nessuno0505

Non è questione di disfattismo o di dischi rotti. E' vero: oggi l'industria del gaming è in crisi, tuttavia DCS è un prodotto di nicchia rivolto ad una particolare fetta di giocatori appassionati, per tale motivo in teoria più protetto da certe dinamiche dell'industria videoludica... a patto però di mantenersi cara quella fetta di utenti appassionati che hanno buttato e continuano a buttare "li mijoni" in moduli e periferiche per il volo simulato. Il punto è capire se alla ED ci stiano riuscendo oppure no. Senza entrare nelle dinamiche di come stia messa finanziariamente la ED, che non ci è dato sapere e non credo lo si possa capire leggendo su Reddit o facendo la conta di quanti moduli escono, io credo di no, almeno non del tutto. Ciò che (almeno a me personalmente) ha fatto innamorare di DCS è la sofisticatezza fin quasi allo spasimo della simulazione, il dettaglio meticoloso con cui si rappresentano le connessioni e le relazioni tra i vari sistemi azionabili dal cockpit. Questo è il cuore di DCS. A discapito dei molti moduli che escono e delle tante terze parti che una volta non c'erano, l'impressione è che oggi questo focus stia venendo meno: questo ambiente non è mai stato privo di bugs, anzi è uno dei giochi più buggati che io conosca; ciò nonostante una volta, quando c'erano solo A-10C e Ka-50, c'era l'impressione che i bugs fossero lo scotto inevitabile da pagare per tale complessità e che comunque ci fosse la volontà di correggerli, con l'intento di mantenere il più possibile tutte le numerose ed interconnesse funzionalità che si andavano a simulare. Oggi purtroppo non è più così: nonostante il gran numero di moduli, l'impressione è che si punti soprattutto sulla quantità, per vendere subito in early access se non addirittura in preordine il nuovo aereoplano spesso solo grossolanamente abbozzato, sfruttando l'hype della novità, certo con la promessa di completarlo in seguito, promessa che però viene puntualmente disattesa perchè si passa a lavorare sulla novità successiva. Basta leggersi la sottosezione dell'f-16 per avvertire palpabile la delusione di chi proveniendo da quell'altro simulatore si aspettava di avere finalmente il suo velivolo preferito riprodotto in un ambiente più moderno e dinamico (e con la grafica migliore) e si trova invece ancora un abbozzo pieno di tante funzioni incomplete o lasciate a metà e con la spada di damocle sul collo degli sviluppatori che hanno fretta di farlo uscire dall'early access nonostante sia chiaramente non finito e con ancora tante criticità. Credo che se DCS voglia tenersi cara la sua fetta di giocatori appassionati debba tornare a puntare sulla meticolosità della simulazione, a costo di far uscire qualche velivolo di meno, perchè se gli appassionati cominciano a perdere fiducia (e la vicenda razbam in questo non aiuta) un gioco come questo può finire a gambe all'aria anche in un mondo in cui l'industria del videogioco è nel bengodi, figuriamoci nel mondo reale.

The only very complex airplane I own is the A-10C, both in the original version and in the version II, and it's the most complex plane I've studied in details; the second one being the ka-50 (both versions). I like to change sometimes, like you do, but the others airframes I own are all trainers or cold war, since they are easier to learn: f-5, mig-15, f-86, l-39, uh-1, mi-8, mb-339 (I'm italian). All bought when already out of early access. Then I have some maps and combined arms (bought by mistake: I had misread the description, I thought it was doing something else). Fortunately no RB modules, but I have been tempted several times to buy the AV-8B: I am very attracted by the naval VTOL operations; I never bought it given the biblical development times, the pitiful state in which it's always been (it doesn't even have a manual) and the very little trust I have always had in Razbam (apparently in the end not unjustified). I agree with you: warthunder is another kind of game. What I fear is that, as the modules increase, the complexity and the ability of the developers to keep up and fix all the bugs and systems decrease, and at some point they will no longer be able to offer us wonderful simulations rich of details and minutiae as the a-10C was and continues to be today. DCS today is closer to war thunder than it was 10 years ago and as I see it we really need a change of pace. The Razbam affair is just a symptom of a bigger problem.

Maybe I'm in between the two: I like to read manuals front to back, but ED ones not NATOPs, and I concentrate (and own) only a few modules (and just one or two among the most complex), since I find it very difficult and time consuming to properly learn more than this. That said, if you are 100% a player of the first type, then why to play DCS? The intimate nature of DCS are the intricacies of the avionics: if you don't like this and just want to "f**k shyt up" in a shiny plane, you can play war thunder, the modules are also cheaper!

Just wanted you to know I've tried PointCTRL with the modded firmware and HTCC on my quest 3: even though I managed to get it to work, I find the original PointCTRL a lot more precise and easier to calibrate (I couldn't calibrate it at all with HTCC), so I reverted back to the original firmware. I'm still tied to the cable, so if you plan a wireless HMS count on me as a loyal customer! (I'm trying to fly using quest link with USB cable: when it works it gives the best visuals maybe, but the USB connection is not always reliable: sometimes it does not work, sometimes it gives "USB debris error" - a known link bug; the wireless connection is easier, both with meta link and virtual desktop; combined with a wireless PointCTRL it would be a great thing!)

He is not mixing a damn thing. Can't you see what's your problem at ED? "The modules still work". What does a "working module" mean to you? A one that does not crash the simulator at startup? The RB modules (F-15 excluded), while still "flyable", are starting to fail at all, and that's an undeniable reality. I understand you do not want to mess with RB's modules until the dispute is ongoing, but this above here is a good suggestion; nevertheless you should have prevented the fuses from bugging before it occurred, not apologizing after: you have said that "you will keep the Razbam modules as they are and try to not break them with DCS updates (and that you know how to prevent it from happening)". It's not enough to say they are reported! They should not happen! Ad if they accidentally happen, they must be fixed as soon as possible! That's the only real thing you have done in favor of us consumers: since the destiny of the F-15E is uncertain, we can ask a refund. Being it in store credit is not important: as DCS lovers we can surely find another airplane / helicopter / campaign that meets our needs. For this decision we can only say thank you.

It's not the function we were hoping for, unfortunately.

There is not a single DCS module that does not have a significant number of bugs, even gross ones: just go into detail a little deeper than a startup routine and a takeoff and landing circuit for them to jump out at you. The one and only difference is that for non-Razbam modules you can continue to cultivate the hope that sooner or later they will be fixed.

They could lock the choice from the server side, even if that would mean servers for 1080p, servers for 1440p, servers for 4k and servers for VR users. But you know, there's differences in spotting in the 4 cases even without dots. I say leave the choice to the server keeper: to lock the option or leave it open to client/user's choice. Or ED could lock the dots size to the screen resolution you choose.

Do you really believe being possible that, after years of litigation and no updates to their modules, RB will come back here and start releasing updates as if nothing happened? Even if the debate ends favourably (whatever it means) for both sides involved?

Could it be possible to implement different dot logics and let the users choose the option that better fit for them?

The a-10c is "old software product" too, but it's been reworked and updated and it's up to date with newer modules: if you want a true growing platform you either keep its modules updated or deprecate them, there's no third way. I feel very sad to say since it was one of the best modules back in 2015, but this Mig-21 is now the worst third way possible.

You're right, but you are not allowed to say it due to 1.15 rule.

But they have resources for the Christen Eagle?

It should be. I replaced my G2 with a Q3: my G2 cable has broken, a replacement was € 100, the headset had an expiring date due to the WMR issue. I sold it (clearly saying that it needed a new cable) and bought a Q3. Pros: same performance, same resolution, better sweet spot, I can fly wireless, hand tracking, mixed reality, standalone option. Cons: some minor copmpression artifacts here and there, barely noticeable and vastly outweighed by the better lenses. It lacks nothing of what the G2 had, but it has a lot more stuff. And it's (relatively) cheap: in a few years I colud replace it with a better headset without the burden of having spent thousands. I'm not telling you buy it, but consider it. I doubt there will ever be an open source replacement for WMR, I don't think it's really technically possible.

Try the A-10C, you might fall in love with DCS again

Do you have MFD with screens? Are you able to clearly read the screens in the passthrough? Could it be possible to use the passthroug just for the frames, i.e. with the thrustmaster mfds, and use VR for the inner screens?

Do Magnitude 3 developers read this forum? I think every virtual pilot in their right mind would pay some money to see a Mig-21 worthy of its name!

ED have always been this way, you're right. But what we are asking here is to change this behaviour: you have a stable version of the game, keep it as bug free as possible. Do not push half cooked upgrades full of bugs in the stable: keep them in the closed beta, test there as you want, and then push to stable when it's all bug free. Early access = incomplete with bugs. I can accept incomplete, and I can accept also some bugs (we have bugs in released modules too), but I can't accept tons of bugs just because you are testing. Release version is for gaming, we want to play not to be your beta testers. Is this clear enough?!?

I have a wifi 6e router next to my simpit, so I can reliably use all of the 3 methods.

@MilesD That's interesting, thanks! So the HMS works just as a receiver, no need to have the camera aligned with the leds on the FCUs, I can plug it on the USB and keep it on the desk. But is Q3 hand tracking as precise as the vanilla pointCTRL? If so, why planning a wireless HMS? Maybe I'll do a test, I can go back to the standard firmware if not satisfied. Thanks again for the clarification! P.S. what about the APBs? They still work or get disabled?

@MilesD I already have a POINTctrl v2 updated to v2.6b firmware, I was only thinking about the possibility of making it wireless. Do you suggest me to change the firmware and use the HTCC software? Is there any advantage ove the vanilla pointctrl v2? What do you mean "you don't have to have your HMS mounted"?

Do you have a link for the wireless pointctrl? Is it also by MilesD? There's no info about a wireless model in the whole thread.

Never? If you've been here for a while you'll know that this is the inherent nature of DCS: bugs, bugs, and more bugs; excuses, excuses and more excuses, because the module is still in early access. What is not in early access in DCS? The Sabre? The Mig-15? And are they bug-free? Absolutely not, but in those cases the excuse is that the developers are busy elsewhere, the bugs are not game breaking and they are already reported so sooner or later they will be fixed. One might have thought that the new upgrade cycle with a unified consumer version of the game would have changed things, but this was not the case. The bottom line is that if you want to play dcs, you either accept the bugs or change the game.

People have stopped writing here, but they don't forget and I hope this shows in the outcomes of the store. P.S. I don't care what the solution will be, indeed personally I hope that Razbam changes shores, but the times are getting longer and this is not good.

In ogni caso non credo che un SSD PCIE 3 o PCIE 4 faccia differenza per quel che riguarda gli fps, salvo unità difettose o concomitanti e diversi problemi casualmente coincidenti col cambio di SSD.