Quality vs Quantity?

[probad]

I decided to play this game because I like the choices ED has already made

therefore I think ED should just keep doing what they have been doing

[Northstar98]

I decided to play this game because I like the choices ED has already made

therefore I think ED should just keep doing what they have been doing

 

So do I, but there's still a bit of work to be done, not just in adding [insert aircraft here] but a fair few engine improvements. Plus some reworked stuff (of which most is already in development or planned). Agreed?

 

Plus in another thread (I believe the MiG-29 for free thread)

...i'll pay for quality over quantity every time every time.

Your two answers seem to contradict, care to explain? Edited February 19, 2016 by Northstar98

[probad]

Plus in another thread (I believe the MiG-29 for free thread) Your two answers seem to contradict, care to explain?

No, it's not contradictory at all.

I like quality over quantity, but I can put my own interests aside. ED has already seen fit to implement some quantity, and I think it contributes to the game just fine.

 

The current balance in direction has made things enjoyable as they are for me.

ED is the one that got things here and it certainly makes their choice of how to run their business a lot more credible to me compared to random business advice from random people who may or may not have any real experience running a successful enterprise.

[Xenovia]

Why not both :)

[PiedDroit]

Why not both :)

I assume we all want it fast and at a fair price :music_whistling:

[scotth6]

With the aim of DCS in the past up to now being in depth simulations I would think it has to be quality over quantity. Personally I don't have time to learn the systems, tactics etc of many more aircraft than I already have. Not to say that I wouldn't buy another aircraft, because if it was an aircraft that I was interested in I definitely would, but I also already have enough in my hangar to keep me busy for years. At the moment I am just concentrating on the A-10C, and have been for a month or two, and I am still in the early campaign missions and still learning the systems. To keep it interesting I will occasionally jump in the F-86, the Mig-15 or the Mirage for a quick mission, although I still have so much to learn about these aircraft also.

 

Not to mention the Mig-21, which I was so excited about, but haven't even started yet :doh:

 

Cheers,

Edited February 21, 2016 by scotth6

[Fri13]

I take both.

 

First quality:

- Fix a serious design flaws like trees not offering cover and concealment for missiles, lasers, radars etc. As that would improve once radically every module out there when even A-10C/Su-25T pilots get like 4-5x increase to difficulty. Or make CA module useful as vehicles would never go to forest without infantry support as they are way too easy targets when they need to move slowly and can get stuck easily and ambushed.

 

- Fix AI so it doesn't see everywhere at once (like how many really would see up to skies when buttonned down in armored vehicle?) and react to threats like they were already prepared totally to engagement. And then improve their stupidity like if one unit in group gets hit by something, everyone pulls over near by and stays still like ducks. Like how about Max speed driving to nearest air cover and then parking, unloading troops automatically and prepare for air threats?

 

- Mission logic in editor. Simple things like how to create a un-assigned routes, loops etc that can be assigned via commands when needed, to create immersive missions. Like making a A-10C mission, the unit is treated like editor couldn't make semi-intelligent orders that if the pilot gets engaged by air threats, retreat to circle Bravo and use channel X and Y to make a radio call, if no answers, retreat to circle Alpha and wait X minutes if not under threat and continue mission, otherwise RTB.

Or for ground units like if being shot at, move to under closest trees in 100-300m distance. And automatic path selections to move close cover/concealment if air threat is alarmed, so reaction times to get in cover are faster.

 

For quantity:

I accept FC3 level aircrafts and other vehicles if they have logic well to exist. But those should follow some level realism so if aircraft can't pull constant 6G, then it doesn't. I don't care if it is scripted or not as long it's well made.

But I welcome high fidelity modules like KA-50 or Mi-8MTv2 or Mig-21Bis as long they get quick periodic updates, like once a month updates for small things like a new skins, missing translation in labels etc. Just so customers see the "Beta" is there. And I would drop "Beta" from many modules like Mi-8MTv2 as 1.0 doesn't mean the product can't be improved later. So multiple "beta" products isn't a problem as long there is no bugs that doesn't allow to use module what so ever.

Like if F-18 would come out first as FC3 level as "Alpha" for pre-ordered people, it is fine for me if we get that way more modules that in time will get quality to them.

 

But that drives to situation where some developers could think "we got their money, why should we spend time to it anymore instead start a new project?". So not good either.

 

I just think that we do not need more high fidelity modules than we have now, instead get the existing code problems fixed (mentioned terrains logic, AI, mission editor). As those would give more benefits for everything we have right now. I don't see reasons to get a new attack helicopter module if I can not fly it like I should be able, instead I would be hopping same "engage only from max range" -dance and I am very bored to it now.

[Northstar98]

Exactly Fri13, exactly that!

[scotth6]

I definitely would not want any dumbed down models, as the in depth modelling, systems and flight dynamics simulation is the reason I use and enjoy DCS so much. IMHO there is no point releasing a "half baked" aircraft in to DCS World as this would just be going backwards and against the trend of DCS' evolution.

Edited February 22, 2016 by scotth6