Are there too many WWII aircraft being planned for DCS?

[sorcer3r]

I don't have any issue with WWII era aircraft being produced per se, given that I have zero interest in them they are utterly irrelevant to me. If a developer comes along to make WWII era aircraft or associated products then again it's irrelevant as they wouldn't have made a modern aircraft anyway so there is nothing lost there.

 

The concern is if developers start to go down the WWII route instead of something else.

 

This idea of one sim for everything is all well and good, but, DCS can't even do a good job of truly simulating modern air combat (a great flight model for a plane and being able to click buttons etc. is not representative of air combat). Simply adding more and more aircraft won't solve that issue. Without fundamental changes and much work on the basics such as AI for aircraft that can actually fly an aircraft correctly and operate in a believable manner in combat, ATC/AWACS functionality (with AI interacting the same as players) and numerous other parts of the modern battlefield (and also the 1940's/50's/60's......) there will always be massive holes that just adding extra aircraft cannot fill.

 

Now I'm sure there is desire to correct these deficiencies, I'm just not sure there is enough of it, or that they will be corrected fast enough given my previous experience and interactions around here.

 

But only time will tell.

 

 

This. :)

Progress of improving modern (air) combat in DCS is already tiny and hopefully won't be affected by WW2 era (at least I want to believe).

And instead of going into WW2 I would rather see a Panavia Tornado announcement by VEAO Sims. :D

[joey45]

I want more cold war stuff.....

 

Now, where's my Lightning blueprints go.....

 

Sea Vixan docs anyone?

[Flagrum]

I may be wrong Mbot, but I think the main reason these 3rd party company's are currently doing WW2 aircraft is to learn the programming and coding needed to develop high fidelity aircraft in DCS.

I think, you are in fact wrong. :o)

 

RRG started out with WWII planes, yes. But VEAO has already the Hawk as "practice project" and if (IF!) LNS also starts to produce WWII stuff, well, they already have their MiG-21.

[cichlidfan]

I think, you are in fact wrong. :o)

 

RRG started out with WWII planes, yes. But VEAO has already the Hawk as "practice project" and if (IF!) LNS also starts to produce WWII stuff, well, they already have their MiG-21.

 

The 'practice' theory also falls apart as soon as they start on a second WWII aircraft.

 

Ells has already stated that they are an easier, faster way to cash flow.

 

EDIT: I also agree with Eddie that we need more improvements before we need more aircraft (if I lived in a country with lousy roads I wouldn't spend my money buying more cars), but that is in ED's hands, not the third parties.

Edited May 3, 2014 by cichlidfan

[Isegrim]

So this Thread is about *I got the feeling they not like doing fastmovers anymore, cause WW2 planes are more easy to make*.

 

Here my 2 cents:

 

Calm down....those waves will flat themselve.;)

[sobek]

EDIT: I also agree with Eddie that we need more improvements before we need more aircraft (if I lived in a country with lousy roads I wouldn't spend my money buying more cars), but that is in ED's hands, not the third parties.

 

IMO this is a fallacy, simply because you can't sell features to people that are part of the whole platform package. You can't have people opt out of ATC or plane AI (or not opt into it, makes no difference for the sake of the argument). These features need to be paid for by module sales. Surprise, there's a lot of paid modules being produced.

 

I always am surprised if people account for features being done or not done to the will of developers to realize them while completely factoring out if those features pay for themselves or need to be cross financed by other projects.

[Eddie]

Hmmmm, people agreeing with me on the ED forums rather than starting pointless arguments based on their own ignorance and misconceptions? I'm not entirely sure how to react to that?! There may be some hope for this place afterall. :D

 

Anyway, on to the topic at hand, I see the same stumbling block when it comes to civil aircraft in DCS World. While I'm not really interested in such things personally, I wouldn't see their introduction as a bad thing per se. In fact they could add a great deal of immersion and purpose to missions and flying in general. But until things like ATC and basic flying skills for the AI see some big improvements adding them in a credible way would be impossible.

 

The same issue is true for "WWII" stuff, "cold war" stuff, "Vietnam" stuff, etc. etc. Without the requisite supporting features it's just a poor facsimile of air combat (or ground combat in the case of Combined Arms).

 

Take something like the Mig-21, yes the aircraft is one I and many other are glad to see (although my interest is purely from a fly it in order to learn how best to kill it standpoint). But in order to be able to fly anything like realistic combat missions in that aircraft you'd need other aircraft and ground units (especially air defence) from the same era. A Mig-21 facing a Patriot battery isn't exactly great gameplay in most cases. Now of course there will always be room for scenarios with older aircraft operating against newer threats, but it shouldn't be the norm or the only way to go.

 

Equally it should be possible to fly a newer aircraft against older air defence systems and hostile aircraft. After all what is more "fun", being shot at by something you can relatively easily defeat (SA-2 for example), or by something you don't have much of a chance against (SA-21). This is especially true for the newer/less experienced players. At the moment we're forced into to flying against a bit of a mish-mash of air defences which really don't belong together, and without the matching countermeasures as well.

 

And what about the military utility helicopters such as the UH-1H and Mi-8? Yes you can fly them around, and now actually pick up and move "cargo", but beyond simply doing it for the "challenge" etc, what is the point? And by that I mean, what tactical or strategic value to those aircraft bring to a scenario? The answer at present is very little, if any. Now if you give them the ability to actually transport real supplies for ground forces/air bases/FARPS etc. and really move ground forces around, be it just troops or other equipment, with the things being usable either by the AI or human players afterwards such aircraft become just as important as fighters or attack aircraft (maybe even more so). Personally I'd be reasonably interested in a Pavehawk, for example, if you could actually use it to accomplish missions that really matter to a MP (or even SP) scenario.

 

The term Sandbox is used a lot for a variety of games these days, and while having sandbox functionality isn't necessarily a bad thing and can allow for some great scenarios, it is also often used as an excuse for lack of actual game content. And in the long run a "Sandbox" without a real game along side it can only last so long and go so far before it becomes boring and/or frustrating.

[Eddie]

IMO this is a fallacy, simply because you can't sell features to people that are part of the whole platform package. You can't have people opt out of ATC or plane AI (or not opt into it, makes no difference for the sake of the argument). These features need to be paid for by module sales. Surprise, there's a lot of paid modules being produced.

 

I always am surprised if people account for features being done or not done to the will of developers to realize them while completely factoring out if those features pay for themselves or need to be cross financed by other projects.

 

You're correct in saying that things don't pay for themselves and paid products are needed to support other features. But equally paid products actually need to bring new features. Simply adding an aircraft and nothing else along with it doesn't cut it, if the argument that producing aircraft and other paid modules to support further development on "world" features is to hold up, then those other features actually need to be realised along with those paid products.

 

Especially when the "world" features are all very important aspects of modern (and other eras) warfare and have been notably absent from DCS since BS1 with no significant advances been seen (by the end user, background code doesn't really count, as fundamentally necessary as it may be).

 

I don't think you give people the credit they deserve by assuming they don't realise something has to pay for it. I'm yet to come across someone from the established sim community (either DCS or Falcon/others) who doesn't understand and acknowledge this fact (internet bravado aside) in a TS or face to face discussion. But the issue a lot of people away from these forums have with DCS is that, for whatever reason, many of the lacking areas haven't seen any real movement in the 6 years since DCS Black Shark was released. Now that's not to say that those individuals think nothing has advanced, many things have, but most of the fundamental aspects lacking from aviation and air combat simulation haven't.

 

Now maybe/hopefully that'll change over the next few years as things pick up with DCS World and the 3rd parties, but only time will tell. In the meantime, there are quite a large number of people who are either staying away from DCS, or even leaving DCS, because of these limitations. And that is something which no sensible person can afford to ignore.

[sobek]

Now maybe/hopefully that'll change over the next few years as things pick up with DCS World and the 3rd parties, but only time will tell. In the meantime, there are quite a large number of people who are either staying away from DCS, or even leaving DCS, because of these limitations. And that is something which no sensible person can afford to ignore.

 

Surely not, yet you arrive at the conclusion that ED, as one of very few studios that have managed to still survive in this business, would willfully "ignore" (maybe ignore is too strong a word, let's say neglect) these issues even though they have the ressources to do something about it rather than to account it to the adversity of the business they are in.

 

I cannot help but think that something does not compute in that argument chain.

Edited May 3, 2014 by sobek

[sorcer3r]

IMO this is a fallacy, simply because you can't sell features to people that are part of the whole platform package. You can't have people opt out of ATC or plane AI (or not opt into it, makes no difference for the sake of the argument). These features need to be paid for by module sales. Surprise, there's a lot of paid modules being produced.

 

Then the WW2 direction is a bad decision IMO. Because WW2 modules will bring WW2 features first.

So we need more modern modules to improve the core(?) of DCS (modern combat).

3rd parties go modern, please! :D

 

And what about the military utility helicopters such as the UH-1H and Mi-8? Yes you can fly them around, and now actually pick up and move "cargo", but beyond simply doing it for the "challenge" etc, what is the point? And by that I mean, what tactical or strategic value to those aircraft bring to a scenario?

 

In an "Afghanistan" scenario UHs are very nice to fly. CSAR operations etc. (coop with A10s) are not so bad.

I think it is very good to have UHs (UH1 is currently only reason why I still fly DCS). They could be just a bit more modern. Right now it is a bit "half modern" having flare dispensers without MWS for example.

 

I'll refrain from voting since there's no helicopter option.

 

Agree. It is also a bit disappointing that Belsimtek is currently the only 3rd party/partner doing helos (unfortunatley not helicopters only).

And there is so much room in DCS for UH60, AH64A or some post-vietnam AH1 etc. Better than all WW2 planes together. ;)

[Slipp]

Great posts, Eddie. Too few people are brave enough to post opinions like that around here.

 

 

The term Sandbox is used a lot for a variety of games these days, and while having sandbox functionality isn't necessarily a bad thing and can allow for some great scenarios, it is also often used as an excuse for lack of actual game content. And in the long run a "Sandbox" without a real game along side it can only last so long and go so far before it becomes boring and/or frustrating.

 

People here use "DCS is a Sandbox" argument as an excuse for everything around here. DCS is not a sandbox, it doesn't have anywhere near the amount of content to be a sandbox game. Take a look and see what Il-2 1946 with mods offers and than look at DCS sandbox capability again.

 

One very old map, few modules that don't really fit together time-frame and capability wise and a lack of a polished, well rounded, functioning core game.

 

DCS is just all over the place, it's a mess, a beta if you want.

 

And now, VEAO and LN are switching to WW2. (honestly, they are the only 3rd parties that actually have something working to show so far. ( Belsimtek is a partner so it doesn't count in this argument)

 

I can imagine that people who we've been supporting this franchise since Lomac and are waiting for some jets that haven't been around since 2003, aren't very happy with this recent development.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Slipp

[Raven68]

In the meantime, there are quite a large number of people who are either staying away from DCS, or even leaving DCS, because of these limitations. And that is something which no sensible person can afford to ignore.

 

Eddie you made very good points in your post buddy. You hit home on something in the area of limitations. One of the outstanding things that I would love to see within in DCS is the dynamic campaign along the lines of certain old sim.( Sorry, not trying to turn this into one of those discussions). I long for the day this makes it into the world, but some may have given up waiting on this and lost the enjoyment playing DCS.

[sobek]

@Eddie:

 

I'm not buying the whole "past modules didn't bring anything along" thing. You experienced first hand how FC3 brought, e.g., the warehouse feature into existance. Does it go far/fast enough? Certainly not and i fully agree that there are holes in a lot of places that need to be filled hopefully sooner rather than later for a lot of features to pan out as envisioned, but to say that products don't bring improvements with them is simply untrue.

[Eddie]

Surely not, yet you arrive at the conclusion that ED, as one of very few studios that have managed to still survive in this business, would willfully "ignore" (maybe ignore is too strong a word, let's say neglect) these issues even though they have the ressources to do something about it than to account it to the adversity of the business they are in.

 

Erm, no. You have decided, incorrectly, that that was my conclusion due to your own bias perhaps influenced by your previous experience with others on these forums. Neither I, nor others I discuss the subject with, think that ED or the 3rd party developers are "willfully ignoring" anything. There is a concern that perhaps people aren't realizing/understanding what is actually lacking and by what degree, but that's simply a unsubstantiated suspicion based on what has been talked about, or more importantly not talked about over the past 6 years. But of course it's not possible to actually know what others are actually thinking/planning unless they communicate such, so suspicion and assumption, as undesirable as they are is all most people have.

 

Personally I am acutely aware of the amount of work that would need to be done to implement many of the things I personally wish to see in DCS, at least if they are done properly. There is a great deal of work to be done, perhaps it is happening in the background, perhaps it isn't. But until we start to see it appear within the version(s) of DCS which people have on their own PCs, it's all just talk, and not much of that either. As I've said in this very thread already I'm sure there is the desire (at least for the most part) to make the needed advances and things will happen at some point, the doubt is whether it'll be enough, or too little too late.

[lunaticfringe]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Eddie again."

 

Truth.

[cichlidfan]

Erm, no. ...

 

Well said. :thumbup:

[Eddie]

@Eddie:

 

I'm not buying the whole "past modules didn't bring anything along" thing. You experienced first hand how FC3 brought, e.g., the warehouse feature into existance. Does it go far/fast enough? Certainly not and i fully agree that there are holes in a lot of places that need to be filled hopefully sooner rather than later for a lot of features to pan out as envisioned, but to say that products don't bring improvements with them is simply untrue.

 

Right, well.

 

At what point did I say "past modules didn't bring anything along"? I'll save you reading my posts again, although perhaps you ought to, I didn't say that.

 

What I actually said was:

for whatever reason, many of the lacking areas haven't seen any real movement in the 6 years since DCS Black Shark was released. Now that's not to say that those individuals think nothing has advanced, many things have, but most of the fundamental aspects lacking from aviation and air combat simulation haven't.

 

Take specific note of the second sentence:

Now that's not to say that those individuals think nothing has advanced, many things have, but most of the fundamental aspects lacking from aviation and air combat simulation haven't.

 

Taking your mention of the warehouse feature from FC3, yes it has been added, but what does it actually "add" to peoples experience at this point? Apart from making it possible to restrict and/or limit the available weapons in a mission, nothing really. Now of course it is a necessary step along the road, but in itself it doesn't actually add much at all. And since it was initially added nothing further has been built upon it, nor has there been any indication of where it may go in the future. As you pointed out, I did experience the development of FC3, and a few other products from the point of view of the test team, but it wasn't exactly a great experience and the frustration involved with the process and the issues I had with it is the reason I left the team (but that is not a conversation for this forum in my eyes).

 

To expand on that, while resource management is an important area that should be given attention, can anyone really think that such a thing is more important to an air combat simulator than ATC, AWACS, various aspects of AI, atmospheric modelling, and all the other numerous things that most people consider to be lacking/missing from DCS. Now I know what you're about to type to counter that, it's going to be the old "the developer for X wouldn't do much good working on Y argument" isn't it. And while that point isn't without merit, it only goes so far, and in this particular case I don't think it's a valid or sensible counter.

 

So again, yes things are moving, but are the right things moving in the right way and in the right order. That's the question.

[lunaticfringe]

Eddie's comments parallel quite well with my own. The holes in the current model are such that there is evidence Third Parties are finding themselves stonewalled in their own development process with intended projects (see: Super Hornet, F-15E, and so on) because tools which should exist are not in place to be had. Meanwhile, ED is committing to significant support to RRG, meaning that development hours that could be better spent filling gaping AI and radar modelling holes will be spent dealing with what amounts to low hanging fruit.

 

Seriously- look at the fits thrown towards Coretex when they stated they might put something out before the F/A-18E drops. They're in a limited work situation, with multiple people working on just one project, without enough things to do at all times to keep people busy. It makes sense to distribute volume. The flip side of this is that ED has a limited base of programmers and artists, and have entirely too many projects on the burner. It's a fine balance.

 

And it is entirely within ED's rights to spread their project plan thin. The problem as I've long maintained it, however, is the constant desire to "support" the publisher by way of dollars spent on expansions and models that clearly don't interest the user at the end of the day. Buying P-51s and Combined Arms obfuscates the data at the end of the day as to where they may be better served spending their times for folks such as Eddie and I; this is why I have a long line of folks I'll be buying the F-15C module for as gifts once things settle down, because that is their area of interest, as well as mine.

 

Thus, at the end of the day his contention is correct. There are only so many members of the development staff, and so many hours in the day. If ED is spending its time grabbing the aforementioned low-hanging grapes, the real work of making DCS what it claims to be is left on the vine.

[lunaticfringe]

So again, yes things are moving, but are the right things moving in the right way and in the right order. That's the question.

 

For those who think TLDR:

 

Eddie: "What DCS needs is a totally revamped radar model and good AI interaction. ED isn't providing this, thus, they're not going anywhere."

 

sobek: "But they gave you wing contrails and shiny lights on the Nellis model at night! You can't say they're not doing anything!"

 

Pretty much sums it up.

[Eddie]

For those who think TLDR:

 

Eddie: "What DCS needs is a totally revamped radar model and good AI interaction. ED isn't providing this, thus, they're not going anywhere."

 

sobek: "But they gave you wing contrails and shiny lights on the Nellis model at night! You can't say they're not doing anything!"

 

Pretty much sums it up.

 

Quite a bit more complex than that actually and not exactly representative of my view or the points I'm trying to make.

 

While I would agree that things like AI improvements are more important that contrails, to use your examples. They are also very poor comparisons, as they would be highly unlikely to be areas worked on by the same people and thus work on one is unlikely to adversely impact the other.

 

But that said, I would say that in my opinion there have been a few too many "superficial" improvements versus "fundamental" improvements.

[cichlidfan]

...there have been a few too many "superficial" improvements versus "fundamental" improvements.

 

Precisely this.

[lunaticfringe]

Quite a bit more complex than that actually and not exactly representative of my view or the points I'm trying to make.

 

Was just intended as a simplification. Neither you, nor I, have the spare 90 minutes or so to break out everything that should be on the agenda, but isn't.

 

But that said, I would say that in my opinion there have been a few too many "superficial" improvements versus "fundamental" improvements.

 

Bingo.

[sobek]

For those who think TLDR:

 

Eddie: "What DCS needs is a totally revamped radar model and good AI interaction. ED isn't providing this, thus, they're not going anywhere."

 

sobek: "But they gave you wing contrails and shiny lights on the Nellis model at night! You can't say they're not doing anything!"

 

Pretty much sums it up.

 

Sorry but no, that is not what i wrote. If something is TLTR, maybe you shouldn't try to compose an abstract that isn't remotely correct.

 

Besides there are a lot of people who were quite upset while the new contrails effect was being introduced and the old one was gone. You cant simply state that the things you care about are so much more important than the ones others care about. Despite what you might think, there are people who do care a lot about things that are only of peripheral importance to you and they are EDs customers as well.

Edited May 3, 2014 by sobek

[sobek]

To expand on that, while resource management is an important area that should be given attention, can anyone really think that such a thing is more important to an air combat simulator than ATC, AWACS, various aspects of AI, atmospheric modelling, and all the other numerous things that most people consider to be lacking/missing from DCS.

 

Why don't you ask the falcon community who, whenever DCS is mentioned, bring out their "no dynamic campaign" thought terminating cliché. :)

 

Edit: I could come up with other things like the new missile flight physics that were again paid for by FC3, would you consider at least those critical for air combat? ;)

Edited May 3, 2014 by sobek

[lunaticfringe]

Sorry but no, that is not what i wrote. If something is TLTR, maybe you shouldn't try to compose an abstract that isn't remotely correct.

 

That's exactly what you did with Eddie, so you'll excuse me for following your lead. :D

 

Besides there is a lot of people who were quite upset while the new contrails effect was introduced and the old one was gone. You cant simply state that the things you care about are so much more important than the ones others care about.

 

Really?

 

Does ED advertise DCS as being a screenshot generator, or a simulator? Last time I checked, it's "Digital Combat Simulator", not "Digital Combat Screenshot".

 

Now, if ED doesn't happen to care about the aspects regarding air combat which are actually important, instead of the ancillary, they can do the world a favor and brand their product accordingly. Otherwise, simulation trumps "pretty", by their own decree.

 

Despite what you might think, there are people who do care a lot about things that are only of peripheral importance to you and they are EDs customers as well.

 

Then perhaps those individuals would be better served with an Ace Combat title as opposed to a simulation. While I understand that ED would like to cater to all, consistent pandering to those who are buying the wrong product for their level of interest merely damages the experience for those who actually care for what you're claiming to sell.

 

Edit: I could come up with other things like the new missile flight physics that were again paid for by FC3, would you consider at least those critical for air combat?

 

As they currently stand, the new missile flight physics are inordinately broken, so their value for modeling air combat is mitigated. Further, having even correct working weapons systems is worthless when the standard population of the combat environment (that being the AI) doesn't know how to effectively use it.

Edited May 3, 2014 by lunaticfringe