Current path of the DCS franchise. Do we need a course correction?

[QuiGon]

I guess the hardcore fanboys rule the roost here.

 

No, no one denys that there are lots of issues, but I think you're overacting a bit here. The game has issues, yes, but it is not broken and the issues are beeing worked on. Progress just takes time, lots of time in some cases.

[MegOhm_SD]

Not really, I paid for a game an I'd like it to work as it should instead of discovering it's dysfunctional and broken on many levels.

 

Then to find a forum full of people well aware of how broken it is, (and has been for many many years) who readily and happily accept it and jump to the defence of ED whenever it's pointed out.

 

I guess the hardcore fanboys rule the roost here.

 

This happens often when Gamers try a Developing Simulation and expect a Game.

Edited November 3, 2016 by MegOhm_SD

[Silver_Dragon]

Not really, I paid for a game an I'd like it to work as it should instead of discovering it's dysfunctional and broken on many levels.

 

Then to find a forum full of people well aware of how broken it is, (and has been for many many years) who readily and happily accept it and jump to the defence of ED whenever it's pointed out.

 

I guess the hardcore fanboys rule the roost here.

 

You paid by modules, not by a game (DCS: W core as free). The AI and other functionality has on the core, outside of any purchase module. If you compare the first interactions, the sim has progress at high steps the last years (only check the Roadmap). Has bugs and problems? yes, but the ED, 3rd parties and the community continue create big steeps outside that problems, and not, we have not a "hardcore fanboys".

[QuiGon]

Now we're getting pedantic for the sake of argument, game / sim , whatever.

 

Talk about missing the point.

 

Instead of "issues" maybe I should refer to them as "immersion killers".

 

If you're still referring to the AI, I can only repeat my recommendation: Try MP.

[NineLine]

 

I guess the hardcore fanboys rule the roost here.

 

If you cant discuss without calling people names, it might be best for you to take a break. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, you dont need to attack someone because they have a differing opinion. There are other places on the net for that.

 

For all your other points, dont know what you want, you want the most advanced, complex combat flight simulation you have ever seen, with the development time of minesweep. I am not sure what you think, that all these things are easy fixes and ED chooses not to do them just to watch you get upset? The AI, which you chose to quote me on has already seen improvements, and I have seen even more coming internally. I know that isnt good enough for everyone, but its just fact.

[Bucic]

1. Not a consumer responsibility.

2. No consumer responsibility. We are "consumers".

3. Not my concern.

 

Let's not get carried away and presume the we the consumer have any obligation to get into the workings of the Manufacturer/Supplier. They presumeabley have the marketing know-how. Sales/profit margins are the sole arbitor of success/continuation of most enterprises.

 

While well intentioned, I think this thread serves no logical purpose between us the consumer and the manufacturer. It is, IMHO, a large presumption to assume that ED want or need this input. It's their process - not ours.

 

My only recommendation if asked by ED, would be to provide a better communications process to manage consumer expectations.

 

It's just Marketing 101.

 

Nothing personal intended.

Ditto!

 

To me personally ED does need to shake off from what seems to be a classic SW dev feature creep. Or perhaps module creep would be a more appropriate term. From my perspective it has already started, only far too late. At some critical point in the future the discrepancy between what DCS has to offer in terms of modules and its core functionality (AI, damage modeling, audio...) is going to be unbelievable.

 

Whay can we do to help? I don't think there's ever going to be anything more than "buy modules snd spread the word", no matter how intense and substantial discussions we enage in.

[SageOT]

Bucic, yes, this. I think it's easy for someone like me who plays this as a hobby but whose career has nothing to do with computers, except typing on them for reports , to forget just how small these gaming / simulator companies are.

 

I only peripherally paid attention to the World War II Kickstarter drama. But with that part added in and all of these other things going on I do have to wonder, as an outsider looking in, if ED spread themselves a little thin.

 

I think that is the direction change I personally am hoping to see from ED. After 2.5 and the World War 2 stuff and the 18 c finally do make it to the market. I really hope they can then Focus their efforts on the core gameplay / Mission editor / future Maps / AI Improvement / always-popular on these forums Dynamic campaign, etc. There are so many really great third-party companies now to make the planes. I'm definitely on the side of those who talked about Ed getting out of the plane business and focusing on all the stuff above.

 

With the funky business model of DCS World being free I can see why they needed to do this other stuff to keep money coming in. However, now we have almost moved beyond DCS World being free. Each map is now a revenue source so maybe in the future they can go smaller with their efforts and still make direct money versus percentage of the third party planes.

[Gecko6]

Thank you Sith. Trolls be crazy.

 

Great newsletter today.

 

Great information and a date for the Spit. Kudos!

 

I would take one of them way before a screen shot contest or a teaser post. Even though I am not a fan of the Spit I would consider adding it in my stable to support the Dev.

 

Earlier I stated that the Viggen is the next bird for me. But the Kitty would also be on my list. Then the Jug for my next WWII.

 

 

 

R@M I asked everyone to be civil and not to turn this into a spiteful soap box for trollers. Simma down and when you get your rights back please feel free to join in once again.

 

Said with Respect to all viewers.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Gecko6

[probad]

I would take one of them way before a screen shot contest or a teaser post.

while solid info like dates are nice, we must remember it takes time to do the work so that we can get a date in the first place.

there is nothing wrong with organizing some other entertainment while devs are working in the background on that 99.9% that comes before you can get a date.

 

let's be honest, a good number of us are just addicted to the daily contentmill dripfeed and experience withdrawal as soon as we're not getting something new and fresh every time we press f5.

 

we ought to make a conscious effort to be better than that.

Edited November 3, 2016 by probad

[Flogger23m]

Personally I'd like to see the large discount sales come back for older modules. Not a fan of the bundles because they rarely offer modules I am interested in. Obviously, older modules would get discounted more where as just released would not be discounted. Next sale maybe a minor discount, the sale after that a bit more, ect.

 

Reduce the sales to a few times a year. I'd rather have a few sales with big discounts then a bunch of bundles monthly. That is of course my opinion only.

 

I remember when there were massive discounts and seeing DCS threads pop up on general gaming forums. A lot of people bought A-10C for a massive discount and seemed to enjoy it for what it was. Got a number of people to buy some FC3 planes for cheap to. Don't seem to see that anymore, but who knows (aside from ED) how the actual sales are now VS then.

[probad]

in that span if time you would have earned many times the difference in cost...

 

like if you're seriously hurting for money maybe time would be better spent on something more productive than flying pixel airplanes.

[Flogger23m]

in that span if time you would have earned many times the difference in cost...

 

like if you're seriously hurting for money maybe time would be better spent on something more productive than flying pixel airplanes.

 

But it would still be cheaper. Value is relative. Would I pay $20 for a pack of WWII planes? Rather likely. Would I get one for free? Of course! Would I pay $40 for a single WWII plane? Likely not. I simply don't value the product to be worth that much, so I won't purchase it. Time is another big factor. If I know I won't get to play the module much I am going to be more weary of spending $40-60 on it. But at $15 I'm more likely to take the risk of getting a module I don't like or will likely end up never being used.

 

Personally, I think that would be better option than sales every month. A few larger sales rather than many mediocre sales. It can also give new modules a 3-4 month window between sales depending on the release date.

 

This is all just my opinion, however.

[Weta43]

"

'Personally I'd like to see the large discount sales come back for older modules....'

+1!,

The difficulty is though, is having the self discipline to wait for a module to become an "older module" before giving in and purchasing before that time..."

 

Sounds like an excellent business model you're suggesting.

 

Encourage your customers to put off buying your product for months, and perhaps years, then have them only buy at a huge discount

[MemphisBelle]

Once again, there are no firm release dates given there, they are estimates based on what they know at the time, nothing ED does is easy and quick, its all very complex. The 2.5 think is purely based the updating of the Black Sea map which wasnt planned back then..

 

Sorry, I cant second this. If a development Status is estimated to be available on a certain Timeframe and this particular Timeframe cant be hold so it should at least be normal to oficially communicate this to the customer base. This has somethings to do with courtesy imho.

 

 

 

The communication on the Ru side is not how its supposed to be done, and its been addressed

 

thats good to know that we arent the only ones who are recognizing this. This is really somethings that should be changed....best current example is the F-18 and 2.5 Situation.

Edited November 6, 2016 by MemphisBelle

[Bushmanni]

Sorry, I cant second this. If a development Status is estimated to be available on a certain Timeframe and this particular Timeframe cant be hold so it should at least be normal to oficially communicate this to the customer base. This has somethings to do with courtesy imho.

 

It's not ED's obligation to keep us posted about timeframes and stuff, especially when it's obvious and has been told many times that those estimates are just estimates. Getting hurt over it is just like sticking a splinter under your nail and kicking a wall and then cursing the world for your pain. It's especially stupid when ED actually communicates with customers about delay then people get hurt because they weren't told sooner. If people can't help getting hurt for postponement of release dates then ED would do a service for these people by not telling anything until next product is essentially finished as there's essentially nothing else you can do to avoid hurting them.

[MemphisBelle]

It's not ED's obligation to keep us posted about timeframes and stuff, especially when it's obvious and has been told many times that those estimates are just estimates. Getting hurt over it is just like sticking a splinter under your nail and kicking a wall and then cursing the world for your pain. It's especially stupid when ED actually communicates with customers about delay then people get hurt because they weren't told sooner. If people can't help getting hurt for postponement of release dates then ED would do a service for these people by not telling anything until next product is essentially finished as there's essentially nothing else you can do to avoid hurting them.

 

It´s fun to read those statements, what is the point of this? All I´ve said is that it should be normal that just a few words can be mentioned "officially" if an estimated goal can not get hold. Its no magic, as they obviously do this in the russian forum as well, so why not for everyone? THAT wouldnt hurt anyone, and if really some people would feel hurt after this, then those ones are wrong here.

I can wait and I am willing to wait if I will get quality in return what ED has proven EACH TIME they´ve released a module...to point out my thinking in this matter.

Edited November 7, 2016 by MemphisBelle

[StandingCow]

It's not ED's obligation to keep us posted about timeframes and stuff, especially when it's obvious and has been told many times that those estimates are just estimates. Getting hurt over it is just like sticking a splinter under your nail and kicking a wall and then cursing the world for your pain. It's especially stupid when ED actually communicates with customers about delay then people get hurt because they weren't told sooner. If people can't help getting hurt for postponement of release dates then ED would do a service for these people by not telling anything until next product is essentially finished as there's essentially nothing else you can do to avoid hurting them.

 

Again, I have said this a few times now... people weren't upset about a delay, but rather how it was/wasn't communicated.

[QuiGon]

Again, I have said this a few times now... people weren't upset about a delay, but rather how it was/wasn't communicated.

 

+1

[Gliptal]

My personal point of view is that ED should focus in stabilizing and fixing the core framework, and slow down the development of most other things until most of the issues are ironed. For example:

 

- AI

- mission editor

- scripting

- long standing bugs

- current released modules bugs

 

Then again, I don't know what is coming with 2.5 so it might very well be better to push hard for this merge and then polish everything up, rather than fixing everything and then merging.

 

I'd also concentrate on some long-awaited core featurues that would, on their own, compound the enjoyement of any module. Namely:

 

- ATC revamp

- Caucasus T4

 

With that said, I really don't see a problem with the current direction ED has taken. The only thing that should be given a look at is customer communication, namely consistent feedback, both from and to the customer.

[MemphisBelle]

[...]

 

correct me if I´m wrong, but isn´t 2.5 just some sort of "focusing on framework"? This process still belongs to EDGE imho, so ED is excatly doing what you want them suggest to do. The only Module they are working on in parallel is the F-18C, or is ED working on another Module simultanously besidesd 2.5 and the Hornet?

[Gliptal]

correct me if I´m wrong, but isn´t 2.5 just some sort of "focusing on framework"? This process still belongs to EDGE imho, so ED is excatly doing what you want them suggest to do. The only Module they are working on in parallel is the F-18C, or is ED working on another Module simultanously besidesd 2.5 and the Hornet?

That's why I said it's probably better for them to merge first.

 

I honestly don't know what ED is working on, since they disclose so little. What I do know is that there are a bunch of long standing bugs that limit the potential of the base game, and that I would like to see those addressed before other stuff like Normandy or new lighting.

 

Then again, modelers and such have little to do with coding.

[Esac_mirmidon]

You are missing a very important point.

 

ED Team are multidisciplinar.

 

So, some members works on maps, other on textures, other on AFM-ASM, other on 3D models, so it´s not a question about, " hey folks stop what you are doing and everybody working now in 2.5"

 

Each team inside ED has they own specialized work and when someone is doing a 3D model, that doesn´t affect at all over 2.5 merge or anything else.

 

The work of coders isn´t affected by others work. They are linked of course for a final product but each team has his own responsabilities.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Esac_mirmidon

[VTJS17_Fire]

"

'Personally I'd like to see the large discount sales come back for older modules....'

+1!,

The difficulty is though, is having the self discipline to wait for a module to become an "older module" before giving in and purchasing before that time..."

 

Sounds like an excellent business model you're suggesting.

 

Encourage your customers to put off buying your product for months, and perhaps years, then have them only buy at a huge discount

+1

 

Sounds like a success recipe. :D

[Gecko6]

Once again I want to thank you all for keeping the conversation productive and respecting each others views.

 

There are some good points and I hope that the message is getting to the correct ears.

 

One of the original points I brought up was:

 

Stop offering up aircraft to 3rd Party Devs and support their current offerings.

 

For Example: Razbam is working on the Mirage 2C and have disclosed the Harrier and the AT-27.

 

Why would they want to entertain even acknowledging the F117, A-6, Tornado, or anything else?

 

There are a lot of threads that folks start and add no value. Even start arguments for no apparent reason.

 

Reality.

 

• First thing that you need to get a licenses from the Aircraft Manufacturer before you can even think about modeling the aircraft.
   
  
• Then you have to understand the systems and if DCS can even model them
   
  
• Then you consider the complexity of the Module
   
  
• Then you determine if the demand for said module is going to recoup your costs.
  

 

Ron and team know very well what their current capabilities are and they plotted their road map based on the points above and many more.

 

Yes I want the A-7D very much. They have stated that the NAVWD is far to complicated and that the ATG radar which the Corsair gathers so much of its information on is not able to be modeled currently.

 

So why would I bitch and moan over the lack of progress?

 

• Leatherneck
  
• Belsimtek
  
• VEAO
  
• AvioDev
  
• Polychop-Simulations
  

 

Thank you all for your hard work and dedication to the Community. Please do not let the rants and trolls influence your work.

[Pocket Sized]

You are missing a very important point.

 

ED Team are multidisciplinar.

 

So, some members works on maps, other on textures, other on AFM-ASM, other on 3D models, so it´s not a question about, " hey folks stop what you are doing and everybody working now in 2.5"

 

Each team inside ED has they own specialized work and when someone is doing a 3D model, that doesn´t affect at all over 2.5 merge or anything else.

 

The work of coders isn´t affected by others work. They are linked of course for a final product but each team has his own responsabilities.

 

Exactly this ^^^^^^

 

At NASA you wouldn't have a security guard inspect space suits, at ED you wouldn't have a 3D modeler fix core game issues.