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

[nighthawk2174]

Hard to see things that haven't happened.... the overwhelming majority of missiles are still to draggy, still have to little lift, no actual motor data, are still to susceptible to counter measures, and have crap guidance. AI are still as dumb as ever and cheat as badly as always. VIsibility is still to hard for those on 2k and 4k monitors and to easy for vr + lack of visibility of defining features such as wing shape and what not. And ground munitions still don't Crew or mobility kill. and pretty much no progress as been made on these. Yes there are small little improvments to various things but not the key things the things that actually matter.

 

 

[DCS is] a car with four wheels, and power steering is coming soon, and air conditioning after that. They implement power steering, but then the trunk won't open. They fix the trunk, and things are great, and people would like the air conditioning they were promised, but basically it's fine. Then for no apparent reason, the speedometer stops working when they fix a cruise control problem that no one really noticed before. But then you get a sunroof, which is nice, but it's not the AC unit you were really looking forward to. Then, just when you're idly wondering if you're ever going to get that AC, your car falls through the road and tumbles towards the center of the earth and that was pretty understandably the last thing you expected to happen.

 

Sure, you could switch to stable, but then you can't drive with your friends, and you'll be painfully aware of the cruise control problem you hadn't noticed before it was fixed, and as you wish for that AC for the umpteenth time in the past 15 months, you reach for the sunroof dial, but it isn't there, because that's only in the beta.

 

So, you figure, screw it, I knew this was incomplete, I'll just go back to my old ride, at least it's complete, but now it's pulling to the left because of the trunk patch, which really shouldn't have impacted your F-5. You pick a different car, and take it out for a night drive, but now every set of headlights on all your cars cause weird halos around everything you look at, and you're not even sure when that started happening because you don't drive at night very often. None of this is flat-out stopping you from driving, but being a bit frustrated with all that doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

[nighthawk2174]

Just a suggestion, perhaps there could be a stronger link between core game features and modules.

 

 

This was done before I believe, if I recall part of the rational for FC3 was to help fund AFM missle development (correct me if I'm wrong). Maybe it would help to satisfy both the new module crowd and awaiting core gameplay improvements crowd if they saw a more direct connection between the two. I mean this is already the case with the F-18 in that ED is developing ground radar modeling (and a lot is transferring to F-16 as well) but perhaps even more of a focus could be put on it, and with the release of every new module, there is also a corresponding related core game aspect that is improved (Just pulling this out of nowhere as an example, but say the F-16 arrives with new AWACS/GCI AI and coding that works with all modules).

 

Not a bad idea

[NineLine]

Hard to see things that haven't happened.... the overwhelming majority of missiles are still to draggy, still have to little lift, no actual motor data, are still to susceptible to counter measures, and have crap guidance. AI are still as dumb as ever and cheat as badly as always. VIsibility is still to hard for those on 2k and 4k monitors and to easy for vr + lack of visibility of defining features such as wing shape and what not. And ground munitions still don't Crew or mobility kill. and pretty much no progress as been made on these. Yes there are small little improvments to various things but not the key things the things that actually matter.

 

 

Nothing you listed there is an easy fix.

 

As an example, the DM for WWII is a ground-up redesign, it takes time, and will take time to transfer to other units.

[nighthawk2174]

^, yes and that's why I asked if ED would be willing to devote their resources to the issues after the 18 and 16 drop and are largely completed. You need those resources to fix all of those issues in not a 20 year time scale imo

[NineLine]

Just a suggestion, perhaps there could be a stronger link between core game features and modules.

 

 

This was done before I believe, if I recall part of the rational for FC3 was to help fund AFM missle development (correct me if I'm wrong). Maybe it would help to satisfy both the new module crowd and awaiting core gameplay improvements crowd if they saw a more direct connection between the two. I mean this is already the case with the F-18 in that ED is developing ground radar modeling (and a lot is transferring to F-16 as well) but perhaps even more of a focus could be put on it, and with the release of every new module, there is also a corresponding related core game aspect that is improved (Just pulling this out of nowhere as an example, but say the F-16 arrives with new AWACS/GCI AI and coding that works with all modules).

 

Every new module funds improvements to the sim, some obvious like ground radar, some not so obvious. WWII stuff will fund the creation of a new DM that will eventually be used for the entire sim, if you look hard enough you can see it everywhere. Is it fast? Most cases no... but we arent making mazes with dots and fruits to eat.

[NineLine]

^, yes and that's why I asked if ED would be willing to devote their resources to the issues after the 18 and 16 drop and are largely completed. You need those resources to fix all of those issues in not a 20 year time scale imo

 

Again, and again, resources to the core game are there and active. the Hornet Team or Viper team are not working on many of the core issues as that is not what they do.

[nighthawk2174]

Right and i'd be willing to pay for an overhauled ATC to help fund fixes, hence why I think the carrier module is not a bad idea, it helps pay for fixes to the core game. Additionally though how many years did it take though for any work to begin on that at all? Additionally we havn't seen any updates for the status of the DM improvement for quite some time now. Finally, at ed's pace its all good and all to say it'll make its way to the rest of the sim but how many years or even decades will that take?

[Quaggles]

That is your opinion, but what is the truth is some of these issues are very complex and take time to fix. I doubt the issue has been forgotten or pushed to the side. But I know when things take time, that is the first thing people want to jump to, that we don't care or don't want to fix stuff.

 

I don't see anyone contesting that they are complex and take time to fix. The issue I see is prioritisation, we all understand that money needs to come in to keep the lights on but ED is at a point where the underlying sim itself has so many issues it's turning many people away from buying any new modules from ED.

 

Why should I buy the F-16 when it might be in an environment where the AI won't shoot back for 2 months? Why should I buy any new module when the AI flight models are fundamentally broken and MP is falling apart from unresolved issues? These are the questions ED needs to ask themselves. There are plenty of friends I would like to introduce to the sim but I can't because I know it will be a buggy frustrating mess.

 

Ultimately the issues don't lie with community managers or the developers themselves, I have the greatest respect for them and the hard work they do. But the management at ED needs to learn that their current balance of new paid content vs bugfixes and QOL improvements is giving the sim a negative reputation.

[nighthawk2174]

^ the number of people in this crowd is growing rapidly especially in my group which flys both that other sim and DCS.

[NineLine]

I don't see anyone contesting that they are complex and take time to fix. The issue I see is prioritisation, we all understand that money needs to come in to keep the lights on but ED is at a point where the underlying sim itself has so many issues it's turning many people away from buying any new modules from ED.

 

Why should I buy the F-16 when it might be in an environment where the AI won't shoot back for 2 months? Why should I buy any new module when the AI flight models are fundamentally broken and MP is falling apart from unresolved issues? These are the questions ED needs to ask themselves. There are plenty of friends I would like to introduce to the sim but I can't because I know it will be a buggy frustrating mess.

 

Ultimately the issues don't lie with community managers or the developers themselves, I have the greatest respect for them and the hard work they do. But the management at ED needs to learn that their current balance of new paid content vs bugfixes and QOL improvements is giving the sim a negative reputation.

 

I think there is a disconnect in what ED prioritizes and what you guys think ED prioritizes.

 

They can prioritize a major issue, and a few minor ones will still pass them as they don't take as long to be fixed, and then people think the major issue isn't a priority when in reality, it's being worked on and known to be important, just taking a lot longer.

[nighthawk2174]

If the issues are prioritized correctly then why has it been almost 8 years since I started playing and much of this stuff is still borked? Yes you guys were working hard on modules and the new dcs engine but how come visibility fixes weren't part of the move to the new engine and are still on the to do list sometime in the next decade?

[NineLine]

If the issues are prioritized correctly then why has it been almost 8 years since I started playing and much of this stuff is still borked? Yes you guys were working hard on modules and the new dcs engine but how come visibility fixes weren't part of the move to the new engine and are still on the to do list sometime in the next decade?

 

Visibility is not an easy answer, it's not a one shoe fits all. We could fix it for one segment and break it bad for another just as easy, we could implement something, and people could use it for a cheat elsewhere.

 

It's easy to cherry-pick items, but they are not always so easy to fix, especially in such a fluid development as DCS is, especially adding in new tech such as VR.

 

The borked after 8 years comment I won't even dignify, it's not as bad as the picture some of you like to paint.

 

Just note also, I am taking a lot of time on this thread today, I am almost done.

[Quaggles]

I think there is a disconnect in what ED prioritizes and what you guys think ED prioritizes.

 

They can prioritize a major issue, and a few minor ones will still pass them as they don't take as long to be fixed, and then people think the major issue isn't a priority when in reality, it's being worked on and known to be important, just taking a lot longer.

 

The priorities I refer to aren't which bugs are looked at first, it's the priorities between the amount of developers on the Viper/MAC/Carrier DLC/(Insert various other future paid module here) and the number of developers that focus on the core issues.

 

I understand that now that these products like the Viper are in development ED is not going to shift around each engineers focus on a week to week basis. But at some point months/years ago the decision has been made that X amount of developers work on core issues and X amount work on the Viper.

 

It seems we probably won't agree that the balance of development time between core issues and new modules is off kilter but from the flood of response to this thread I think it's clear many of your users do.

[nighthawk2174]

Right but solutions are out there such as smart scalling or using ssaa to selectively enhance targets and adjusting target contrasts as well. Hec the more modern smart scalling solutions even have the ability to take into account FOV, monitor size, and res to adjust the scaling factor. Really the major thing that'd need to be tweaked is when the LOD turns on and off and how dark/contrast adjustments to the dots that come after.

[NineLine]

Right but solutions are out there such as smart scalling or using ssaa to selectively enhance targets and adjusting target contrasts as well. Hec the more modern smart scalling solutions even have the ability to take into account FOV, monitor size, and res to adjust the scaling factor. Really the major thing that'd need to be tweaked is when the LOD turns on and off and how dark/contrast adjustments to the dots that come after.

 

It's easy to list off solutions, it's hard to make those work for the environment we are in and the user base we have.

[nighthawk2174]

Why do you think so?

[NineLine]

Why do you think so?

 

Why do you think it isn't?

[nighthawk2174]

Now from my understanding of your comment your concerned about adjusting visbility to prevent the issues with it currently and it being different per person.

 

With smartscalling, specifically snapat's work takes into account many things such as FOV, screen res, and also smooths out his earlier work to look better. So the method of how we should improve visibility, not just spotting range, but the ability to discern features such as wing shape and the number of tails (meaning a better ability to determine which way a target is going) as already been done. Additionally you could look elsewhere to see how others have used such things as SSAA and dynamic contrast adjustments to further improve the limits of viability on screens. You can also see what they do well and not well and learn from their mistakes. For VR (from my understanding) visbiiity is just about right to too good. solutions wise is it not possible to just limit the range something renders, a change made before I might add, along with contrast adjustments. It doesn't need to be ground breaking stuff it just needs to work and get the job done.

[NineLine]

So you assume ED hasn't looked at or researched any of these things then?

[nighthawk2174]

I don't know it hasn't been explained what methods if any had been looked into.

[NineLine]

I guess that is where I get confused at times as well, that if this is ED's business, and they want it to be successful, why wouldn't they look into what end up being the most obvious points, it doesn't seem very likely they haven't.

 

Or if we do look into something like Vulcan and mention it, then we get the reoccurring "where is it" comments. Again, goes back to balance and releasing enough info, but not too much too early.

 

Anyways, I feel like I am just talking to one or two people, I need to do other stuff than just dance in this thread today, so I am taking a break right now.

[fagulha]

I guess that is where I get confused at times as well, that if this is ED's business, and they want it to be successful, why wouldn't they look into what end up being the most obvious points, it doesn't seem very likely they haven't.

 

Or if we do look into something like Vulcan and mention it, then we get the reoccurring "where is it" comments. Again, goes back to balance and releasing enough info, but not too much too early.

 

Anyways, I feel like I am just talking to one or two people, I need to do other stuff than just dance in this thread today, so I am taking a break right now.

 

Hope my humble words can give you some heal/strength,

 

Sometimes i feel frustrated like everyone else with a bug/crash etc, but, if wasn´t ED i couldn´t fly my childhood favourite aircraft and do carrier ops in VR like i do today. I never went to pilot school and DCS was the only way to get closer to my dream. That dream will die with me. So, i always look straight ahead and don´t take too much importance to bugs etc, soon or later it will be fixed. When i´m feeling tired of waiting for an update/fix/module etc i go fly. Just that simple, and i wish people spend their energy flying than going rant.

I still can´t believe that we going to have a carrier module, i want it now. But i also understand that is not possible at the moment. I just wait, and until then i´m going to fly, enjoy my carrier ops and hear "511 hold position" 10x until i cut the comms and get mad but… Soon i know it will be better.

 

I have no words, and never will, to express my gratitude for bringing my dream closer to me. I´ve been in hard times of my life with family problems, and internal work problems and DCS it´s my best healing, it saved me. Everyday.

 

Thank you for your hard work, dedication, and i know most of the times family suffers too.

 

F.

[Harlikwin]

Now from my understanding of your comment your concerned about adjusting visbility to prevent the issues with it currently and it being different per person.

 

With smartscalling, specifically snapat's work takes into account many things such as FOV, screen res, and also smooths out his earlier work to look better. So the method of how we should improve visibility, not just spotting range, but the ability to discern features such as wing shape and the number of tails (meaning a better ability to determine which way a target is going) as already been done. Additionally you could look elsewhere to see how others have used such things as SSAA and dynamic contrast adjustments to further improve the limits of viability on screens. You can also see what they do well and not well and learn from their mistakes. For VR (from my understanding) visbiiity is just about right to too good. solutions wise is it not possible to just limit the range something renders, a change made before I might add, along with contrast adjustments. It doesn't need to be ground breaking stuff it just needs to work and get the job done.

 

Have you actually used VR for air to air combat? Or ground unit spotting Its barely usable.

[Emmy]

Giving credit where it’s due...

 

Kudos to ED for engaging here and not just slamming the digital door.

[SmirkingGerbil]

NineLine.

 

Your points on toxicity regarding game comparison's is spot on. Been gaming since the 80's, what exists now in the gaming world as what is "deserved" for plunking down a one time, non recurring fee for a product that is continuously improved is surprising. I paid once for the A-10C, and it has been a phenomenal experience far longer than many other games I have paid for. Many other DCS modules have granted that same extended enjoyment time over periods as long as 8 years. I have "buried" more games after less than a year that I care to admit to, money better left in my pocket.

 

 

 

Your explanations regarding focus, bleed over, and how one area will enhance another are not lost on everyone. Explaining the dynamics of development while enhancing older modules, graphics engines, and introducing new ones to fund all of it are reasonable and logical.

 

 

 

Just an old patient BOOMX'er 2 cents FWIW.