain things and still refuse to make the needed changes. DCS really, really needs to start shaping up in some very specific ways and, frankly, waiting for complete customer aggravation isn't the way to go about it. We've asked for improved AI flight models and behavior to better reflect their performance. We've gotten that, but certain aircraft aren't affected by it and they refuse to do anything about it. We've asked simple fixes that have taken literal years to get to us. We can hear this same song and dance about how ED believes its priorities are in order when, frankly, they really aren't. The customer base is asking for ED to actually step back and do some housekeeping. We're all eager for the Fulcrum, we're all stoked for updates to the Viper and Hornet, we love the Hind, we love the Apache, but more than anything? We'd like the sandbox we use these toys in to feel like a game of the mid 2020s and not an updated LOMAC. With times being tough and, frankly, set to get tougher, we're going to be demanding value out of our entertainment. It's no longer a question of "Well, what other modern combat sims ARE there with this variety, really?" and more "What other things can I do that are more fulfilling given my reduced fun stuff spending?" ED can choose to ignore this, of course, but it'll be to their detriment.

They are a fair price point, but that's just the initial purchase. I don't need to tell you that improvements happen iteratively here, for better and for worse. That's how it is, it's a model that might be necessary, so I'm not going to argue against its employment since that's utterly pointless. But, there are issues with trust in the company in regards to those modules. Now, if I buy the Hornet, I know that updates with that are forthcoming. But, if I buy the MiG-21bis? Not so much, Mag3 is swamped as it stands. If I buy the F-86, there's no real indication that we're getting assets etc. to really fit them into any scenario outside of obscure, reserve units. And, those fixes have been a very long time coming, as long as a decade for some. We've had them acknowledge, but no one was willing to make the fairly rudimentary changes? This is what we're trying to say, really. Sure, these offerings are less than the more updated, newer modules, but it seems that extra $20-$30 gets them attention. And, there's nothing to indicate to customers that this is the case unless you read these forums. If you've done that, you've probably already parted with money. Deal with it, at that point, I guess? This is what I mean when I say ED's priorities are not where they need to be. I'm sure they'll tell you that they feel their priorities are correctly arranged, but it should be pretty clear from this thread that the customer base disagrees. This is a lot more damaging to ED's reputation than any kerfuffle with RB. As I mentioned, I've stopped buying WWII modules since I've no assurances of any issues within their code being addressed in a timely manner thanks to my experience with the F-86's issues. I'm not comfortable with parting with my money for products that don't get issues addressed for years. So, ED can make a choice here: Review what it's doing in regards to supporting its software and communicating intentions or find itself increasingly getting recommendations against. The situation with the Sabre's guns were absolutely unacceptable. We cannot let that happen again. We want to maintain DCS' health as a game and to do that? At the very least, decent explanations as to why delays occur or why some high priority fixes have been outright backburned are in order. And sure, it's ED's right to decline to comment on those issues. But it's also the customer's right to tell others to save their money in the event of unsatisfactory service or product.

Honestly, hitting a lot of them points dead on. The reason I haven't touched anymore of the WWII options is because of the state of the F-86 and MiG-15. If those gunfighters are forgotten and still feature objectively incorrect physics, I have no reason to believe ED will address anything further in the WWII fighters. They put a bandaid on the F-86's guns and that's about it. It's been a literal DECADE for that. It's been unacceptable. So, where is my incentive to buy the Mosquito? So, yeah, not parting with money for that. We're told that ED is doing fine behind the scenes, I believe that, so I'm at a loss as to why they don't review their priorities and address them. And yes, we got an newsletter about core changes. Not enough to give us lip service, though. I think most people want to see actual, quantifiable changes made to the core game in 2025.

Now, their damage modeling needs to look like crumpled paper and it'll be perfect!

In ArmA 3, servers will prompt you. It won't automatically do it. And that still doesn't negate the fact that it's annoying to download several gigs of crap you won't otherwise use because the mook running the server wants one tiny item in a massive pack. Also, there's no hyper complex methods here. You drag, you drop, and servers will tell you what mods are required. If you can't figure that out, I'm genuinely sorry. This will not benefit DCS in any way, shape, or form. It could even worsen it as enthusiast crafted mods now just enter into the software and further cause instability. Something DCS definitely doesn't need help with. Especially, considering, that DCS' backend and core features are the chief complaint for so many people, myself included. Modders should be appreciated for their enthusiasm and will to make neat things, but they are far from saviors. Keep banging that gavel, by all means, and just say "You don't have to use it" but at the same time, that would include a great many people. Especially people who do not have the best internet. DCS runs pretty well on crappy networks, in my experience, so this would be a fantastic barrier to entry for people who aren't fortunate like myself. So, why should ED put in the time and effort into making this happen when they have so many more glaring issues they need to address?

Some of them look like they could have come out of Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis and that is not meant to be complimentary.

Yeah, holy hell, no thanks. Besides, it's not exactly hard to do it on your own. The most annoying thing about MP in Half-Life games was bloated admin mods of 400-500mb of garbage soundclips. The last thing we NEED is that equivalent here in DCS, but with 3-4gb files. Also, ArmA doesn't make you automatically download mods. You can share a modlist, but not auto-download mods. At least in 3, dunno about Reforger or DayZ. At anyrate, you're dropping files into mod folders made ready by the devs, that is not a great difficulty.

And it only took 4 years! Fast lane!

And for a technology that has told us to put glue on pizza, recommended that pregnant women smoke, and that Geologists recommend we eat 1 small rock per day, that $30 billion is paying for itself.

I get that, but I'm not sure their view on the bigger picture is beyond improvement. Surely, they must take in feedback from the community and its desires. After all, you guys busted your backsides to get the resources to make a MiG-29, something LONG desired. It might be time for another review of trajectory and see that core items are worthy of being bumped up in priority.

That's all fine and good, but you should really tell the over all team that the customer base would like a re-arrangement of priorities. Get some of that back-end support stuff moved forward. MT was a great start, good job. Now, just more of that, you know? That's the general attitude, at least what I can glib as an individual.

I'm legitimately curious as to what you're meaning, I'm sorry if I came off snarky. I am genuinely interested as to what you mean, exactly.

But I want Dairy Queen Hold up a moment, a AAA game player mentality? What do you exactly mean? We're all entitled to a functioning product, legally, but we also need to accept that the amount of work that goes into the detailed simulation we see also requires a premium, but I'm not sure what you mean by AAA game player mentality. Care to elaborate? So, it isn't the doom and gloom that so many gamers love to dramatize at as, but it is there. It's an annoyance in two ways: 1. Everyone gets hyped up for Syria, for example, and gets it. You didn't because, hey, responsibilities. However, if your group is all dead set on playing on Syria, you have to ask if they'll make an exception for you or you just have to sit on the sidelines. For a map. 2. You get super hyped for Sinai, for example, and get it. No one else does. So, you now have to try and convince friends it's worth it, etc. So, it can be VERY annoying and a less exacting divide or restriction would be preferable.

I will look forward to that and hope it's good.

100% this. Cynicism does not make one profound, it just makes one jaded. We're not watching Rome burn, we're nerds playing video games. With HB and other 3rd parties still openly committed to DCS, it's probably not going anywhere for a time. ED needs to sit down and take a look at its priorities, this is not the end of DCS. We've heard this from numerous voices within the player base, both reasonable and outrage baiting. Better communication beyond hoping that 9L and BN can get points across is paramount. Some things, like the legal happenings between ED and RB, we need to accept we won't be privy to even when it's all said and done. So much of this could be ended if ED were to communicate more effectively things like progress with backend developments and engine updates. Something, anything. New content is great, but supporting existing content better would be ideal. After all, the fact it took them 10 years to address the F-86's gun? Unacceptable. ED can and should do better. But, let's not go dashing for the fainting couch, just yet.

Honestly, it worked pretty well for ArmA 2 once upon a time. I imagine it'd be a REAL hard sell to the company, but wow you can't do much worse than the current approach to maps, at least.

Given the stability issues I have encountered alongside my usual group of friends I play this with, I'm still lead to believe that it still need to be a priority.

DCS' ghostly ground crew is wicked quick. And bam, back in the air!

How dare they! I need my SLUF.

More toys for my Phantom would be very welcome.