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

[nighthawk2174]

Right because we want that choice to change, we think this policy (as tipis put far better than I can) limits our ability to point out that DCS has a long ways to go.

[BIGNEWY]

The actual problem is of course some people just don't have any respect regarding ED's choice not wanting/allowing to discuss other sims, and/or other choices ED makes or have made in the past.

 

Right because we want that choice to change, we think this policy (as tipis put far better than I can) limits our ability to point out that DCS has a long ways to go.

 

As mentioned by Nineline this rule is not going to change.

[msalama]

this rule is not going to change.

 

It doesn't need to be changed. Just speak generally and describe how something is done somewhere. Just don't mention any names and no rule, that I know of at least, is broken.

[toutenglisse]

As a real company, ED can't keep the door opened

 

 

but instead of keeping it closed like many ...

 

 

they managed to offer the very forward thinking Half-Aperture !

 

 

Conclusion : they are more open than many, concerning closed doors.

[SmirkingGerbil]

I loved the wake turbulence video and the effect it will bring to flight.

 

 

Tell your FM guy I owe him a beer, or two, maybe three.

[Yeti42]

I loved the wake turbulence video and the effect it will bring to flight.

 

 

Tell your FM guy I owe him a beer, or two, maybe three.

 

The visualization of wake turbulence is cool I agree, the wake turbulence is also great but... I'm sometimes concerned that development priorities are skewed and long-standing issues are not being addressed as a result. In my experience, "feral" LOL ;) developers will do what they think is cool and not necessarily what is in the best interests of the product. Finishing unfinished modules and fixing high priority bugs is what's needed at the moment not increasing technical debt... IMHO

[SmirkingGerbil]

The visualization of wake turbulence is cool I agree, the wake turbulence is also great but... I'm sometimes concerned that development priorities are skewed and long-standing issues are not being addressed as a result. In my experience, "feral" LOL ;) developers will do what they think is cool and not necessarily what is in the best interests of the product. Finishing unfinished modules and fixing high priority bugs is what's needed at the moment not increasing technical debt... IMHO

 

 

I understand your sentiment; however, this is a component of the world that will up realism for ALL aircraft. "Low hanging fruit" from my viewpoint, an easy win. Enhances experience of all modules whether Early Access, Beta, Released, in development etc.

 

I used to do all kinds of thermal modeling, which is similar to fluid dynamics at least from a Finite Element Analysis perspective. So our FM developer is a Gawd among Flight Nerds in m book. :lol::lol:

[rrohde]

I understand your sentiment; however, this is a component of the world that will up realism for ALL aircraft. "Low hanging fruit" from my viewpoint, an easy win. Enhances experience of all modules whether Early Access, Beta, Released, in development etc.

 

I used to do all kinds of thermal modeling, which is similar to fluid dynamics at least from a Finite Element Analysis perspective. So our FM developer is a Gawd among Flight Nerds in m book. :lol::lol:

 

Agreed with all the above! :thumbup:

[SmirkingGerbil]

Thanks rrohde!

[omskTransmash]

I am relatively new to the dcs forum but this thread is very interesting. The users / customers are trying to give many feedbacks and opinions which obviously cannot ALL be refelected in one product.

You can ask a feature or to fix a bug to a car or smartphone or shampoo.. but to actually what to implement / fix and what to not / ignore is the company / supplier's choice to better allocate their resource.

 

If the customers are not satisfied they just buy another product or even find another hobby. Why waste your life on other people's decision?

 

Funny thing is since ED / 9L is actually investing money (9L's labor) and that IS reflected the price of the next DCS module.

 

I clearly dont want that. if ED already knows something is wrong with rockets or whatnots, to fix or not fix is solely there choice, not the users. Wasting time of an ED employee = revenue wasted = higher price module with same bug / same price module with more bug

 

For us / customers : dont waste valuable time on others' choice. maybe you happen to be in a very small group of people who enjoy that, but please stop for the other users.

If you dont like this, buy another product. start a kickstarter project. you can be a CEO. just stop increase operation cost of ED

 

For ED, just ignore everything already known. You may get some negatives on forum like shutting the door.

 

But remember vast majority of paying customers are capable and resonable people, hence their purchase decisons are not affected by unreasonable trolling. not at all.

 

Every bar has to shut down some time of a day and it's in your right. Please better use your valuable time and money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my LG-F770S using Tapatalk

[FalcoGer]

The whining never stops. I feel pity for developers nowadays.

Oh, and:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=200028

&

 

https://www.polygon.com/2018/1/16/16896172/online-harassment-abuse-cost-of-business

 

 

I think everyone here has been fairly civil, at least until this post (and I haven't read any further).

I stated some concerns and how I feel about the game, tried to be constructive and certainly didn't say: "[insult here], I'm going to play X because it's oh so much better, dcs is [insult here]."

 

 

I'm vocal because I want things to improve. And yes, I wanted to vent a little, because I'm frustrated and disappointed as one might get, being human and all that. The simulation genre is a niche market and the choices are limited. As such it's only natural that the game I spent $300 on, not including hardware, (and some people much more), is going to be scrutinized for the actions they take, or don't take for that matter.

Every time I log into multiplayer servers:

- people blow up on the carrier deck because of rubber banding into each other, at one point to the point of sinking the whole ship

- pressing F6 to get cool shots for video streams shows some missile that's flying underground in the flatness of the end of the world

- manpads and other infantry don't fire at me at all, even when hovering in their faces with a helicopter, or maybe they're terrified and want to give up but don't have the animation to raise their hands in capitulation?

- every time I land the game freezes up for at least 1-2 seconds, particularly on carriers despite having quite good hardware (while singleplayer works just fine)

- rockets do near nil damage to trucks when not directly hitting them. sure they don't explode in a nuclear blast in the real world, but the shrapnel would kill the crew, puncture the engine, the fuel tanks, blow the tires. it's a complete mission kill, yet nothing of the sort is seen. And while the damage model is not implemented at that point, then the trucks might as well blow them up in a nuclear blast as they do now when hit with an atgm. it's still more realistic than decreasing some health bar by 5% and having them unaffected otherwise

- rockets do near nil damage to infantry when hitting near them, where they should be torn apart from 0-2m, and being punctured with fragments way farther out. now, I don't expect to see mobility kills with broken legs on infantry, but surely even nineline can see that damage model is not an issue here. if your liver is torn apart by a fragment you're not fighting. whether you die or not is of no concern to the simulation, the infantry might as well be dead at this point, and certainly not running on and shooting a weapon.

To quote wikipedia here:

The most common warhead for the Hydra 70 rocket is the M151 "10-Pounder," which has a blast radius of 10 meters and lethal fragmentation radius of around 50 meters.

 

Which certainly does seem a bit more than the (feels like) 3ft lethal radius we get in game.

 

- I get locked up in an f18 in the hangar by an ai mig 29 from 140nmi away

 

 

those are all issues that have been there for several updates now, if not for months or years. and those are the issues only I encounter daily. (as in others may encounter different sets of issues doing different things in different situations)

And those are not even feature issues such as WoW programming of countermeasure programs in the f18 not being possible despite the issue being acknowledged months ago.

 

 

Maybe people should just stop 'whining' about those trivial things and accept dcs for the flawless masterpiece that it is?

Get real. They're game breaking, immersion breaking and fun killing and certainly not modeled after the real world.

 

And when they are acknowledged the generic answer is: "we do things, we're working on it. Look at the changelogs."

 

Yes there are bugfixes in the changelogs, and that's good. But more often than not it's the bugs they introduced in the last update instead of long standing issues.

 

 

But as it is, more issues are introduced than are fixed with each update, and several issues that are years old and have been brought up multiple times have not.

 

I understand 9line, they are doing things. But at the same time, I hope he understands me and many others in that it's simply frustrating at times that such a great game is lacking in performance and having such bugs or are claiming to be realistic while weapon effects are clearly underwhelming where the real counterparts are better. Even if they're estimated on guesses without those 'cold hard facts', I'd say those guesses are farther off the mark than one can reasonably assume they are. But of course that's just an opinion.

 

 

All that said, I appreciate the answers and hope DCS will become better, more realistic, more performant and less buggy, even if that means introducing new aircraft and features at a slower pace. I don't mean to needlessly whine and complain, but it just feels like nothing is moving forward even while new things are introduced. How else am I supposed to say this?

And that is what I wanted to say from the very beginning: Less new things, less new bugs, more bug fixing.

[dawgie79]

Get real.

It's the only thing one can read on the internet nowadays. The vocal minority (because it is a minority) is just plain toxic. With their constant negativity, whining, sense of entitlement. And to think there are adults among them as well. Kinda sad really, also because it's not just DCS. I see the same thing in the simracing genre.
Edited September 26, 2019 by dawgie79

[NineLine]

You guys are very involved, the priority list on the Viper is and has been impacted by how you guys reacted to how systems came through for the Hornet. Not everything can be done in the exact order you want, some things are relient on others, but you all do have more of an impact than you all realize.

[FalcoGer]

It's the only thing one can read on the internet nowadays. The vocal minority (because it is a minority) is just plain toxic. With their constant negativity, whining, sense of entitlement. And to think there are adults among them as well. Kinda sad really, also because it's not just DCS. I see the same thing in the simracing genre.

 

Yes, hang yourself up on the two words in that post that could be considered toxic. Need I point out all the great and numerous things that DCS does right, praising it to high heaven to mention that there are flaws?

It's a great flight sim. It's the only flight sim that allows such detailed operation of a multitude of aircraft with different people at the same time. We all know that, we're all passionate about DCS and flight sims.

 

Don't you get it? I complain and point out the flaws and issues so that they can be fixed. I give them my opinion on the state that I see for myself, an outside perspective because there is nothing else that I can do.

 

Call me toxic, whining and what have you, but your criticism of me being all negative is certainly less productive than I have been pointing out objective and some subjective flaws.

 

Praise for what has been achieved is great, and due, but what all of us want is the greatest experience. And we can't get that if we don't say what we think is wrong. And sorry, but telling someone what's wrong is naturally a negative thing that's mostly not received well. And I commend NineLine for his patience and taking such much of his time to engage with us.

 

What do you expect? An essay about how sorry I am to complain about this otherwise great sim, how amazing it is, how unique the sim is and how lovely all the developers are before I point out that it has gone down the drain over the last few weeks with annoying, sometimes game breaking bugs, and that I want things to change and turn around for the better?

 

Instead of doing constructive criticism on me and others, you simply label us toxic and negative and accuse us of being destructive with our endless whining and complaining. Go on then, how are we to voice our concerns?

 

And yes, considering I spent a good €300 on this software, I do feel entitled to a bug free experience. Call me crazy.

Jeez it's hilarious what some of you people think you are owed for your $50. You can't even get a tire for that much yet you think you're owed the world, moon and stars.

If you bought a tire for $50, you wouldn't be happy either if the profile was missing or air was leaking to use your analogy. And I'm owed the software, not the universe. Aside from that it's literally tens of thousands of dollars, not just my money. Everyone invested in the game. I don't demand patches for myself and everyone else can screw it, you know.

In fact I don't demand anything. I stated my observations and opinions and hope things will change.

 

I'm glad to hear that you are happy with what you got and hope that you have many hours of fun.

 

 

Also - Off topic here but: tires for less than $50 on amazon

Edited September 26, 2019 by FalcoGer

[Tidy Dave]

Managed to read through most of the comments in this thread. We're a passionate bunch indeed!

 

I see myself as one of those who comes to read but may not have the courage to post very often.

 

Just wanted to chime in and say that while I think of course DCS has problems, I appreciate the work that has gone in to get it to where it is today. If the upward trend continues, it looks like I'll be enjoying this ride for many years to come.

 

So I guess I just wanted to say thanks for making a pretty cool sim.

[The Falcon]

Sorry, what is the point of this whole thread?

[NineLine]

Communication ;)

[sc_neo]

Personally, i am less concerned with some bugs on certain modules. I am more interested in getting an update every now and then on where DCS is headed on a bigger scale. And that could and in my eyes should be done by the very people working on and implementing stuff. Even if this means that the less english proficient ones have theri blogpost be translated by someone on the team who can do it.

 

For instance, Yoyo's wake turbulence stuff looks amazing. But it would have been more impactuful and probably be appreciated way more if he had written a proper blogpost showing off how he researched it, how it was implemented, what issues he was facing when connecting it to the sim, maybe a bit of background about the real world physics and how difficult it must be to translate that into code. And the icing would be if this is then connected to broader "sim and evnrionment" enhancements that ED is thinking about or already working on.

 

Heatblur is not the uberdev., the Viggen is pushing close to being in EA for 3 years. But what they are really, really good at and why the community is full of praise and forgiveness, is their detailed and instructive blogposts about the various features leading up to product release. Especially that the various people on that team wrote those posts themselves as the experst on it.

 

 

- Delineate a vision/roadmap for DCS as a sim/game where modules are just part of the picture.

 

 

- Let every team working on a given area of DCS write a detailed blogpost themselves about what they have been working on and how it connects to the roadmap or vision of DCS 1 to 2 times a year. If there is like for instance 6-8 teams that should easily be 10-15 blogposts a year where the community can read about what has been achieved or is being worked on with first hand knowledge.

[Harlikwin]

 

Heatblur is not the uberdev., the Viggen is pushing close to being in EA for 3 years. But what they are really, really good at and why the community is full of praise and forgiveness, is their detailed and instructive blogposts about the various features leading up to product release. Especially that the various people on that team wrote those posts themselves as the experst on it.

 

 

- Delineate a vision/roadmap for DCS as a sim/game where modules are just part of the picture.

 

 

- Let every team working on a given area of DCS write a detailed blogpost themselves about what they have been working on and how it connects to the roadmap or vision of DCS 1 to 2 times a year. If there is like for instance 6-8 teams that should easily be 10-15 blogposts a year where the community can read about what has been achieved or is being worked on with first hand knowledge.

 

This is probably one of the best posts in this thread, and really on the forum in general :thumbup:, the various 3rd party devs should probably read it. I think we get some of this from HB of course, but ED and wags aren't bad at it either, just a bit different.

[WHOGX5]

Personally, i am less concerned with some bugs on certain modules. I am more interested in getting an update every now and then on where DCS is headed on a bigger scale. And that could and in my eyes should be done by the very people working on and implementing stuff. Even if this means that the less english proficient ones have theri blogpost be translated by someone on the team who can do it.

 

For instance, Yoyo's wake turbulence stuff looks amazing. But it would have been more impactuful and probably be appreciated way more if he had written a proper blogpost showing off how he researched it, how it was implemented, what issues he was facing when connecting it to the sim, maybe a bit of background about the real world physics and how difficult it must be to translate that into code. And the icing would be if this is then connected to broader "sim and evnrionment" enhancements that ED is thinking about or already working on.

 

Heatblur is not the uberdev., the Viggen is pushing close to being in EA for 3 years. But what they are really, really good at and why the community is full of praise and forgiveness, is their detailed and instructive blogposts about the various features leading up to product release. Especially that the various people on that team wrote those posts themselves as the experst on it.

 

 

- Delineate a vision/roadmap for DCS as a sim/game where modules are just part of the picture.

 

 

- Let every team working on a given area of DCS write a detailed blogpost themselves about what they have been working on and how it connects to the roadmap or vision of DCS 1 to 2 times a year. If there is like for instance 6-8 teams that should easily be 10-15 blogposts a year where the community can read about what has been achieved or is being worked on with first hand knowledge.

Spot on, man! In my opinion, the main cause of the constant disappointment and outrage on the forums is due to a lack of understanding and insight into the development process. If ED and 3rd parties started actually explaining which problems they run into and the nature and effect of those issues on development, I think people on the forums would be a lot more forgiving. It doesn't have to be a five-page essay on every single thing in every single aircraft, just a few sentences. For example, Wags F-16 update just the other day was amazing. Structured, concise and informative. It gave people a good understanding of the status of different systems and what needs to be accomplished before release. It's just a shame that those kind of updates are so few and far between.

[twistking]

Hello,

i've mentioned it before, but i think it got lost in the discussion, so please allow me to bring it up one more time.

 

i think that it would be very beneficial, if we could get more in depth-feedback to technical/performance related topics.

If you look through the bugs&problems/performance and virtual reality subforums, they are full of speculation, half-knowledge and placebo-solutions.

 

i'm sure the engine developers are aware of most of the problems reported and constantly trying to improve on things, but it would be helpful to get at least some feedback so users can do the best to understand the limitations and work around them on a OS or hardware level.

 

and i absolutely do not expect well written articles about the inner workings of the engines, but just some rough feedback from the devs on reported performance problems.

there was this big "vr test result" data request where many users reported their findings, but all the data got absorbed by ED with the only answer given that the issue was complicated and improvments were being worked on.

while this is good to hear, it would have been better to also get at least some assessment on a technical level to better judge the origin of a reported problem. hell, in the community there is still debate over what exactly the preload radius slider does (does it even work the same on every map?).

what kind of hardware do ED devs run their technical test builts on? what experience did they have with different hardware and settings? what kind of solutions would they recommend to test? f.e. i cannot believe that they would f.e. recommend to change windows page file settings, yet this comes up as a solution to everything on the forums...

 

again, not expecting fancy write-ups, just some feedback and ideas on common problems... help us to help ourselfes!

 

also - but this is another topic - we would honestly need a proper benchmarking scenario. or better: one for every map.

 

thanks!

Edited September 28, 2019 by twistking