Please be more open with information, or about broken code and secretive plans

[bkthunder]

To be fair you are competing with any other game that shares overlapping interests of the "simulation" sub-genre that can take customers time and money away from you. It could be other flight sims, racing sims, ship sims, launching frog people into space with more boosters, or whatever else. Simply because any given game doesn't strive for 100% of another game, doesn't automatically invalidate any comparison between the two. As long as a reasonable connection can be made it should be allowed. In essence such thinking would disallow comparisons between an RTS that has 2 factions and an RTS that has 3 because it requires totally different balancing. Thats where I often take issue at the mindset and rule because it is often used as a Godwin's Law equivalent and deletes the post in the entirety.

 

 

 

Two things.

1. There is not a lot of aspects of DCS that can be easily replicated by the end user, so stuff like rocket damage generally has some comparison to what unguided rockets do in other games because most of us can't wheel the ole A-10 out of the barn and fire at some old Soviet equipment. Not to mention it is a bit more natural to draw comparisons between video game 1 and video game 2 because they are both, you guessed it, video games. Like it or not but whenever the CV module comes out people will draw comparisons to a mainstream FPS that had a carrier in a level. Not because DCS and it had similar scale or simulation, but because it is a similar enough experience and aesthetic to warrant a comparison.

 

2. Wishing DCS did something better just like how game X does it, is precisely that, a wish. Everyone is going to value the quality and relevance of the wish to DCS differently anyway. There should be little harm in making wishes and referencing other games. It should be viewed as, "how could it apply to DCS?" instead of "ooooh yeah you mentioned another video game, I'm just gonna delete the post."

 

I think it should only ever be considered a problem when used in the context of, "well game X does feature Y, so why can't DCS do it better or as good?" And thats the entirety of it. If they added more info, how that improvement would make this better in DCS, or pointed out bugs in how bugs in DCS currently negatively impact it; then I think it should be fair game and fully allowed. Ultimately beating around the bush to vaguely mention the mere existence of other games provides for a negative experience impacting a number of areas.

 

Fully agree.

I find many of the points made by Nineline understandable, and really happy to see that he responded openly.

However when he says that DCS has no competitors because they are doing "things that no one else is doing', well... sorry but you are not doing things that no one else has done.

In fact, if you allowed comparison with other sims, you'd see you are doing far less in many respects, than what other sims are doing and have been doing for the past 20 years (while also doing more in other areas!).

I am the first one to (silently) appreciate what we have today, but let's not be blind, there are vast areas of the core game that are lacking (A.I., ATC, not even talking about a dynamic campaign yet..),this is my personal gripe with DCS and I believe this is what causes the most discontent. I'd rather see you stop module developments altogether and fix weapons and AI, improve performance etc.

 

Another point that always confuses me is when they say ED needs "cold hard facts", and yet many things (e.g. missiles) are very far from any cold hard facts as well as from some common sense.

 

So we have a mix of: fully developed features, missing features because there are not enough "cold hard facts", and over-simplified or outright wrong representations of systems/features.

How so, if you only model things after cold hard facts?

In my opinion, the more sensible approach would be to either not model what you don't know, or to model it in a way that is believable according to common sense and available information, rather than choosing to have a nerfed system that is neither accurate nor playable.

And by the way, this is what you are already doing e.g. with the Harpoon, Harm, TGP etc. Why not do the same "incremental implementation" with ATC, missiles etc?

 

What is the advantage of having e.g. an A-A missile that is poorly simulated and behaves differently than what is commonly seen in other simulators and thought-of by the vast majority of your customers, as opposed to having it modelled - albeit not accurately - in a way that is in line with what most people think it should be?

 

In either case, you have an unrealistic reproduction, but one of them meets popular belief and logic, the other goes against it and causes discontent. While you look for the perfect info, why not have something that pleases your customers and enhances gameplay?

 

 

Anyways, you know we love DCS and that's why we spend so much time writing and complaining about it.

[QuiGon]

It was never promised as a feature for release, it was something BST wanted to do, but were having technical challenges with the shared controls. It is still something they want to do, even now being merged back with ED, but to be clear, there is no "promised" timeline on that. So once again, we cant throw around the word "promised" so much, when I don't think it was ever used, even though it is still our intent to work on making it happen at some point.

To be fair, this has been and actually still is listed as one of the features of the Huey on the official product page:

• Multiplayer coop mode for crew members of the same helicopter under development for a later update.
  

Yes, it does say it will come later and yes, it doesn't say when, but it says it will come eventually in a later update. There is no "maybe" to be seen there. Having said that, I can understand that this is not an easy task and depends on multicrew developments of the core game, but after more than 5 years of waiting I would really like to get some infos on where this feature stands right now. Especially as the original development team is now merged with ED, I would really like to hear an update on this feature.

[omskTransmash]

i cannot find anything new in this thread, except Nineline's superhuman patience.

if we want improve ED and DCS, we dont tell them to do it. instead we go to the competitors. Buy the competiton they will do their job even before we know it.

sadly this was very niche market with only ED is in monopoly. Lets change this. i hear that FS from MS is coming back. Microprose is coming back. maybe rumors/hoaxes maybe not, but if they manage.to launch their product, lets buy them instead of ED's. it will solve everything.

[twistking]

i agree with the original post and want to add one thing that always bothered me about communication from ED and this is communication about DCS performance problems and limitations.

I see this as very important, because people literally spend thousands of dollars on hardware trying to make DCS run better.

There has been a severe memory leak that has not been properly communicated since 2.5 (or maybe 2.0 ?), which resulted in hundreds (thousands?) of pages of threads without official responses and concluded in the "insane" assumption that DCS would need 32gb to run well and that one should just accept it.

Also without talking about the problem, ED just increased the system specs for DCS to 32gb recommended, while i could play single player and (small) coop on 8gb memory (very high settings), as long as the memory leak did not hit.

In such a case, where the forums are full of specualtions, unscientific experiments, wrong assumptions, bad advice (disable swap file etc.), and people start spending huge amount of money on it, i would expect some technical staff from ED to jump into the discussion and try to clear things up, even if this means admitting to problems of the product.

 

 

thanks!

Edited August 28, 2019 by twistking

[David OC]

i cannot find anything new in this thread, except Nineline's superhuman patience.

if we want improve ED and DCS, we dont tell them to do it. instead we go to the competitors. Buy the competiton they will do their job even before we know it.

sadly this was very niche market with only ED is in monopoly. Lets change this. i hear that FS from MS is coming back. Microprose is coming back. maybe rumors/hoaxes maybe not, but if they manage.to launch their product, lets buy them instead of ED's. it will solve everything.

 

LOL,

 

There is not aircraft out there that comes even close to the A-10C in FM, systems, weapons and (weapon systems) and that was released in 2010.

 

Have fun flying that virtual bus. It's not for me.

 

All the new fly sim niche's are good for ED in the long run. When they bring in more people (big Ad spends etc) and they get bored, many will and be wanting more. I know what sim will end up installed and flown the most.:smilewink:

[nthere]

to be frank,due to some historic reason,your code need refactor and clearly organiztion

[Rosebud47]

Blaming someone for something out of context never is a good advice.

 

As far as from my point of view the development has gone off the roadmap.

The problem is the roadmap, as it is much more than the developer teams could handle within reasonable time.

Somehow it is apparent, that the developers are overwhelmed by their own roadmap and things which need to be fixed, won´t get fixed and points on the roadmaps are not reached in schedule or not reached at all. It´s simply too much.

 

From the point of view of a developer, this surely leads into frustration, not to concentrate or coordinate the progress to one or two projects, but being very fragmentated in the development of many, many different things, which need to be addressed and which should be addressed by the roadmap.

 

Now what is being addressed is what directly results in turnover ( new models or maps ), but the quality of past models and issues which arise beside the development for new stuff, gets questionable.

 

At this point it really should be said, that DCS World is a great project, constantly under development and unique in its concept including 3rd party developers and a loyal community.

DCS is free and easy to enter: you get the caucasus map and a high-fidelity model and a FC model for free. Additional maps and high-fi models are chargeable.

The community surely shares the enthusiasm for this project with the developers and ED management.

 

Me personally enjoy DCS very much in whatever state of development it is and with all not yet addressed issues.

 

This discussion does not seem complete without adding to mention this kind of community culture, which is also very much questionable.

For the communities a huge part of entertainment is being hyped by announcements, trailers and roadmaps. Not only the endproduct is the entertainment, but the excitement of hypes is a valuable part of the entertainment. For some as well complaining anything or anyone in the forums is part of their entertainment.

The situation created is not intended, when ED management overenthusiastically released their roadmaps, but has led to the situation, that the complaining culture of the community got manifested. And it got worse for the developers as they are surely overwhelmed with their to-do lists from one side and constant complaining from the other side and pressure from both sides to fullfill the roadmap and everything which is "promised" there. ( Me too think that people in the internet increases, which think, the internet is driven by Santa Clause to whom they could formulate promises...)

 

As current state is that there is so much to do, individual things surely just drop from the schedule or are fragmentated. Even worse is, that 3rd Party developers already adopted this development concept and each one announces one or two brand new models, instead of fixing/ finalizing or upgrading to state-of-the-art models and/or assure fully functionality within progressed DCS World software environment.

 

Again, I´m happy with everything and always enjoy every minute with every plane - but no one is blind for the issues and the discussion points.

 

So in short I would like to add, that the community is constantly demanding new models, dynamic campaign, new maps, etc. and at the same time constantly complaining existing models and maps. The community constantly want to be entertained by announcements and huge roadmaps.

The developers follow these demands and prioritize in their own interest to make the cooperating companies grow through chargeable early access modules, what makes DCS World grow, for what everyone is looking for.

 

The situation surely changes with time and hopefully there could be found a better balance between quality and new projects, but currently it is as it is.

[SmirkingGerbil]

Ok, I will try and address all the points here and summarize at the bottom as needed.

 

. . . We are also in a niche area of the gaming world, we are not making first-person shooter money, people aren't looking for a new umbrella to float in on with a pink AK-47 . . .

 

 

 

And thank you, TFC, ED, DCS from the bottom of my heart for that!!!!

 

 

Been here since 2011 (Started on Steam). You folks always deliver.

[rrohde]

You folks always deliver.

 

+1 :thumbup:

[NineLine]

However when he says that DCS has no competitors because they are doing "things that no one else is doing', well... sorry but you are not doing things that no one else has done.

 

Well now I am being mis-quoted.

 

I never said we didn't have competitors, what I said is we are not trying to replicate what those competitors have done or are trying to do.

 

In MOST cases, what worked for another sim/game will not work for us, in fact we are very different than most of those offerings.

 

This is a DCS World forum, we can discuss what we want to see in this sim without referencing other deveoplers or games. As I said, Mudspike and the likes are great for discussion of other sims.

[NineLine]

 

Two things.

 

1. If rockets need to work better in DCS, then, by all means, report that I don't see any need to invoke any other game to convey that. Especially when those rockets or the target you are shooting are all based on real-world examples.

 

2. You can wish for DCS to do something better without bringing up another game, it is very easy to do.

[NineLine]

To be fair, this has been and actually still is listed as one of the features of the Huey on the official product page:

Yes, it does say it will come later and yes, it doesn't say when, but it says it will come eventually in a later update. There is no "maybe" to be seen there. Having said that, I can understand that this is not an easy task and depends on multicrew developments of the core game, but after more than 5 years of waiting I would really like to get some infos on where this feature stands right now. Especially as the original development team is now merged with ED, I would really like to hear an update on this feature.

 

I just gave you info, it is still a technical challenge and hasnt been solved yet. But it is still planned.

[nighthawk2174]

1. If rockets need to work better in DCS, then, by all means, report that I don't see any need to invoke any other game to convey that. Especially when those rockets or the target you are shooting are all based on real-world examples.

 

2. You can wish for DCS to do something better without bringing up another game, it is very easy to do.

 

First reports like that have been made numerous times for years and years and years but nothing has been fixed. Second, But why? These other games just do so many things better than dcs. By having this rule your limiting our ability to create effective comparisons and to show just how bad DCS is in some regards. Yes I get you want to do things differently and you can, but that doesn't mean you should just straight up deny that other games exist and are de-facto competitors that others will look to to show what is bad in DCS.

[omskTransmash]

LOL,

 

There is not aircraft out there that comes even close to the A-10C in FM, systems, weapons and (weapon systems) and that was released in 2010.

 

Have fun flying that virtual bus. It's not for me.

 

All the new fly sim niche's are good for ED in the long run. When they bring in more people (big Ad spends etc) and they get bored, many will and be wanting more. I know what sim will end up installed and flown the most.:smilewink:

 

Sitting on that seat of a10 and praising how we are better than fs players or ace combat or whatnots is what exactly making us niche and gave the ED monopoly.

 

Some are dont even get out of falcon 4.0 because they think it's perfect. I am sure they are happy but i dont envy them because im sure there are few people who saying falcon 3.0 is way more realistic than arcady 4.0 let alone dcs.

 

If we C.O.R.E. sIm gamers shove our ego up in our ass just one second and grit our teeth and say 'hey your flying bus looks awesome! does it have flight attendence? btw, i know this one game called dcs / falcon, which happens be a little bit violent, it has guns and missiles such... no im not a warmonger. no sir i dont want wage war against canada..'

 

it's painful but as is all marketing and sales activities. it's for us, not ed. i say we have to do it for us, not a monopoly supplier

[NineLine]

First reports like that have been made numerous times for years and years and years but nothing has been fixed. Second, But why? These other games just do so many things better than dcs. By having this rule your limiting our ability to create effective comparisons and to show just how bad DCS is in some regards. Yes I get you want to do things differently and you can, but that doesn't mean you should just straight up deny that other games exist and are de-facto competitors that others will look to to show what is bad in DCS.

 

Links?

 

We are not simulating a game, if DCS World is doing something bad, a real-world comparison would be better. Or a description of the issue, again, you don't need to bring up another game, which has no bearing on DCS to explain an issue.

 

You guys are not going to get this, we are not going to allow comparisons. I have seen too many discussion like that end up in trashing either ED, or other publishers, and these forums are not for either.

Edited August 28, 2019 by NineLine

[Razorback]

Wouawww very glad to see some kind of discussion...

A lot of question or remarks from passionate people and for sure the pleasure to see some return from ED via NineLine. Thx to him :thumbup:

And sorry but I will also jump in this discussion hopping to receive the same answer as for the other questions ?

 

What the actual status of the Mi-24 HIND Module?

This module was annouced since years now and is expected by a great number of rotorheads.

 

The last released information and screenshot are quiet old now and in fact a lot of us things that the Mi-24 is now placed "on hold or frozen " for another long period of time.

The F-14, the F-18, now the F-16...regarding helicopters, the BO-105 is frozen, BS3 is on track but the Mi-24 seems to be "frozen" too!

We don't expect to see this module available in open beta in the next few months but we just want to receive cleared and more detailed situation of the module.

At the moment ED is "for me" only targetting a part of the simers and seems to forget others...

I have to add that I am passionnate by helicopters and I enjoyed hours and hours on the KA-50...but BS3 is for me not the module the the majority of the rotorheads are waiting for.

 

Thx a lot to give me the opportunity to publish my current dissapointment

 

One of your unconditional supporters ! ;)

[NineLine]

Hind is in active development, as well as the updates to the Black Shark.

 

Hind has some new challenges with it, so we are working on designing new systems for that.

 

Not a lot of news right now though. But the Helo world is far from being ignored, just quiet right now behind the noise of the Hornet and Viper.

 

Wouawww very glad to see some kind of discussion...

A lot of question or remarks from passionate people and for sure the pleasure to see some return from ED via NineLine. Thx to him :thumbup:

And sorry but I will also jump in this discussion hopping to receive the same answer as for the other questions ?

 

What the actual status of the Mi-24 HIND Module?

This module was annouced since years now and is expected by a great number of rotorheads.

 

The last released information and screenshot are quiet old now and in fact a lot of us things that the Mi-24 is now placed "on hold or frozen " for another long period of time.

The F-14, the F-18, now the F-16...regarding helicopters, the BO-105 is frozen, BS3 is on track but the Mi-24 seems to be "frozen" too!

We don't expect to see this module available in open beta in the next few months but we just want to receive cleared and more detailed situation of the module.

At the moment ED is "for me" only targetting a part of the simers and seems to forget others...

I have to add that I am passionnate by helicopters and I enjoyed hours and hours on the KA-50...but BS3 is for me not the module the the majority of the rotorheads are waiting for.

 

Thx a lot to give me the opportunity to publish my current dissapointment

 

One of your unconditional supporters ! ;)

[I_Gamer]

Links?

You guys are not going to get this, we are not going to allow comparisons. I have seen too many discussion like that end up in trashing either ED, or other publishers, and these forums are not for either.

 

I may be misunderstanding this statement, but your guys' view on comparisons needs to be put in check.

 

What about - if instead of comparing how DCS works with another sim/game. Why not look at it as an opportunity to do it even better? It's this little thing called "excellence". You can look at features of other games and simulators and compare features for the purpose of making a competing product better. Being inspired by someone/something and trying to do it better is a huge part of creating better products all around.

 

For example;

 

DCS has an "Okay" weather system with weird clouds (which is being worked on, I know). However; Ace Combat 7 and the new generation of FS(2020) looks to be stunning.

 

You don't make the comparison of saying "But, DCS isn't like AC7 or FS...". True, however, comparing individual elements is a valid argument and the same situation should be taken into account when trying to compare products.

 

It's not fair to compare, say, Battlefield 4 to ArmA 3 - they're two completely separate titles that are marketed towards different player bases. That's not to say one developer team can't learn from the other's downfalls, mistakes, or lack of some sort of other "feature". That is exactly what Call of Duty seems to be doing in their latest MW title - learning from past mistakes, seeing what the people are actually wanting, and improving their strategy to reach more people. All while making their game look better and play better.

 

Who's to say DCS can't do the same? DCS won't grow, neither will ED, if everyone on the team is turning a blind eye to what the industry is actually doing.

Edited August 28, 2019 by I_Gamer

[Skarp]

It’s a pretty fair assessment to compare DCS to other games and sims in several basic areas such as bug fixing, path the company takes ect. Paying customers want their bugs fixed. CA having so many bugs is unacceptable for a module as old as it is. Using revenue to work on other ventures than polishing your product is irresponsible. Forgot to ask....why is the arty bug not fixed yet? Or the white flag bug not fixed? Or the pathfinding causing the game to hang not fixed?

Edited August 28, 2019 by Skarp

[NineLine]

If we are talking clouds, we are wanting to model clouds like the real world, not like another game, it's not dismissing experience, this comment makes no sense, how is it experience? The code, systems, graphics engine, etc is all different, the experience doesn't matter, even if we hired a guy the did clouds for another sim, he has to work within our systems. And at the end of the day, he will be told to make clouds like real life, not like x or Y games.

 

Its really not needed to describe what you want to see in DCS, at all.

 

 

I may be misunderstanding this statement, but your guys' view on comparisons needs to be put in check.

 

What about - if instead of comparing how DCS works with another sim/game. Why not look at it as an opportunity to do it even better? It's this little thing called "excellence". You can look at features of other games and simulators and compare features for the purpose of making a competing product better. Being inspired by someone/something and trying to do it better is a huge part of creating a better product all around?

 

 

For example;

 

DCS has an "Okay" weather system with weird clouds (which is being worked on, I know). However; Ace Combat 7 and the new generation of FS(2020) looks to be stunning.

 

You don't make the comparison of saying "But, DCS isn't like AC7 or FS...". True, however, comparing individual elements is a valid argument and the same situation should be taken into account when trying to compare products.

 

It's not fair to compare, say, Battlefield 4 to ArmA 3 - they're two completely separate titles that are marketed towards different player bases. That's not to say one developer team can't learn from the other's downfalls, mistakes, or lack of some sort of other "feature". That is exactly what Call of Duty seems to be doing in their latest MW title - learning from past mistakes, seeing what the people are actually wanting, and improving their strategy to reach more people. All while making their game look better and play better.

 

Who's to say DCS can't do the same? DCS won't grow, neither will ED, if everyone on the team is turning a blind eye to what the industry is actually doing.

Edited August 28, 2019 by NineLine

[NineLine]

It’s a pretty fair assessment to compare DCS to other games and sims in several basic areas such as bug fixing, path the company takes ect. Paying customers want their bugs fixed. CA having so many bugs is unacceptable for a module as old as it is. Using revenue to work on other ventures than polishing your product is irresponsible.

 

It's an irresponsible comment to say that polishing is not always ongoing (look at any changelog). And we don't need to compare another game to know we need to fix bugs, again, I dont get the link.

[I_Gamer]

If we are talking clouds, we are wanting to model clouds like the real world, not like another game, it's not dismissing experience, this comment makes no sense, how is it experience? The code, systems, graphics engine, etc is all difference, the experience doesn't matter, even if we hired a guy the did clouds for another sim, he has to work within our systems. And at the end of the day, he will be told to make clouds like real life, not like x or Y games.

 

Its really not needed to describe what you want to see in DCS, at all.

 

 

I know this is what you guys are aiming for, which is why DCS is amazing - it was just an example.

 

Why not just say "Well, we can't implement feature X because that type of situation cannot be accurately modeled - since it's not how feature X works in the real world"? Instead of completely dismissing comparisons all around. I'm sure people will still make broad comparisons, but I do not like the idea of just dismissing things completely because they can't be achieved in the real world - isn't that the fun of games and simulators anyway? Dream a little! ;)

[nighthawk2174]

Links? here you go have fun:

(note these are just threads about the damage of rockets not ones where it was mentioned once or twice in a large thread and also English only as I can't read Russian)

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=129686&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=127294&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=120510&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=115637&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=105812&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=105330&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=92216&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=96597&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=97214&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=93355&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=92217&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=61371&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=54876&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=54470&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=41824&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=36870&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=14631&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=5767&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=159795&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=227364&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=217280&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=203428&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=205109&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=202257&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=161371&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=193692&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=172233&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=190429&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=184641&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=161461&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=161675&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=157712&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=153072&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=149046&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=144920&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=143098&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=139085&highlight=Rocket+Damage

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=135598&highlight=Rocket+Damage

[Razorback]

NL, thx a lot for this clarification. :thumbup::thumbup:

 

Each Friday I look forward to your "WE news" and yes I totally agree such communication was inexistant years before and that's a real progress...

 

Please just take into account the fact that sometimes even if there is nothing concrete to say about some modules, it could be good to give some news (even if limited) and not only to be focus on the current priorities (development of F-18, Falcon, Supercarrier,....).

The Mi-24 is a good example :

 

- Last Mi-24 development news in WE news : 27 Dec 18 !!!

- Last screenshots (from Wags) : 31 May 19

Edited August 28, 2019 by Razorback

[NineLine]

I know this is what you guys are aiming for, which is why DCS is amazing - it was just an example.

 

Why not just say "Well, we can't implement feature X because that type of situation cannot be accurately modeled - since it's not how feature X works in the real world"? Instead of completely dismissing comparisons all around. I'm sure people will still make broad comparisons, but I do not like the idea of just dismissing things completely because they can't be achieved in the real world - isn't that the fun of games and simulators anyway? Dream a little! ;)

 

I don't get what you are saying. If you want a feature, even if you saw it in another game, you are capable of asking for it without referencing another game. Even with Dynamic Campaigns, it's possible to state what you want to see without saying the name of another company.