FlankerKiller

I could rebuttal, you could rebuttal, and we could do this ad nauseum. I'm honestly tired of it. I've never said that there has been no improvements. What I've said is there has been no major change to game play. And there most definitely has not. Flight modeling has for sure improved. I'm honestly tired of this whole wish list idea. Obviously ED doesn't really pay that much attention. The same items have been requested over and over. The same basic features have been desired for littaraly decades. Some of its absolutely stunning. A lot of it still feels half baked. For a sim that is on its thirtieth year of development it definitely dose not feel as polished and complete as it should. But nothing I or anyone else says is going to change that. The Apache is a grate example. Helicopter is amazing right out of the box. But damn it would be cool if I could just tell my wingmen to attack the artillery while go for the tanks. But alas even that simple change has eluded the devs at Egale Dynamics. Maybe it's time I occupy my free time in some other way for awhile. Hope when I come back I'm impressed.

The issues me and others are talking about have not one single thing to do with the depth or quality of the simulation. I'm glad you are satisfied as it is. I also very much enjoy DCS. But I could be much much much better. Maybe I'm a glass half empty type. Or maybe I got fed up with online cheating back in the day and got tired of chasing the AI around in endless vertical loops. And yes after like seven years they finally are working on that. Maybe I've been playing DCS far to long so the glacial pace of advance is frustrating me. Yes the aircraft models are nothing short of awesome. And yes there have been more improvements of late. Maybe it's time for me to try another product for a year or two and then see where things are. Because at this point there really isn't much ED can do other then massively increase the pace of core updates that can really satisfy myself as a customer.

That jet still dose not have a clickable cockpit. While yes they are core components head tracking and VR support where not really a thing back then. As far as graphics go that is just window dressing. But I never said nothing has changed or improved. I would not be posting if that was the case. I also wouldn't be playing DCS. Wishing for better Ai all around, an actual ATC system, at least something on par with what Super Carrier had for land bases. I know I'm probably going to loose more points for comparing DCS to Suoer Carrier. And wanting to see the dynamic weather actually completed is asking for new game. Since you posted the screen shots form the A-10A from LOMAC let me ask you a question. If you were to load up the A-10A in DCS as it stands today would you be truly 17 years ago and give it a go. Other then the graphics would you truly be impressed by the progress of the sim over nearly two decades?

@Callsign112, nailed it. The suggestion that I'm irrelevant came form another user. The logic is ED already has my mony so I'm irrelevant to them. I do sincerely hope this is not a veiw held by ED themselves.

It's been quiet I ride.

Two more weeks. Seriously when it's ready. I personally hate when they give a release date.

Good, honestly you guys pulled off a miracle of modul creation from 2018 till now. If you had told me in late 2017 that in the next fore years you won't have one 4th Gen fighter, you will have four, plus a modern attack helicopter. I would have called you a damn lier right here in public this public forum. So I definitely do not doubt Egale Dynamics ability to shift gears and massively improve the core over the next few years. But we haven't seen those massive improvements yet. You know what you are planning. The rest of us really don't. We will see shortly what direction you decide to go.

I've been a fairly critical member lately. And I myself at least believe that is kinda deserved. But don't get me wrong I absolutely do enjoy what we have already. I've unfortunately come into a ton of free time recently, and have been playing quite a bit of DCS. It is absolutely the best there is in terms of aircraft depth and now days aircraft variety. I can and do Jump in a P-51 and escort bombers over France, and then fly a SEAD mission over Syria in an F-16. I'm critical because certain aspects are so good. If the core of the game can be brought up to the same standard then DCS would truly be without equal. But right now it's kinda unbalanced. The modules are freaking amazing. Even with most of the big ones being in early access that are pretty damn awesome. But the core, the environment they fly and fight in lags behind. I'm simply expressing my desire for that to change.

This is absolutely it. Before 2017 DCS was a mess of a sandbox. The modules were all over the place in time. It was kinda hard to really fly a good immersive campaign. It was mostly ground attack aircraft, and trainers. Or obsolete jets with not much in the way of proper ground units for them. That was definitely the biggest complaint. Then in 2018 there was a burst of new modules. 2018-2019 saw the release of: the F-18, the Gazelle, the F-16, the F-14, the JF-17, the Spitfire, and the FW-190A. I'm sure I'm missing a few but this list is what really jumps out. In 2019 the F-18 really started getting capabilities. And of corse the Jeff could do it all out of the box. In DCS time the whole landscape changed seemingly overnight. Every conceivable tactical mission could be flown and by multiple modules. But then some of us long timers started noticing issues with the base game itself. Now to be fare there has been some definite improvements. I particularly like the sun and moon indicator in the mission editor. And 2018 wasn't all that long ago in DCS time. So maybe more is coming. Now the core complaint of the early years of DCS has been solved. Instead of a far flung sandbox of unrelated modules from unrepresented times, we have a pretty damn good representation of air combat in the early to mid 2000's. But now the main complaint is changing. The core of the game has lagged behind the new modules that have been developed. The ground Ai dose basically the same things it did in 2009. The ATC is exactly the same as 2009, the weather isn't drastically different then it was in 2009, and ships still act like they did in 2009. Maybe there will be a shift in priorities now. But I need to see results before I'm convinced. An issue I'm going to predict now is that more modules aren't needed. While there are modules in the pipeline that I'm almost certainly going to buy, I don't really need them to indulge my hobby. I mostly fly the Hornet, although lately I'm getting into the Viper. With the combo of the Viper, A-10, and Ah-64 I can play any mission I can conceive of. And honestly with the complexity of these modules it's hard to really master multiple airframes. Probably why IRL pilots only fly one jet at a time. I am certain that my purchasing of new modules will slow down now. But what I as a player want is a better game to fly those "new" modules in. It has been pointed out to me that this makes me irrelevant in this market. If that is true that is truly sad. To that end this is what I as a long time player feel need to improve. Aircraft Ai behavior. They should fight like an aircraft would fight. Not just in BFM, but throughout the entire engagement. Also there needs to be better/more diversity in the Ai skills levels. Better Air traffic control, and air base operations. The ATC should be able to tell you what king of approach you will fly, what your holding pattern altitude should be, when to approach and when to hold in heavy traffic. It should be able to support multiple runways. It should be able to support at least straight in approaches, and overhead break approaches. Also there are lots of new airfields and a progressive taxi would be a godsend. Better ground Ai. Not just pathfinding, but actual combat behavior. Moving a limited distance to engage or withdraw. Stopping when faced with overwhelming resistance. Being able to attach to infantry and actually stay in formation with then and support them. Being able to withdraw when faced with overwhelming resistance. Better naval Ai, and over all implantation. The ability to maneuver to attack a target The addition and use of countermeasures. The ability to maneuver to place the most or the working defensive weapons toward the threat. The radar to be a separate and destroyble part of the ship. Like deck guns. Better whether. The new clouds to be implemented in dynamic weather, a humidity model. Honestly that is all on that front. I would like to see the airflow move over things like mountains, and be disturbed by buildings and the like. But I'm pretty sure my prosser would melt if that were to be implemented. Most importantly DCS needs to be able to take advantage of multiple cores. I have not one clue is that is even possible. So that is my ramble, and the core improvements that I would love to see in DCS. Hopefully there will be progress. I've been here sins 2009, I hope to be here in 2035. There is much promised. We will see.

I've been playing this game since 2005. It has the same ATC, the same basic ground and naval Ai behavior, the same basic SAM behavior, the same basic commands for the Ai wingmen. The exception to that last one is the A-10C it's wingman commands are pretty freaking awesome. And honestly vary vary similar wether. I mean I'm patient, but it's been a vary long time.

Sure, the current rate is about one new ship every five years or so.

Because I've been with this for a long time, and I've seen what they've done and what they haven't. It's pretty obvious where there priorities are. And of corse that makes total sense. But the modules have progressed to an awesome level, while the core game has lagged behind. There were some small improvements for 2.0. But it's still vary vary similar to LOMAC at its core. Yes lately there is progress but it's slow. Plus it's simple logic. The proceeds from the module have to cover the cost of the modules development. A process that is now four years in on the F-18, and three in on the F-16. That's alot of time so it can be inferred that it's been alot of work. That work cost money. And that's my point. We have seen frankly stunning progress on modules from Egale Dynamics, and third parties. It can be inferred that I'd because that is where the income lies. The base game is free. There is no income there, and interestingly not much progress ether. So maybe it is time to look into addressing that.

I'm not the OP, and I vehemently disagree with a monthly, or even annual pay to play subscription. But the current pay model priorities module development over core game development. Evidence, even though the Super Carrier proves the game can support an improved ATC system, and wingmen/ Ai landing behavior it still hasn't made it into the land based ATC. The Apache was released 15 months after announcement. Let give them another year and and it was developed in just over two years. About the same time the Super Carrier has been a thing. This is not a dig against Egale Dynamics. If they stop selling modules they die. But this isn't 2009 ether. There is a fairly large player base, and alot of them want to see improvements tonthe base game. Cfrag had a decent Idea. Which basically put open Beata behind a paywall. If the proceeds went straight into the core game this might help alot. I would say no more then the cost of a module per year. For that you get to try out all the cool new stuff while it's being tested in Open Beata. The success of such a plan would be detrimend by how good the upgrades to the base game are. Most players play open Beata, and if ED could show something awesome in the first year that would probably draw alot more of the player base in the next year. Another option is to make DCS 3.0, MAC, Combat Simulator, whatever you want to call it a pay to play game. There are some issues there though. Like what Jet dose it come with? I would I would personally do the UH-1H, and the F-5. Make a decent campaign for them and let new players enjoy. Again this would have to have some pretty serious upgrades to get the player base on board. I personally prefer the latter, but the former could generate more revenue, and would incentiveise ED to keep updating the core game. Of cores they will always be limited by the amount of computing power available to the customer. This is a wishlist, and maybe ED will see an idea they like here. Of course they could just continue the glaciesally slow pace of improvement to the base game until someone somewhere decides that they can do better and dose. Or players decide they have all the modules that they want and dont stop buying new modules. Honestly I dont see how that isnt happing now. A new player could buy the F-16, A-10, and AH-64 and have littaraly every possible modern mission covered. market may be nich but it is profitable. I'm sorry but with players that own littaraly hundreds of dollars of modules, and thousands in hardware to play DCS, you can't convince me that the players wouldn't pay at least a onetime investment into brings the core game up the the exceptionally high standards of the aircraft modules that you in it. But hay these are just my mad ramblings.

I like that idea as well. But somethings got to change.

At what point were you ever lead to believe that new content would pay for development. The not enough revenue idea was based on a number of 3,000 players. I have a hard time believing that is all there is when Growing Sidwinder has 200k+ subscribers. We don't agree that's fine nether of us really know the answer. I suspect DCS is on the verge of dying. Like in the next few years. You think everything is fine as is and will somehow get better this decade. I'm not talking about modules. I'm talking about the actual game staying relivent. We will see but so far every single thing with the core game is half baked and broken in some way. I really sincerely hope they get it together in some way. Because the last cash cow is behind them.

I suspect most people would play a B-52 exactly once. Maybe twice. They really can't be used in a meaningful way with the Maps we have in DCS. Add to that the fact that you can radar bomb from any of the multi role fighters, and it's a lot of work for a super niche jet that can't really be used as it would be. Now an A/C-130 on the other hand could be something awesome. Again better infantry would really help. But with the Ice Man and George Ai I could definitely see it being possible. I would personally love to rain some hell with a Sepctor.

It's not the OPs suggestion but did you even read the thread? That is a decent suggestion. To imply that a company that in the span of five years has mostly pulled off the Hornet, Apache, Viper, Mi-24P, Mosquito, P-47D multiple versions, and a FW-190A have a time management problem? No they have a put there time into what makes them money problem. And no I don't think putting the open Beata behind a paywall would break the community. I would suggest an annual payment equivalent to a single module. If they used that to make new features and could continuously improve the quality of the core game I bet a significant percentage of the player base would come onboard. It's a good suggestion. They could also just rename the game something new and you pay a onetime price to come over. But at the pace core updates are coming the player base will die of old age before we see significant advancement. And I'm not being facetious, the core of the game doesn't look that significantly different then it did when LOMAC released. Not as different as LOMAC was from Flanker 2.0 for sure. The ATC, ground combat mechanics, surface to air missiles implementation and weather are about the same. So clearly there needs to be some kind of incentive. Egale Dynamics will do what they are going to do. Buy it would be nice to see a decent ATC, or Dynamic Weather model, or Dynamic Campaign before I die of old age. Changing the pay model from LOMAC to DCS World gave us the list of modules we have today. Which are definitely the most realistic simulations of those aircraft ever on a home PC. Maybe another change in pay model could give us the most realistic world ever on home PC to fly them in. I'm totally against a monthly or yearly subscription to play. But I'm not against ether a onetime payment to upgrade to something new, or putting open Beata behind an annual paywall. Honestly Cfrag probably had the best idea I've heard to address thus issue.

Definitely a plus one on this.

I don't think you understand how serious this is. People just are not going to be incentives to buy all the new modules. As you said it's a nich. Also longtime players are really really tired of some of the core games shortcomings. Just having a basic and functional ATC would be freaking huge. Now apply your profit model to modules creation. How much money do you think the Apache cost to create. If you 3000 player number is correct how much of that revenue went back to the base game? DCS has 2020 aircraft simulations running in a 2005 environment. Yes the graphics have improved some. But for a module like the Apache to really shine it's going to need a better environment to fight in. Also there needs to be a way for long time players, or players that are not interested in buying more modules to pay back into the product. Asset packs were an Idea. Super Carrier was an idea. The point is there is no free lunch. Everyone that plays DCS would benefit from something like multi core optimization, or truly dynamic wether, or better Ai behavior. But there is no free luch, and there is no free feature.

Currently armed helicopters will attempt to engage fast jets by getting above them and engaging them with the gun or missles. With all the work going into Ai please change that. If anything the helos should just hide down low and slow. I know that unarmed helicopters will do that currently or at least they would. If they engage jets at all it should just be a quick snap shot. It would be great to be able to restrict the types of air targets they will attack. But even with helos like the Mi-24P which is apparently about to get its R-60M's shouldn't climb to meet the jet.

The way ED dose things you would probably get both at the same time. But yes. From a mission building standpoint especially the system of moving troops needs a massive revamp. But FAST roping needs to be part of that. Also being able to snag troops on a line would be pretty sweet, and would alow CSAR operations. All of this is currently impossible in DCS. But so are most things we enjoy in DCS.

I would have to agree. The Hifi Ai model would be available to all. Definitely would make some money available for improvements to ground combat. It would also open up a whole new aspect of combat for DCS. I would buy an Abrams module in a second. Or a Bradley for that Matter. I can't imagine that the modules would be quite as hard as modern fighters to produce. And the biggest obstacle was the Ai crew, and that is done.

Now you see that is an actual solution. Nobody losses there modules if they don't pay. The game is still free to try. Mony gets pumped in that is specifically for the improvement of the game itself. Best of all ED would actually be incentiveised to continually develop the game itself. I suspect most players would actually pay for the advanced features. Like most play open Beata now. Egale Dynamics, you really should look at this.

Yeah sure, but will you buy the next module? The Apache brought something new. A modern attack helicopter with night fighting capability, and an Ai for the single player. Plus it's iconic. Would you buy the Cobra? I had hopes for MAC. But then they announced that it would be separate from DCS and more like a flaming cliffs. Sorry but I'm not going from full fidelity to FC4. I don't care how awesome the environment is. Plus I haven't heard a peep about MAC since 2020. DCS can't survive by bringing in new players alone. They have to keep the been here too long crowd playing. Plus reviews are a thing. Anyone looking to dump sixty to eighty dollars on a module can read a review about the game. And they just might pass if they don't like what they read. Yes we have paid. And for the most part we have taken delivery of what we paid for. But we didn't pay for core upgrades. DCS in more or less it's current form released in 2009. There was a burst of improvements around the time of 2.0 and clearly they are working towards a 3.0. Personally I would love to see something like MAC. A new game as long as it could run the current modules. I again would gladly pay to upgrade. But the fact is the core as it stands isn't good enough. And the block buster modules are already out, or snatched up by third party's. What will keep up playing and by extent buying is improvements to the game itself.

I don't disagree with you. Better is also better. No amount of new content can improve the core of the game those new maps.and new planes run on. Just look at how much more fun it is to dogfight the Ai today then it was six or eight months ago. How much better could it be to do it in fully dynamic weather. Or to have to cracks an IADS that has multiple EW, C2 nodes, and SAMs with no fore zones that will use some intelligent tactics to bring you down. Or to hunt tanks that actually seek cover, or retreat. Or have a realistic, think non combat flight simulator, ATC to bring you home. None of that is going to be easy. And it's going to eventually need full muti core optimization. None of this stuff is cheap. And ED if they will admit it or not could use a significant shot of income to get it done.