DCS World Weekend News Update Discussion

[ebabil]

hype train has been bombed by czich :D

 

nevada and f-5 will be ok till i get 2,5 and f18 , ok for me

[Raven68]

So would that mean 1.5, 1.5 beta, 2.0, and Normandy as separate installations?

 

Until 2.5 they will remain seperate.

 

 

I wonder why Normandy isn't delayed until the 2.5 release.

 

My understanding that 2.0 can be used to play the Normandy map. I assume they will have both NTTR & Normandy under the 2.0 executable.

 

Hard not to be sad about the Hornet and 2.5, but looking at it positively, it will be nice to not have a distraction from the Spit and Viggen. As well as something to look forward to in 2017. :)

 

Agreed, but where do these modules stand as far as release status now? Seen hopes for a release this year but nothing official yet.

[flying rabbit]

I really like eds current way of communication. By the look of the screenshots, it seems worth a little more wait. :)

[QuiGon]

My understanding that 2.0 can be used to play the Normandy map. I assume they will have both NTTR & Normandy under the 2.0 executable.

 

That's also my understanding. DCS 2.0 is capable of having multiple maps (which 1.5 is not), so the Normandy map will probably released to 2.0.

[Neldrion]

For myself I put it this way:

 

1.5 is single map (Caucasus)

2.0 is multiple map (Nevada, Normandy, Hormuz)

 

I think 2.5 is a misleading title. It has too much weight in it. Essentially it is 2.0 with Caucasus. I think ED should not emphasize the term 2.5 too much. It makes 2.0 seem old already which is not even fully released. Just call the damn thing 2.0 and Caucasus will be added when it's done. I think it will make things much clearer.

 

Aside from that I think it is a very good thing to push things out in alpha, beta, early access stages. We get to see and use things months/years before they would have been published in the old development days. We could not participate in the struggle between release stages.

 

For me personally all this is pure entertainment :thumbup:

[Pocket Sized]

F-5 is gonna be out if beta tomorrow.

 

An extremely optimistic me says that we'll get 1.5.5 stable tomorrow.

 

Didn't expect it to be true but I'm certainly not complaining!

[sniperwolfpk5]

I am sad :( for 2.5 but as said in news letter we will get high quality map which is a good news

[QuiGon]

I think 2.5 is a misleading title. It has too much weight in it. Essentially it is 2.0 with Caucasus.

 

That's not true. It will have more to offer than just a renewed Caucasus map. New graphic effects for example.

[Phantom88]

I remember almost a year ago when after,delay on top of delay then yet again more delay's DCS World 2.0 Nevada was Finally released and how Absolutely Amazed I was for weeks and months afterwords. Hoovering The Mi-8 over Vegas.I was just Floored by the incredible detail that was included in this New Map.

 

As a Oculas Rift VR User I have to say how thankful I am that The DCS Team pay such close attention to the small details that make this Simulation such a Great experience.I believe when 2.5 is released it will blow us all away just as Nevada did.

[SkateZilla]

So would that mean 1.5, 1.5 beta, 2.0, and Normandy as separate installations? I wonder why Normandy isn't delayed until the 2.5 release.

 

Hard not to be sad about the Hornet and 2.5, but looking at it positively, it will be nice to not have a distraction from the Spit and Viggen. As well as something to look forward to in 2017. :)

 

Until 2.5 they will remain seperate.

 

 

 

 

My understanding that 2.0 can be used to play the Normandy map. I assume they will have both NTTR & Normandy under the 2.0 executable.

 

 

 

Agreed, but where do these modules stand as far as release status now? Seen hopes for a release this year but nothing official yet.

 

That's also my understanding. DCS 2.0 is capable of having multiple maps (which 1.5 is not), so the Normandy map will probably released to 2.0.

 

 

DCS 2.0 is capable of running multiple terrains

 

DCS 2.5 is the New Lighting, Shader and Physical Based Rendering system

[boedha68]

Allright ED partners this it. This is your moment to fill the gap. Go for it Leatherneck. Push out the F-14! :D :pilotfly:

Edited November 11, 2016 by boedha68

[lanmancz]

I am not very happy with the progress. No 2.5 and no hornet this year, the only 2 things I was looking forward in DCS world this whole year. Also DCS world has been in this 1.5/2.0 limbo for a year already which I do not like, having to have 2 installs of DCS depending on which map I want to fly. Well, I guess I will check back in 6 months.

[boedha68]

We are going back to babysteps.

Edited November 11, 2016 by boedha68

[The Black Swan]

Ugh.............

So now 2.5 isn't priority... instead Normandy and Nevada (and who knows how long till those are out of beta/alpha) and then 2.5 (which based on this newsletter is at MINIMUM 2 months more work once they get back to it).

So much for merging dual versions. And so much for the people who have waited a year because they don't want dual versions. Because now they will be missing out on Normandy too.......

 

I really need to get into a virtual squadron or something so I don't go into depression lol.

[ebabil]

ok. hype train leaving this station now. looks like this train will get in a tunnel which causes a time travel back to 1940's

[NeilWillis]

Priorities have to be based on realistic expectations. Clearly, the work of upgrading the Caucasus map involves a lot of work, so why not make other projects with a more realistic chance of completion within a shorter time frame jump ahead in the priorities queue?

 

Frankly there are too many soap box experts making less than positive contributions to a subject they know precious little about. Why not give the people who actually know what's going on the benefit of the doubt, and let them get on with what they're doing?

 

Or do you really think you know better than they do?

[The Black Swan]

Priorities have to be based on realistic expectations. Clearly, the work of upgrading the Caucasus map involves a lot of work, so why not make other projects with a more realistic chance of completion within a shorter time frame jump ahead in the priorities queue?

 

Frankly there are too many soap box experts making less than positive contributions to a subject they know precious little about. Why not give the people who actually know what's going on the benefit of the doubt, and let them get on with what they're doing?

 

Or do you really think you know better than they do?

 

No I thought they were the experts, which is why I thought when they said over and over that 2.5 was priory that was the way it would be. I thought when they said their priority was getting rid of the dual version thing they meant it because it made sense....

 

Not that they aren't experts, it's just that everything being subject to change gets old after so many delays...

[NeilWillis]

It only gets old if you are pedantic about announcements, instead of taking forecasts for what they are - presumed timescales which are - as very very clearly stated every time they make them - forecasts.

 

Unless you have a workable crystal ball, a fully certified clairvoyant, or a time machine, then you must approach all announcements with more realistic expectations.

 

Also, consider the phrase - mission creep - it is always a factor, and when a map designer comes up with some more ideas along the way, then they may well affect the lead times for projects.

 

Perhaps you'd prefer less detail, less enthusiasm, and strict deadlines? If not, then let them get on with it, and keep your council.

[bkthunder]

Priorities have to be based on realistic expectations. Clearly, the work of upgrading the Caucasus map involves a lot of work, so why not make other projects with a more realistic chance of completion within a shorter time frame jump ahead in the priorities queue?

 

Because there can always be projects with a more realistic chance of completion within a shorter time frame that will jump ahead of the queue, at leats until a decision is made to focus on the one big project that once completed will make smaller projects have an even higher chance of completion.

However, from a business point of view, the "quick-buck" doctrine kinda makes sense when your customers buy anything and everything you throw at them, in no particular order :D

[bkthunder]

It only gets old if you are pedantic about announcements, instead of taking forecasts for what they are - presumed timescales which are - as very very clearly stated every time they make them - forecasts.

 

Unless you have a workable crystal ball, a fully certified clairvoyant, or a time machine, then you must approach all announcements with more realistic expectations.

 

Also, consider the phrase - mission creep - it is always a factor, and when a map designer comes up with some more ideas along the way, then they may well affect the lead times for projects.

 

Perhaps you'd prefer less detail, less enthusiasm, and strict deadlines? If not, then let them get on with it, and keep your council.

 

totally agree.

[Revelation]

No I thought they were the experts, which is why I thought when they said over and over that 2.5 was priory that was the way it would be. I thought when they said their priority was getting rid of the dual version thing they meant it because it made sense....

 

Not that they aren't experts, it's just that everything being subject to change gets old after so many delays...

 

There can be countless issues that popup unexpected that can cause delays.

 

Let's take another look shall we?

 

Let's say that if they continued working on all modules in parallel as it "appears," that things have been proceeding in the last year or so, that it would be 5 months worth of work without any releases.

 

So ED then takes a look and says, well if we re-prioritize we can get 'x' out by 'y' date and those resources can then be diverted to 'z'. This is how things work. So now 'x' can be out in 1 month and 'z' moves ahead of schedule as well. This continues until their projects are done and they move on to the next set of projects within ED / TFC.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Revelation

[lanmancz]

If not, then let them get on with it, and keep your council.

 

Well not everyone is happy that this "mission creep" caused a delay in the reunification. This whole Caucasus rebuild thing that is delaying the unification is an example of that, it just came out of nowhere a couple months back. Personally I would much rather have them working on something that most people want like dynamic campaign instead of reworking the Caucasus map which I don't think anyone asked for (besides those "bring Crimea back" threads).

[The Black Swan]

It only gets old if you are pedantic about announcements, instead of taking forecasts for what they are - presumed timescales which are - as very very clearly stated every time they make them - forecasts.

 

Unless you have a workable crystal ball, a fully certified clairvoyant, or a time machine, then you must approach all announcements with more realistic expectations.

 

Also, consider the phrase - mission creep - it is always a factor, and when a map designer comes up with some more ideas along the way, then they may well affect the lead times for projects.

 

Perhaps you'd prefer less detail, less enthusiasm, and strict deadlines? If not, then let them get on with it, and keep your council.

 

Delaying it from 2016 isn't the issue, I understand what a forcast/estimate means. Shifting priorities is the issue.

[VTJS17_Fire]

Ok, so next stop for the hype train is the Nevada update this year with all the new airfields.

[PicksKing]

I hoped for some new stuff in the screenshot section.