Quality vs Quantity?

[Northstar98]

Hi Guys,

 

Just thought I'd post a quick poll to see how many of us would rather prefer ED to fix what needs to be fixed, updated etc over adding more aircraft, more this, more that etc Or focus on quantity over quality so we have more aircraft but all of them have annoying teething issues.

 

Personally, I'd rather ED to focus on quality - that is making sure each aircraft is up to the same standard as everything else - i.e we have a fantastic looking MiG-15Bis and Mirage 2000C but we still have an Su-25T from FC2 and a map from approximately the late middle ages.

 

Or plan to make lots of aircraft with can you add [insert aircraft here] but then they all end up with teething problems or issues that require heavy rectification (like the 3D model and flight dynamics of the MiG-29 as well as the Su-33 which still needs a non-google earth flight model.

 

Cheers,

 

Ollie

Edited February 15, 2016 by Northstar98

[Texac]

Quality of course that's what DCS is all about.

[Northstar98]

Quality of course that's what DCS is all about.

 

I agree, it's just I wondered if people would prefer to have just loads of aircraft or keep the current list and ED etc focus on getting them all to the same level of quality - it's just I see a lot of add [aircraft] and whilst yes who wouldn't want to see [insert aircraft here] in DCS, and most of the aircraft would be great, buuuuuut we still have objects, aircraft and a map that aren't updated to the standard set by more recent developments, and rather than just adding this and adding that, i'd rather improve this, improve that then focus on adding this and adding that. It's hard to explain but hopefully you understand where I'm coming from here

[Frostie]

The Su-25T is not a full fidelity model and it is this way for a reason as an entry level model, you do realise that is not a bug right and to make it full fidelity would probably be just as demanding to get right as a new aircraft.

MiG-29 and Su-33 are getting upgraded flight models and the DCS:L-39 is the current baby which ED is nurturing.

Nevada is in Beta as a new terrain and the F/A-18 is the next project which i'm sure the L-39 will be through any teething problems before the Hornet released.

So with that in mind it would seem all your requests for ED to focus on quality instead of quantity are already in place.

 

MiG-15 and Mirage 2000 etc. are by different 3rd party developers and these aircraft and others not really part of EDs scope to fix.

[Sryan]

the MiG-29 and Su-33 are getting touched up this year. as will the black sea map. Originally only the F15 was promised a decent flight model and a 6DOF cockpit, out of all the FC3 planes. Eventually almost all planes where updated and since according to the latest newsletter the MiG-29 and Su-33 will enjoy a PFM quality model, meaning that the FC3 pack will offer 6 PFM quality aircraft wich turns out to be great value for money.

 

ED has only moved out the L39 last year, next to ofcourse the NTTR map. Most other releases where made by 3rd parties including the MiG-15 ( belsimtek ) and M2000C (razbam) you mentioned. So they don't influence the process at ED to much. Lastly, the quality updates you desire must be funded, wich relies on ED moving product.

[Texac]

I think if people want more planes in DCS without no quality it's not DCS anymore... programming a simulation on a high level of detail is hard and people who play this kind of game will know that.

It takes years to create an highly detailed aircraft.

I think nobody wants a DCS with a lot of low quality planes that's for sure.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Texac

[Northstar98]

the MiG-29 and Su-33 are getting touched up this year. as will the black sea map. Originally only the F15 was promised a decent flight model and a 6DOF cockpit, out of all the FC3 planes. Eventually almost all planes where updated and since according to the latest newsletter the MiG-29 and Su-33 will enjoy a PFM quality model, meaning that the FC3 pack will offer 6 PFM quality aircraft wich turns out to be great value for money.

 

ED has only moved out the L39 last year, next to ofcourse the NTTR map. Most other releases where made by 3rd parties including the MiG-15 ( belsimtek ) and M2000C (razbam) you mentioned. So they don't influence the process at ED to much. Lastly, the quality updates you desire must be funded, wich relies on ED moving product.

 

I'm not just saying ED, and I know it may seem mad that developing a product costs money, belive it or not there are vast volumes of stuff that simply just need new models and textures, SA-10, nearly all the ships (though were due a new Nimitz and Kuznetsov). You caught up on by reference to the 3rd parties - would you rather go Belsimtek (which tend to release lots of modules and those gradually get updated throughout their life. Or add one feature, module, whatever, fix it, tweak it blah blah blah, move on to the next? That is my question here - not so much as a wishlist item. (That can come later :)). That's why there's a poll, more aircraft etc or more aircraft that are released finished and dandy but maybe longer development times? Obviously everything can't be totally bug free etc. But again, that's why there's poll.

 

I've seen lots of quality improvement requests - improved sound for example - the issue is requesting something like this means that if ED does [insert quality request here], that means [insert aircraft here] gets delayed etc (at least that's what I gather from some posts at least). The reason for this post is what do people prefer, improvements that make the whole experience better or just add this new aircraft etc. It's hard to explain my meaning but do you get where I'm coming from?

 

Cheers,

 

Ollie

Edited February 15, 2016 by Northstar98

[apolloace]

The A10C TGP needs to be fixed ASAP & also there are certain A10C Wingman issues that needs to be addressed.

 

These existing BUG fixes are more important than new content.

 

I hope ED is taking a note of these things! :noexpression:

[Northstar98]

The A10C TGP needs to be fixed ASAP & also there are certain A10C Wingman issues that needs to be addressed.

 

These existing BUG fixes are more important than new content.

 

I hope ED is taking a note of these things! :noexpression:

 

Here's what I'm trying to get at, thanks apolloace (Though I'm sure it's in the works)

[WinterH]

Bit of a loaded question this one...

 

My answer is "yes and no", I guess...

 

More modules does not immediately equal Quantity and therefore not Quality. DCS certainly needs many more aircraft and hopefuly in somewhat quick fashion.

 

However, there indeed is real concern as to whether all the modules living up to hype or not. For example, I am not thrilled that German WW II birds, a year into their release, still did not get their rockets, and while it was never announced, I would like some cluster bombs for them too. Those after all, are pretty small stuff. Then there's Belsimtek, they release beautfiul stuff with a bright future, which remain right there without arriving at that future. However, they seem to be improving that. Finally the Hawk and C-101. Well at least the Hawk seem to be doing the final push to becoming more high quality, lets hope it'll worth the wait, I do hope so myself.

 

But just what is "Quality" as represented in poll options? It seem to be something subjective if I look at some of the examples given in this thread, they do not constitute requirements for quality in a sim as far as I am concerned. When I think of quality in flight sims, eye candy is not the first item in list of importance, especially for AI only stuff. Yes, some of the older models like B-52, Tu-95 etc look pretty bad and may use a remodeling indeed, but do they all need to be half a million polygons and quadzillion layers of mapping? Something we'll rarely look at with F2 camera, and see from half a kilometer distance closest while shooting down? It takes lots of time, effort and money to build high quality 3D models. I'd rather prefer 3D model updates to AI assets to be more along mid-fidelity line than top notch looking, both from perspectives of probable development costs, and also in game performance with many such objects in air. Then there is Caucasus map, which is indeed old. But... it is also pretty big, certainly bigger than other released, or in development DCS maps we are aware of. This does play an important role in simulating many types of scenarios. For a combat flight sim, a larger but mid detailed map may well be of better interest than a smaller one with higher res mesh and textures / buildings etc. Both approaches are with advantages and disadvantages, and I'd personally like map development to branch out with options in both flavours. Seein just how much time and effort, therefore cost it takes to make the maps, I really do not expect free map to be brought up to paid map quality, for free. And if it is made as a paid upgrade, I'm sure we'd see some upheaval in community.

 

FC3 stuff, they are a bit of curiosity among DCS modules in my opinion too, but many love them (and frankly, I myself love Su-25 and also taking odd flight / dogfight in Su-27 or F-15C). But what they are is clearly defined, simplified, quicker to get into flavour of simulation. They are getting much needed cockpit and flight model updates thankfuly, but this takes time. I certainly would not want them to take all priority over arrival of a proper DCS level option such as F-18C. Oh and I think, while not up to better models, Su-25T itself looks good enough. Sometimes we should know how to appreciate good enough. Perfectionism kills the ability of delivering "good" things after all :). So long as new, player controlled stuff arrive with quality, I think Su-25T itself is good enough with AFM and current 3D model.

 

I was not getting Belsimtek products anymore due to modules not having full and good manuals after years, features being added at a slow pace etc. But, their next modules seem to F-5E, Mi-24 and AH-1W. And... I just can't resist getting any of those day 1, since those 3 are among the stuff I have always wanted to have in a high fidelity sim. Which brings us to my point somewhere above, something to the effect of "DCS does need more aircraft modules, hopefult in not too long".

 

Quantity itself is a quality, to a certain degree. While I am not much of a map person and would probably stick with Caucasus forever, for many folks maps of real world hot points or historical conflict areas are very important. Should ED focus only bring Caucasus up to par with NEVADA to detriment of those people, and to detriment of ED itself financialy? We have the MiG-21Bis, which is my personal favorite module since it is released (even though it also has some updating and finishing to do, it is still one with the least incompletion in my opinion). BUT, with the addition of F-5E, hopefuly a Mirage F-1, and some early 80s fighters like F-14A and Mirage 2000C, it will have more stuff to play together with, to some degree. This does mean quality as far as combat flight simulation go in my opinion. Also, MiG-21 has seen about 3 times fairly drastic changes in how it's flight model acts in critical phases of envelope. Finishing of this also means Quality, and I wholeheartedly agree that such stuff should take priority. Or, in the example of Caucasus, it's looks may well remain the same, but I think, and hope, at least collidable trees should be implemented in it too, since that does constitute realism, and therefore quality for me.

 

Do we need more aircraft modules and AI assets in short order? Hell yes... 3rd gen jets are barely starting to get numerous, WW II need many aircraft and proper ground units and at least a map to duke it out with WW II sims, 4th gen aircraft are also barely entering the scene this year. And we have just 3 helos, of which only one is a combat oriented aircraft, and even then that one is a prototype / limited production aircraft (like Su-25T itself is). So even though I am not too helo crazy, I welcome addition of Gazelle, Bo-105, Mi-24 and an eventual Cobra.

 

Do we need an influx of modules without much of a QC, a-la FSX ? Hell no... We already have some having it pretty rough with catching up with standarts (which I believe will this year). Indeed, at least for me, DCS means quality. Both graphicaly, and especialy realism wise, DCS modules mean an expectation of a bare minimum level of quality to be matched for me. CoreTex were showing some cockpit shots, and while I know they were WIP, they did not look good to me. I am also wary of aircraft / weaponry that would be heavily guesstimated. I'm sure they would have a sizable customer base too. But I personaly will stay away from post 2000s stuff unless they are developed in cooperation with respective company / military that make / operate them, which is a tall order to happen anyway. ED's control over 3rd parties does seem to have got tighter lately.

 

Now, do I then, completely disagree the gist of poll? There are quality realted stuff I think to be important and needs to be adressed. Performance and stability issues, mission building, AI, scripting, UI stuff. Especially of huge importance for me are damage model (and no NOT the visual modeling, rather the damage physics), weapon, sensor and flight performances. These seem to get tossed back and forth with patches lately, but even then, growth pains with new engine I suppose... Then there's the broken replay functionality. That was a feature I really did enjoy a lot, and would like it back please :).

 

In the end, sim does need many new content, and developers also need revenues. Eye candy, pyhsics, diversity, size, performance and making a living out of those are all factors that are important and a balance needs to be made among them. There are very important stuff that can use some good fixing, and soon at that. I'd reiterate them as : damage, weapon, sensor and flight performances, as well as engine & mission building stability & performance. More new content, though, does contribute to Quality of a combat flight sim, especially one that is a sandbox.

 

However, massive updates for essentialy free stuff like AI assets and Caucasus map, would be thankless effort and investment without much hope of return for developers, and the effort that might be put into them, may go instead into making better the stuff that matter more, or indeed into providing more quality new content. Contrarily, I believe focusing on former, to detriment of latter, would instead end up causing loss of Quality, rather than improvement of it.

[Darkwolf]

For now we are in between.

 

An average amount of things in an average quality. Having flew a lot of FSX, I do not want anymore the quantity, because you are spending way too much time on forums review to make sure you ain't buying a crappy plane. The quality would require more workload, so we would have way less plane devellopment. We are already waiting 3 month between every plane, let's not get back to yearly release.

[apolloace]

WOW WinterH, :shocking:

 

That one was surely loaded........ :lol:

 

Have you been typing all day? :D

 

Edited February 15, 2016 by apolloace

[Zimmerdylan]

Other flight sims go for the quantity. XPlane and FSX have a lot of add ons downloads, user designed planes and scenery, and lots of pay ware. I rarely fly either of them any more. What good is having tons of stuff to download, pay for, and add if it's all substandard and you find yourself settling for it.

In DCS, any of the things that I may not like are due to design, or differences in opinion, or preference, not quality issues. When I fly other sims, I just hate the lack of attention to detail.

[Northstar98]

But just what is "Quality" as represented in poll options? It seem to be something subjective

 

Wow WinterH a true monster reply, that must've took quite the amount of time! It is true that quality is subjective as there's no real way to properly define it for DCS, for me it represents an aircraft that is complete - I am not saying for an FC3 aircraft to be complete or the Su-25T to be complete it must have ASM like other modules etc. Of course we can't have a sim without aircraft and you are right that quantity in itself is quality as quality is hard to define concisely in DCS terms but for me that's what I was getting at, I apologize for being ambiguous.

 

I came from an FSX background as well, whilst there is sheer volume, some aircraft are really yearning for some love and the same goes here, it's no good barraging out new features as then you have to fix them whilst balancing everything else out - it's just high workload. But both ways really will lead to the same outcome, even if it's eventual.

 

I agree with you about the helos and everything but that's due to third parties being small last time I read Polychop was only 3 people, ED have their hands well and truly full, VEAO are doing the best they can for the Hawk, Belsimtek are constantly adding new features to some of their existing aircraft, RAZBAM are tidying up the Mirage 2000C, Aviodev are in VEAOs boat with the C-101 and Leatherneck are on their Viggen (though I'd wish they'd make the circuit breaker panel clickable, as it's a giant mass of cockpit that's non-functioning - but were slightly off topic here).

[MegOhm_SD]

After the F18, SoH and Normandy maps...focus on quality.

 

But I want them first. We need certain Modules and Quality is an evolving process. OK with that.

 

Other than that yeah...its quality

[docbrick]

Would like see see patches and builds deployed with more frequency. Responsiveness via small iterative updates in the way to go for software development.

[TalosX]

I think both arguments are right and I think ED does a really good job.

Their Aircraft are really good and they are able to manage the new engine and the other developers.

But for now, they really have to bring their current projects to a good end.

The new engine and all the other new things for the platform need a lot of attention and time. Without a good and bug-free platform there is no fun.

Even with 100 different aircraft.

In the meantime they should kick some ass of the other developers.

Why?? Home > E-Shop > Module

There are 20 Modules. 11=55% are beta Modules.

Some of them have this dev. status for a long time.

Mi-8MTV for example.

Furthermore there are some older but beautiful modules, which need an overhaul to push them to the new level with clickable cockpit etc.

All of you know which ones I mean.

I'm dreaming of a startup procedure of an SU-33 or SU-27 for example.

After that, they can think about new aircraft. And I think about a little bit more modern version of the aircraft as the Mig-21, with modern avionics like the A-10C.

There is no other aircraft in DCS with useful displays and avionics on similar level. Is it really impossible to get some information about such things because they are all absolutely classified?

I don't think so, because I know. (Don't ask).

The A-10C proves my thesis and continues to serve in the forces.

:) It's is a good one....old school, undestroyable aircraft like the Huey.

Bear that in mind!! Right now hueys are somewhere saving the world.

[Northstar98]

Totally in agreement with you there TalosX without a doubt.

[apolloace]

.........................................................................................

But for now, they really have to bring their current projects to a good end.

The new engine and all the other new things for the platform need a lot of attention and time. Without a good and bug-free platform there is no fun.

Even with 100 different aircraft.

In the meantime they should kick some ass of the other developers.

Why?? Home > E-Shop > Module

There are 20 Modules. 11=55% are beta Modules.

Some of them have this dev. status for a long time.

Mi-8MTV for example.

Furthermore there are some older but beautiful modules, which need an overhaul to push them to the new level with clickable cockpit etc.

All of you know which ones I mean.

I'm dreaming of a startup procedure of an SU-33 or SU-27 for example.

............................................................................................

 

Could not have agreed more!

 

Existing modules need more care than brand new ones. :)

[Enduro14]

I always had the thought that it would be better to have all aircraft at the same high degree of fidelity. I don't personally agree with the fc3 stuff it brings in a crowd many of us older guys want nothing to do with. If your goal is to bring In new generations and new pilots then that's why their is a arcade mode. In my opinion it would be a much better environment if all aircraft where modeled to same high standard.

So I'm definitely a quality over quantity voter

[Rogue Trooper]

No vote from me, I find the quality outstanding regardless of whether it is a finished module or not.... perhaps my expectations are lower.

I also find EDs free move into better quality engine and pay to use maps also to be of supreme quality!

 

I also notice that the quality and the quantity equation seems to be better balanced with the greater increased developers joining DCS.

 

I think the lack of choppers being released is the problem that you are complaining about OP. :thumbsup:

[NeilWillis]

Both!

[apolloace]

No vote from me, I find the quality outstanding regardless of whether it is a finished module or not.... perhaps my expectations are lower.

I also find EDs free move into better quality engine and pay to use maps also to be of supreme quality!

 

I also notice that the quality and the quantity equation seems to be better balanced with the greater increased developers joining DCS.

 

I think the lack of choppers being released is the problem that you are complaining about OP. :thumbsup:

 

No one is saying the quality of the engine or sim is poor! DCS is Outstanding!

 

It is just that most of the modules has irritating bugs that needs to be fixed first before more aircrafts are released.

 

This will not only improve the overall Quality of the series but also make each & every module Complete.

 

These small details will eventually lay the ground for Bigger & Better things! :)

 

[Northstar98]

No one is saying the quality of the engine or sim is poor! DCS is Outstanding!

 

It is just that most of the modules has irritating bugs that needs to be fixed first before more aircrafts are released.

 

This will not only improve the overall Quality of the series but also make each & every module Complete.

 

These small details will eventually lay the ground for Bigger & Better things! :)

 

 

Precisely! Well said apolloace!

[Shez]

No one is saying the quality of the engine or sim is poor! DCS is Outstanding!

 

It is just that most of the modules has irritating bugs that needs to be fixed first before more aircrafts are released.

 

This will not only improve the overall Quality of the series but also make each & every module Complete.

 

These small details will eventually lay the ground for Bigger & Better things! :)

 

 

Agreed!