Are there too many WWII aircraft being planned for DCS?

[159th_Viper]

Bottom-Line is, things are moving forward in a direction intended by the development team, said goals to accomplish exactly that which we all want and what has been mentioned in this thread. Problem is that for some, said development is not happening quickly enough. Absolutely buggerall to be done for impatience, I'm afraid.

 

We cannot have everything all at once. From 1995 to date and see what we've got. I'm willing to wait 20 years more, all the while knowing that we're moving forward: Slow and Steady wins this particular race.

[sobek]

Think what you will but vapour trails tell you a lot about the wing loading of your opponent, something that is rather important in WVR combat.

 

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

 

No, i didn't lay words in his mouth.

 

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.

 

Now to me this sounds like he is speculating about a lack of will on EDs side to realize said features, which i was getting at. I may or may not have misunderstood this paragraph, which was one of the subjects of the subsequent discussion, which every reader can decide for himself, but at no point in time did i untruthfully quote him to further my argument, so no, you didn't "follow my lead". Keep your spin-doctorism out of this.

Edited May 3, 2014 by sobek

[Cobra847]

Anyone complaining about graphical (or superficial) improvements taking precedence over systems or gameplay related improvements need to carefully learn

how a development team works; and the differences between programmer specializations.

 

Moving the programmer(s) who spend their days working on low-level DX code or writing hlsl shaders to for exaxmple creating a dynamic campaign is not

going to yield the effect you are hoping for.

 

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.

 

DCS is a Game. No doubt about it; a simulation game, but it is a game nonetheless.

I'm not sure I understand your assertion that the requirement to have excellent graphics has to be noted in the title. Would "Pretty Digital Combat Simulator" suffice?

 

There has not been a game developed EVER, that has not seen massive benefit from improved fidelity in graphics (be it immersion, sales, whatever)

 

As for your assertion that some customers are better off with Ace Combat; it's just a silly thing to say and ignores any nuance the issue may have.

I have always been an immersion and polish over needless simulation complexity kind of guy; and I'm not ashamed to admit it. It's simply a fact of software development that you're going to run into diminishing returns,

and with full fidelity DCS modules you just have to plan around that as best you can.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Cobra847

[Eddie]

Of course missile physics are a very important area. "Critical" for air combat, hmm, in the context of DCS at present perhaps not, given that without matching improvements in guidance the current improvement has lead to weapons which in a few cases are further from reality than they were to start with. Personally I'd have considered it better to wait until you can actually finish the job before you release it, perhaps there were/are good and sensible reasons not to in this case, but that doesn't really change the issue at hand. As I work in the aviation industry where anything less than perfect is simply not acceptable, perhaps wrongly, I expect that same standard and attention to detail everywhere. Which is why I have the viewpoint that I do with respect to many areas.

 

While AAM implementation is of course an important aspect of a modern military flight simulator product, I'd put it to you that such things aren't really worth much without AI that can utilise them correctly/believably. Or aircraft AI that cannot follow simple, basic, procedural elements of flying an aircraft, let alone fighting in one. That's the big issue here, not that the things that have been worked on are entirely pointless/wasted/wrong (or any other negative term you care to choose), but that in the pyramid of elements that would make the perfect sim some of the blocks halfway up, or even at the top, are being worked on before some blocks at the bottom. In the long run this just makes everything seem very disjointed and often removes much of the enjoyment that could have been had from the sim otherwise.

 

I think what worries many is that it seems to be the case that aircraft are being produced which do not necessarily relate or "fit" with each other in a seemingly random order and often without any supporting elements coming along with them. While there may well be a grand master plan to bring everything together, as it has not been made public to any degree, people rightly work on the assumption that it does not exist. With such an outlook is it any wonder people start asking questions and voicing concerns?

[Silver_Dragon]

I think a question, we see very interesting mission buildings by some people here to fill holes. We have a extensive group of examples (CTTS, sea rescue, ASW course, Operation Bactia, Integrate Air Defense Script, A-10C Advanced Aircraft Training Qualification, Dynamic Medevac, MIST and a long etc).

 

Can be (ED, Partners or 3rd Party) to integrate all that talent on a official team and a common project to improve the Immersion into DCS: W and no ended who a solitary and lonely excellent work, but no affect of the course of DCS: W improvement?

 

That can be a neigh solution to the main discussion we have make, but can be a first past to search a solution.

[Cobra847]

Of course missile physics are a very important area. "Critical" for air combat, hmm, in the context of DCS at present perhaps not, given that without matching improvements in guidance the current improvement has lead to weapons which in a few cases are further from reality than they were to start with. Personally I'd have considered it better to wait until you can actually finish the job before you release it, perhaps there were/are good and sensible reasons not to in this case, but that doesn't really change the issue at hand. As I work in the aviation industry where anything less than perfect is simply not acceptable, perhaps wrongly, I expect that same standard and attention to detail everywhere. Which is why I have the viewpoint that I do with respect to many areas.

 

While AAM implementation is of course an important aspect of a modern military flight simulator product, I'd put it to you that such things aren't really worth much without AI that can utilise them correctly/believably. Or aircraft AI that cannot follow simple, basic, procedural elements of flying an aircraft, let alone fighting in one. That's the big issue here, not that the things that have been worked on are entirely pointless/wasted/wrong (or any other negative term you care to choose), but that in the pyramid of elements that would make the perfect sim some of the blocks halfway up, or even at the top, are being worked on before some blocks at the bottom. In the long run this just makes everything seem very disjointed and often removes much of the enjoyment that could have been had from the sim otherwise.

 

I think what worries many is that it seems to be the case that aircraft are being produced which do not necessarily relate or "fit" with each other in a seemingly random order and often without any supporting elements coming along with them. While there may well be a grand master plan to bring everything together, as it has not been made public to any degree, people rightly work on the assumption that it does not exist. With such an outlook is it any wonder people start asking questions and voicing concerns?

 

We (3rd party developers) know that single solitary aircraft without any ecosystem are less than optimal. That's all that can be said.

 

As I work in the aviation industry where anything less than perfect is simply not acceptable, perhaps wrongly, I expect that same standard and attention to detail everywhere. Which is why I have the viewpoint that I do with respect to many areas.

 

This will never happen.

There are ALWAYS more things to add. Diminishing returns but more importantly: trade-offs are a very real thing and are here to stay. Reality of game development, regardless whether it is a simulation game or Battlefield 4.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Cobra847

[sobek]

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.

 

Sorry but now you are being simply overly dramatic.

 

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.

 

You are biting the hand that feeds you. Without the mass that is the, lets call them less hardcore, players, there's no DCS at all.

 

As they currently stand, the new missile flight physics are inordinately broken, so their value for modeling air combat is mitigated.

 

Ok, so your point is if you don't outright have the money to tackle a huge feature utterly and completely, you oughta not do it at all? It is being stated time and time again that missile flight physics are still being tuned as it is a very long and arduous process.

 

You can't, simply because they couldn't chew the whole elephant at once (missile flight physics + advanced guidance) negate that it is being worked on. This is just nonsensical. O_o

Edited May 3, 2014 by sobek

[Eddie]

Anyone complaining about graphical (or superficial) improvements taking precedence over systems or gameplay related improvements need to carefully learn

how a development team works; and the differences between programmer specializations.

 

Moving the programmer(s) who spend their days working on low-level DX code or writing hlsl shaders to for exaxmple creating a dynamic campaign is not

going to yield the effect you are hoping for.

 

 

 

DCS is a Game. No doubt about it; a simulation game, but it is a game nonetheless.

There has not been a game developed EVER, that has not seen massive benefit from improved fidelity in graphics (be it immersion, sales, whatever)

 

Indeed. I think people need to be careful with their criticism, especially in this area.

 

Flying, military or civil is an inherently visual undertaking, so the quality of visuals in a flight sim product is very important. And as you also point out, a developer who works with code associated with visuals is hardly likely to be of great use in other areas anyway.

 

Also, your comment on DCS being a game is a very good one. It is an entertainment product, albeit one which broadly aims to replicate reality. The overall environment is a very important aspect of that, so flying a WWII aircraft in as accurate a representation of a WWII era theatre with WWII era vehicles, with AI that employ a reasonable replication of WWII tactics etc. is all very important to the entertainment value. The same is true for any other era people care to mention.

 

To me, just dumping aircraft X into any old terrain and flying around with none of your actions having any real impact on your surroundings, or in the case of combat any real impact on the mission isn't all that entertaining.

[Eddie]

We (3rd party developers) know that single solitary aircraft without any ecosystem are less than optimal. That's all that can be said.

 

I'm quite sure you do. Here's hoping you all get chance to actually realise it.

[lunaticfringe]

Anyone complaining about graphical (or superficial) improvements taking precedence over systems or gameplay related improvements need to carefully learn how a development team works; and the differences between programmer specializations.

 

I have more than enough experience in such specializations; see my prior comments about resource management.

 

Moving the programmer(s) who spend their days working on low-level DX code or writing hlsl shaders to for exaxmple creating a dynamic campaign is not

going to yield the effect you are hoping for.

 

No one has stated that, same as no one is stating the oft-seen complaint that development on new products cannot take place before the completion of another. However, there *is* a point where resources are overspent, damaging the speed at which development pace can be maintained. When you're spending core developers on FM assistance, EDGE, and everything but the stated intent of the product, you're idling.

 

DCS is a Game. No doubt about it; a simulation game, but it is a game nonetheless.

I'm not sure I understand your assertion that the requirement to have excellent graphics has to be noted in the title. Would "Pretty Digital Combat Simulator" suffice?

 

Where is that made as an assertion? It's made as a statement as to what is advertised, titled, and what should, in fact, be the focus of the product. Pretty is great. It's not excusable when one has been advertising the title as "modern air combat" for ten years without a functional air to ground radar model, severely broken AI, and the like.

 

There has not been a game developed EVER, that has not seen massive benefit from improved fidelity in graphics (be it immersion, sales, whatever)

 

Diablo III ring a bell? CoD? BF? You can only polish turds for so long.

[lunaticfringe]

Sorry but now you are being simply overly dramatic.

 

Really? "Broken missiles are a benefit".

 

Ok, so your point is if you don't outright have the money to tackle a huge feature utterly and completely, you oughta not do it at all? It is being stated time and time again that missile flight physics are still being tuned as it is a very long and arduous process.

 

No, my point is that you can't call an aspect a benefit until it's *actually* a benefit, not while it's still a beta.

 

You can't, simply because they couldn't chew the whole elephant at once (missile flight physics + advanced guidance) negate that it is being worked on. This is just nonsensical. O_o

 

"For the 2015 Ford Mustang, we've included a new pair of fog lamps. We'll get around to actually wiring them up in 2016, and for the 2017 model year, we'll actually include the bulbs".

 

Wow. You're working on it. You've been working on the F/A-18C for how long, too. And you've been working on EDGE. Now you're working on this WWII aircraft, that WWII aircraft, and spending time and resources with the contract with RRG. You've got so many pots on the burner that you need to have outside parties build flight models for your products, yet make no visible attempt to progress the actual *heart* of your product.

[sobek]

No, my point is that you can't call an aspect a benefit until it's *actually* a benefit, not while it's still a beta.

 

As far as i recall, i didn't call it a benefit, i said ED are working on improving it, which was what the argument was about before you tried turning it around.

 

Wow. You're working on it. You've been working on the F/A-18C for how long, too. And you've been working on EDGE. Now you're working on this WWII aircraft, that WWII aircraft, and spending time and resources with the contract with RRG. You've got so many pots on the burner that you need to have outside parties build flight models for your products, yet make no visible attempt to progress the actual *heart* of your product.

 

So it's not moving fast enough for you. Cry me a river.

[lunaticfringe]

As far as i recall, i didn't call it a benefit, i said ED are working on improving it, which was the whole point.

 

Actually, you compared it as being something they've done required for modeling air combat, which isn't actually true, because it doesn't work. Thus, you intended to use it as a benefit against Eddie's contention.

 

So it's not moving fast enough for you. Cry me a river.

 

No, I, and others such as myself, just don't spend any money. Which then leaves you to sit here crying that we're cutting our noses to spite our face for the fact that we're not wasting dollars on things we are not actually interested in.

 

What an argument- "here, buy this F150, because someday Ford might bring back the GT40!" Seriously- I've seen more convincing arguments from the drunk pandhandlers at the train station. :lol:

[159th_Viper]

 

No, I, and others such as myself, just don't spend any money. Which then leaves you to sit here crying that we're cutting our noses to spite our face for the fact that we're not wasting dollars on things we are not actually interested in.....

 

No loss there I'm afraid: Life trundles on with or without your business :megalol:

[sobek]

No, I, and others such as myself, just don't spend any money. Which then leaves you to sit here crying that we're cutting our noses to spite our face for the fact that we're not wasting dollars on things we are not actually interested in.

 

Last time i'm going to correct you regarding my posts. I never said you should buy stuff that doesn't interest you, i said if you don't allow for ED to cater to the less hardcore audience then they don't have enough money to develop what you are interested in at all. With that said i'm really tired of you constantly twisting my words just so you can have your strawman arguments, so i'm out.

Edited May 3, 2014 by sobek

[lunaticfringe]

No loss there I'm afraid: Life trundles on with or without your business :megalol:

 

Which is doubly amusing, and not a small measure of pathetic, because it doesn't go any faster when folks actually SPEND money.

 

So there you have it, folks- ED doesn't actually need your money. :megalol:

[159th_Viper]

Which is doubly amusing, and not a small measure of pathetic, because it doesn't go any faster when folks actually SPEND money.

 

 

Yes, according to YOUR time-table: Newsflash M8 - your timetable, as with your argument, is irrelevant ;)