Poll: What should ED focus on after the Spitfire?

[Tomsk]

Agree or disagree: after ED finishes the Spitfire the next priority should be on creating AI bombers, the Normandy map and period ground units.

 

I'm sure ED is currently pushing hard on getting the Spitfire ready, which is awesome. The question is what should they do after that's finished?

 

My opinion is that ED should focus on the "other assets" needed to make DCS a great WWII air combat simulator with an active community. In particular AI bombers, the Normandy map and period appropriate ground units. I think these are more important that new planes such as the Me-262 and P-47 (even though I'm a big fan of the P-47). Lots of people on the forums appear to share this opinion, so I thought I'd do a poll to see if that is indeed the consensus.

 

Edit: Gah the forum clipped my poll text ... anyone know how I edit the question? Maybe a moderator could help here? Maybe change it to 'After the Spitfire ED should focus on AI bombers, Normandy map, and ground units.'

Edited June 26, 2016 by Tomsk

[Cripple]

I concur.

 

The WW2 element of the game is a bit dead in the water (or air...) without suitable units to shoot at. Once we have AI bombers to intercept/escort and ground units to suppress, perhaps this over-emphasis on which plan is "best" at short-range dogfighting will quieten down a wee bit.

 

ED et al do seem to have been rather keen at pushing the airframes rather than the appropriate content, however the recent releases of the Nevada map and the add-on missions for their star aircraft seems to be a step in the right direction.

[Brigg]

Totally agreed we need the map before anymore planes.

[Solty]

Are you sure they are related? I mean FM modelers and system coders might not be the same people, and maybe they work on both at the same time.

[Tomsk]

Are you sure they are related? I mean FM modelers and system coders might not be the same people, and maybe they work on both at the same time.

 

Agreed they are not necessarily (or even likely) to be the same people. But ED is working on quite a few other projects not are not focused on WWII. It's up to them how to allocate the resources within their team to the various projects. If the community here says "We'd be more interested in AI bombers, the Normandy map etc than planes" then that might affect how they allocate those resources.

[gavagai]

I disagree. Some early backers already paid for the P-47 and Me 262. Those guys deserve their aircraft, so there isn't a moral option to change course until they are finished.

[MegOhm_SD]

Your making a big assumption as to where EDs priorities are. Who is to say the map and assets are or are not being developed simultaneously. Or that the map and assets are not a particular teams priority?

[Tomsk]

Your making a big assumption as to where EDs priorities are. Who is to say the map and assets are or are not being developed simultaneously.

 

Well, when we've asked we've been told ED is focusing all it's WWII development effort on the Spitfire. So it seems likely that it's not a priority right now.

[gavagai]

See this thread for lots of AI WW2 bombers: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=160234&highlight=bismark

[cichlidfan]

Wow. So all we need is a poll to get ED to to do what we want.

 

I wish I had known this years ago. :lol:

[Tomsk]

See this thread for lots of AI WW2 bombers: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=160234&highlight=bismark

 

They look awesome, but as I understand it the problem is that right now the DCS AI can't really cope with bombers armed with guns that fly in formation and don't dogfight. At least not without some really nasty hackery.

 

Wow. So all we need is a poll to get ED to to do what we want.

 

I wish I had known this years ago. :lol:

 

Ha, I don't have high expectations, but worth a shot right?

[cichlidfan]

... but worth a shot right?

 

Not really.

[gavagai]

They look awesome, but as I understand it the problem is that right now the DCS AI can't really cope with bombers armed with guns that fly in formation and don't dogfight. At least not without some really nasty hackery.

 

Not hackery, just an unsatisfying work-around where flak shoots at the fighters instead of the bombers' guns.

 

ED is yet to fix the bomber formation problem in DCS, and they're the ones who have to do it.

[Tomsk]

ED is yet to fix the bomber formation problem in DCS, and they're the ones who have to do it.

 

*nods* on AI bombers I think there's huge potential "bang for buck", if ED do a little then modders can maybe do a lot.

 

The Normandy map seems more like ED would have to do it. Is it even possible to create fan-made terrains in DCS?

[bart]

Well for what it's worth I chose the Agree option.

 

I would love to see a fully fleshed out WW2 DCS on the Normandy map.

 

BTW is it ED that's doing the map or as I think I read somewhere a 3rd party? I remember Racoon I think it was mention he hopes the Normandy map could be done before the end of 2016, but we gotta see 2.5 and the merge first I would think.

[NineLine]

The map and units is not related to the creation of new aircraft. So where is my option for both?

 

You guys did see the Normandy icon in Matt's last live stream right?

[OutOnTheOP]

I disagree. Some early backers already paid for the P-47 and Me 262. Those guys deserve their aircraft, so there isn't a moral option to change course until they are finished.

 

Really?

 

REALLY?!?

 

I'm pretty sure the defunct RRG kickstarter promised not only aircraft, but also the ground and air AI assets. So saying "they must make the planes because the kickstarter promised them", but denying that they must make the AI assets, even though the kickstarter promised them... that's a bit disingenuous.

 

Please note where, on the original kickstarter, it promises AI "B-17G" and "Authentic ground vehicles, guns, and ships; Authentic historical buildings and landmarks;"

 

 

THE AI GROUND UNITS AND BOMBERS WERE ALSO PROMISED.

 

This isn't a "moral obligation" battle. BOTH were promised. But from the standpoint of what would be best for growing DCS WW2 as a whole, what would attract the most players, and what would offer the greatest increase in content- both for existing modules and future modules- the AI units are clearly a better return on investment. It will benefit (and attract more) players of every WW2 aircraft. Making a new module, on the other hand, takes significantly more effort and only benefits people who want to fly that particular aircraft.

[Medic8ed]

I also remember reading that a 3rd party is doing the Normandy map. I'm guessing it is an unannounced 3rd party but who knows. I don't think they mentioned who was working on the period AI units but that they will be ready with the launch of the map, but I also remember them saying the map wouldn't be launched until some time frame after 2.5 launches. It's anyone's guess how long it takes for all that but it's getting there.

[NineLine]

Its a silly argument...

 

One, the kickstart page is not relevant anymore, ED has updated what they are willing and able to do.

 

Two, we are getting all of the above, so its silly to get all bent out of shape about it. This poll is really not of any use.

 

 

Really?

 

REALLY?!?

 

I'm pretty sure the defunct RRG kickstarter promised not only aircraft, but also the ground and air AI assets. So saying "they must make the planes because the kickstarter promised them", but denying that they must make the AI assets, even though the kickstarter promised them... that's a bit disingenuous.

 

Please note where, on the original kickstarter, it promises AI "B-17G" and "Authentic ground vehicles, guns, and ships; Authentic historical buildings and landmarks;"

 

 

THE AI GROUND UNITS AND BOMBERS WERE ALSO PROMISED.

 

This isn't a "moral obligation" battle. BOTH were promised. But from the standpoint of what would be best for growing DCS WW2 as a whole, what would attract the most players, and what would offer the greatest increase in content- both for existing modules and future modules- the AI units are clearly a better return on investment. It will benefit (and attract more) players of every WW2 aircraft. Making a new module, on the other hand, takes significantly more effort and only benefits people who want to fly that particular aircraft.

[cichlidfan]

THE AI GROUND UNITS AND BOMBERS WERE ALSO PROMISED.

 

The only 'promise' that is in effect is what Wags posted as ED's resolution to the kickstarter rewards. Anything prior to that is null and void.

 

Unless you want to take it up with Ilya. ;)

[Ala13_ManOWar]

You guys did see the Normandy icon in Matt's last live stream right?

We did, but it seems some people look without seeing.

 

 

IMO stupid question and poll, as said everybody around here knows they are already working in the map, they are or will work on the units populating the map, and they are working on several aircraft at once. No need to ask for one or another, just wait patiently no matter how badly we all want to taste all that stuff. Pushing ED has no point, we won't get it sooner anyway.

 

S!

[Tomsk]

So here's my perspective. ED has built some the finest WWII plane models, their fidelity is completely unmatched. They are all fantastic to fly ... but truthfully I find the experience is a bit lacking because there's not much else to do in them.

 

In fact, I'd say that's a bit of a trend with DCS in general. ED seem really good at pushing out planes. Since the P-51D they've released the SU-25, F-15C, F-86 Sabre, Mig 15bis, the FW 190 Dora, the Mig 21bis, the C-101 Avrojet, the SU-27, the Bf 109 Kurfurst, the Hawk T.1A, the L-39 Albatros, the Mirage M2000, the F-5E Tiger II, the Mi-8MTV2, the UH-1H Huey, and the SA243 Gazelle. I realize some of those are made by partners not directly by ED, but still it's a lot of planes.

 

They also very recently released 1 new terrain and some campaigns, but for ages there were no new terrains or campaigns apart from the small campaigns that came with some modules.

 

For me personally lots of planes does not by itself make a great flight sim. I really believe in DCS, and love the fidelity of the planes ... but I sort of worry that ED has in the past focused a lot on making planes, often with not much else. Now maybe it's just me that's thinking this, but if lots of people are sat here thinking the same thing then maybe that's worth talking about ...

[OutOnTheOP]

Its a silly argument...

 

One, the kickstart page is not relevant anymore, ED has updated what they are willing and able to do.

 

Two, we are getting all of the above, so its silly to get all bent out of shape about it. This poll is really not of any use.

 

You seem to have completely missed the point. He claimed that ED was morally obligated to deliver the modules FIRST because of promises made by RRG's kickstarter; my point was that the very same kickstarter ALSO promised the AI units, rendering his argument null.

 

Also, whether it's "in the works" or not isn't really the point; the point is about prioritization. The NTTR map was "in the works" for... how many years, again? Six? Saying "they're working on it" doesn't really mean much. Delivery means something. Until then, it's vapor.

 

The poll is of plenty of use: the customers are TELLING you what they want. You don't even have to spend money on focus groups and market research: we are TELLING ED that AI units would be a good investment. If you want to ignore it and patronizingly insult us for making a "pointless poll", ok, but some of us are a bit fed up with it.

Edited June 26, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

[cichlidfan]

The poll is of plenty of use: A small subset of customers are TELLING you what they want.

 

Fixed.

 

I don't disagree, entirely, with some of your points, but regarding the validity of the poll, not so much.

[Tomsk]

Also, whether it's "in the works" or not isn't really the point; the point is about prioritization.

 

Absolutely. I actually work in software development, and yes sure everything will be done eventually, but what's the priority? For the people interested in DCS WWII what do we want most?

 

Also working in software development we are very focused on finding out which features are the most important to our customers. We work on the features that the most customers want. That's just good business sense. When our customers actively tell us they want us to focus on something that's pure gold dust! Does ED not do the same? Is it pointless when their customers actively tell them "we really want you to focus your efforts on this"?