DCS: World 2.0 Q&A with Matt Wagner - 28 Jun 2015

[Bunyap]

The Q&A portion of today's live stream did not save properly to Twitch so that portion is included here with permission from ED. Enjoy. :)

 

 

The remainder of the stream can be viewed right here: http://www.twitch.tv/wagmatt/b/673478911

[rcjonessnp175]

Very nice as always brother keep up good work!

[NineLine]

:thumbup:

[rcjonessnp175]

im just drooling to see what dcs 2.0 looks like in the rift, and the vive!!

[SilentGun]

I thought that this Q&A was very informational and would love to see it more often in later live streams :)

[Strut]

Good info , Thanks Wags, looking forward to it.

[Echo38]

Very cool. I like how the promotional materials for DCS 2.0 are matter-of-fact, as opposed to the hand-waving hype-generation propaganda that seems to be standard in the gaming industry these days. If you've got good content, it speaks for itself; you don't need to try to convince everyone of how awesome it's going to be.

 

: )

[StandingCow]

Thanks bunyap!

[MemphisBelle]

thanks for sharing

+1 for this :)

[BIGNEWY]

thanks Bunyap

[Bailee]

Seems DCS2.0 will be 100GB larger

[bjsracer]

Thanks Wags, and thanks Bunyap

[NeilWillis]

It is very reassuring that a lot of our wish list will be accommodated with the revamp. I'm particularly pleased that ATC is getting some richly deserved attention, which on it's own would give DCS World a major push towards immersion. The ability for 4 human players to take positions in the same flight is also something I have wanted for a while, and being able to fly any position in a flight, with AI flight leads is an excellent move too.

 

Having seen the way distant aircraft visibility has been handled on the live stream ticks yet another major box too.

 

Altogether, an extremely positive result all round in my opinion. Thank you for listening ED, much appreciated!

[leafer]

Thanks, Bunyap. Good info.

[Cedaway]

Thanks Matt and Bunyap :thumbup:

[Silver_Dragon]

Thanks to Wags and Bunyap

[Aginor]

I think those video streams and especially the Q&A are a magnificient idea. It reminds me of "10 for the chairman" and "10 for the producers" videos which are done by the Star Citizen team. That project may or may not live up to its hype, but there are some things developers can learn from it.

 

Wags shows and tells us cool stuff in the same manner, and I think the reaction of the community will be similar to the one of the SC community: Very positive overall. :)

[Echo38]

I think those video streams and especially the Q&A are a magnificient idea. It reminds me of "10 for the chairman" and "10 for the producers" videos which are done by the Star Citizen team.

 

Actually, the "10 for the Chairman" videos were exactly what I was thinking of when I referred to the arm-waving hype generation of other game developers (although traditional trailers for popular shooters also fit the definition of that phrase). The 10 questions Matt Wagner answered were solid, factual, conservative discussions of features. This is good. The "10 for the Chairman" videos, on the other hand, are largely comprised of the developer whimsically tossing about extravagant plans for the distant future.

 

Most of said casually-laid plans are now doubtful to ever happen, due to the sheer volume of these intended features. Relevant terms are "over-hyped" and "feature creep." Mr. Roberts would do well to look at how Mr. Wagner picks & answers 10 questions: picking 10 that are able to have a solid answer given, with a goodly amount of relevant info (which isn't likely to significantly change), on topics that the community is particularly interested in.

 

The way not to do it, is how Mr. Roberts has been doing it: picking 10 suggestions, formed as questions, which he thinks are cool, and answering with "yes, we'll probably do that at some point," and then explaining how he'd like to do it, without seriously considering the viability of making them all happen in a practical timespan. The "telephone game" ensures that the community as a whole ends up hearing about these ideas as promised features, which is a setup for disappointment.

[Aginor]

I sort of disagree. But well, yeah, maybe "10 for the producers" is more comparable. But please don't turn this into a SC discussion.

 

EDIT: But I think a bit of hype is ok. We can use a bit of a positive mood here, don't you think? :)

[OnlyforDCS]

Well said Echo38. No one should take any lessons on how to do things the "Chris Roberts" way, unless they want to do it the "wrong way".

[NineLine]

Matt does things how he best thinks they should be done, no need to bring anyone else into the discussion, good or otherwise...

[Rogue Trooper]

DCS 2 really looks sweet.

Thanks for posting that Bunyap.

[QuiGon]

Very cool. I like how the promotional materials for DCS 2.0 are matter-of-fact, as opposed to the hand-waving hype-generation propaganda that seems to be standard in the gaming industry these days. If you've got good content, it speaks for itself; you don't need to try to convince everyone of how awesome it's going to be.

 

: )

 

THIS!

 

Thanks Matt for giving us open and honest answers without marketing bla bla even though if some of these are not as hoped, it's still so much better than some imposter advertising and makes me stoked for DCS World 2.

Can't wait :joystick:

[tacky_taco]

Very cool. I like how the promotional materials for DCS 2.0 are matter-of-fact, as opposed to the hand-waving hype-generation propaganda that seems to be standard in the gaming industry these days. If you've got good content, it speaks for itself; you don't need to try to convince everyone of how awesome it's going to be.

 

: )

 

Where can I find this promotional material? Would just like to sift through.

I guess DCS appeals to a more mature crowd where the hype machine has limited effect, good thing

 

Bunyap, thanks for the summaries so far. I watched the stream, but for some reason missed the Q&A so this was great. Keep making 'em :)

[Frostie]

Regarding the aircraft visibility and EDs decision to not use smart scaling, Matt talks about an icon that makes the aircraft more visible at range but I don't think the main issue has been how far away you see the bandit, the problem is rather to do with the disappearing act they do at around 2-3nm. I would have liked to of heard if that has been addressed.