Jump to content

DCS World roadmap update


Kate Perederko

Recommended Posts

The new KA50 cockpit is in game already. The new external model and features are not as they will be part of BS3.

 

I know i fly it already but i thought the time between the release of the cockpit and the new BS3 would be a follow up.

Intel Core i5-9600K, Gigabyte Z390 AORUS PRO, 16GB Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro, Gigabyte GeForce RTX 2080 WINDFORCE 8G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See and there ya go, completely missed the point I was trying to make. I would say I'm surprised, but that would be a lie. I DID NOT say they developed the SC with only the "minority" would use.

 

 

Are you sure?

I'm pretty sure that's EXACTLY what you said

Here is my line of thinking, wrong as it may be, the entire purpose of the SC is multiplayer based.

You specifically said - the ENTIRE purpose of the SC module is multi-player based IE- FOr a minority of users...

How am I interpreting what you've said wrong...

Airbag_signatur.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see your point at all, you can still play single player right ? lf SC releases for singleplayer at first then just go play single player.

Everyone will be equal if it is a SP only release since everyone would have access to the same content at the same time.

You could even train in SP if you want before taking on the challenge with real players.

 

Fair enough point. I would argue that without detailed knowledge of what it would take to launch a SP only model "for the time being". Since Kate said "The MAIN NO-GO for her", that would lead me to believe other issues are present as well. Again, it's all kind of a mute point without know details, but do you throw the MP aspect aside just to release it on SP for the time being? What if the problem could have been solved in the two weeks following the two week deadline to push SP release? I would prefer they just stay on task, whatever that may be, and release the entire thing as a whole. God know this community loves to find something to complain about, so lets try and limit that ammo and not take the chance of introducing more bugs later. Not that my opinion on the matter means anything to ED or anyone else here for that matter. Just speaking my mind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure?

I'm pretty sure that's EXACTLY what you said

Here is my line of thinking, wrong as it may be, the entire purpose of the SC is multiplayer based.

You specifically said - the ENTIRE purpose of the SC module is multi-player based IE- FOr a minority of users...

How am I interpreting what you've said wrong...

 

I believe someone a few pages ago mention parking spots on the SC, and that it seems like a major selling point for ED along with the animated deck crew. How exactly does that help anything in SP? I can static place planes now to mimic a real deck, hell even have AI start up from a parking spot. No real reason for Air Boss in SP as we already have ATC, no real reason for LSO in SP could just use HB's Tomcat as a role model and grade your landings in the kneeboard. All that being said, my main argument is not that SP can't enjoy and fully use the SC, but to make the most out of what they are giving us MP is where that is going to be. Yes there are FANTASTIC mission creators in our community and do some awesome things, but AI is still AI.

 

I even said "wrong as it may be". My whole point is more against releasing a SP early instead of working on fixing the SC as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your comments and support.

 

There is a little misunderstanding of new FLIR system for the DCS World and a feature of FLIR or ATFLIR for an aircraft. It's two separate projects.

 

new FLIR system covers a different approach of heat sources for terrains, ground units, aircraft with different level of additional lighting and gradients.

 

FLIR/ATFLIR system for an aircraft is a camera feature that will use current technology.

 

Hi Kate, and thank you a lot for your answer. The open communication is highly appreciated and probably the best thing to have been done in restoring / strengthening faith in ED.

 

Unfortunately, i am more confused now than before - does that mean the ATFLIR has nothing to do with the new FLIR engine itself?

 

Because when the LITENING was released instead of the ATFLIR, it was said the change of plans for Hornet had nothing to do with the Viper release, that it carries the LITENING as well was pure coincidence, and it was also said that the real reason for ATFLIR delay is that it has to wait for the new FLIR engine to be around..

But now it's 2 different projects?

Does that mean the LITENING will get the same new FLIR engine as well?

 

I am sorry if i misunderstood your reply, thank you again for your time and effort interacting with the community and making things better for the future :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not an expert. But the fact that the LITENING is carried by A-10,AV-8,F-18 and F-16 helps. Because each pod has it's own limitations. And the shaders are already in place it saves a buch of work.

 

You only need to write the control interface.

 

A new pod requires not only FLIR logic. (Gains, resolution etc) which is definitely something that a new FLIR engine handles.

 

However, a new pod is more then that. It's gimble limits, tracking speed, other features and much more. I am not familiar with the API ED provides but it's good enough for HB to make the lantirn, and for the new Kiawa. So it's just priority. It's faster to adapt something working and proven then build something new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not an expert. But the fact that the LITENING is carried by A-10,AV-8,F-18 and F-16 helps. Because each pod has it's own limitations. And the shaders are already in place it saves a buch of work.

 

You only need to write the control interface.

 

A new pod requires not only FLIR logic. (Gains, resolution etc) which is definitely something that a new FLIR engine handles.

 

However, a new pod is more then that. It's gimble limits, tracking speed, other features and much more. I am not familiar with the API ED provides but it's good enough for HB to make the lantirn, and for the new Kiawa. So it's just priority. It's faster to adapt something working and proven then build something new.

 

Thank you, and yea i can totally understand that, however "our" F/A-18C does not carry a LITENING IRL, it never has afaik, hence it was never planned in the first place.

Just like "our" F/A-18C has no "real" ILS but ICLS, only working on the boat - everything else was a "no go" from ED for a "realistic Lot 20 US Navy Hornet".

 

The plan to give us a LITENING rather than ATFLIR was announced after it was clear the Viper would be released, as an afterthought.

 

I appreciate ED giving us the cheek mount so we can act as if it was an ATFLIR, since we're dealing with "unrealistic" stuff already, it was at least made convenient to be used from a loadout perspective.

 

But it was explicitly stated that the Viper release had nothing to do with the change of plans, just the new FLIR engine taking a while and it needs to be finished for the ATFLIR to be implemented - and since LITENING was done for A-10C we'll get that as a temporary measure.

 

Hence, now i am even more confused as mentioned in my previous post. Does the ATFLIR (in theory) not need the new engine but could work with the old one as well? Will the new engine benefit all FLIR systems, including the LITENING?

 

Again, i get the point of something already existing being implemented quicker than something built from scratch, no doubt. But that existing thing was never planned for the Hornet, neither is it realistic for our version of the Hornet, and it got awkwardly silent about the thing that was originally planned (maybe just because development of new FLIR engine takes a while?).

 

This is why i am a bit worried and take the freedom to ask about this stuff, specially since i can't remember having seen that level of transparency and openness before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also say that I'm the most enthusiastic and "hardcore" player in my own opinion. I'm very active on forums and social media and so feel My importance can outweigh the tiny percentage of income I provide , as if I'm not treated as extra-special I'll get extra-salty on forums and social media.
FWIW I exclusively play single player. My comments were more to reflect the development focus is more complex than simply numbers playing single player vs those playing multi player.

AMD 5800X3D · MSI 4080 · Asus ROG Strix B550 Gaming  · HP Reverb Pro · 1Tb M.2 NVMe, 32Gb Corsair Vengence 3600MHz DDR4 · Windows 11 · Thrustmaster TPR Pedals · VIRPIL T-50CM3 Base, Alpha Prime R. VIRPIL VPC Rotor TCS Base. JetSeat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED needs to not base development decisions based on feedback from the negative crowd over at Hoggit. That vocal crap fest doesnt speak for the community despite what they think over there. Believe it or not there is a strong single player base who enjoys the game and spends time flying rather then posting hate filled rhetoric on reddit.

 

Amen, I fully agree (and only play and enjoy single player since Flanker 2.0)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED needs to not base development decisions based on feedback from the negative crowd over at Hoggit. That vocal crap fest doesnt speak for the community despite what they think over there. Believe it or not there is a strong single player base who enjoys the game and spends time flying rather then posting hate filled rhetoric on reddit.

 

Spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Kate,

 

While you're here I figured I'd ask about prioritization. What contributes to making any certain new module the priority over fixing the core aspects of the simulator? If it's purely financial reasons (as the fact that working on a new module generates revenue and the core sim does not), then why not move to a subscription model?

 

I get that a big selling point is that this is a "free" software, but if you need money in order to work on the core sim I could promise that your base customers would stick around through a subscription. Hell the subscription could even make you enough that you don't have to sell modules for the steep price of $60-80 (or even make them free).

 

Just a thought, and appreciate you being around to answer people's questions.

 

Cheers.

 

Um... That would be a hell-to-the-no! from me. There's no effin way I'd stick around if this was subscription.

 

Save that stupid crap for World of Warcraft....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, and yea i can totally understand that, however "our" F/A-18C does not carry a LITENING IRL, it never has afaik, hence it was never planned in the first place.

Just like "our" F/A-18C has no "real" ILS but ICLS, only working on the boat - everything else was a "no go" from ED for a "realistic Lot 20 US Navy Hornet".

 

The plan to give us a LITENING rather than ATFLIR was announced after it was clear the Viper would be released, as an afterthought.

 

I appreciate ED giving us the cheek mount so we can act as if it was an ATFLIR, since we're dealing with "unrealistic" stuff already, it was at least made convenient to be used from a loadout perspective.

 

But it was explicitly stated that the Viper release had nothing to do with the change of plans, just the new FLIR engine taking a while and it needs to be finished for the ATFLIR to be implemented - and since LITENING was done for A-10C we'll get that as a temporary measure.

 

Hence, now i am even more confused as mentioned in my previous post. Does the ATFLIR (in theory) not need the new engine but could work with the old one as well? Will the new engine benefit all FLIR systems, including the LITENING?

 

Again, i get the point of something already existing being implemented quicker than something built from scratch, no doubt. But that existing thing was never planned for the Hornet, neither is it realistic for our version of the Hornet, and it got awkwardly silent about the thing that was originally planned (maybe just because development of new FLIR engine takes a while?).

 

This is why i am a bit worried and take the freedom to ask about this stuff, specially since i can't remember having seen that level of transparency and openness before.

 

 

The Litening was added as the USMC Carries it on their Hornets, and it was a pod that was already developed and programmed.

 

It's not replacing the ATFLIR, the ATFLIR is still coming.

Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill (F4-3200C16D-16GTZR x2),

ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate, XFX RX6800XT Merc 310 (RX-68XTALFD9)

3x ASUS VS248HP + Oculus HMD, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please hire an actual PR trained professional. It will do wonders for EDs image. Which as you already know is very tainted right now.

 

Pfffff .... Noooooo!

 

I agree community should be strong and on toes on everything regarding the status of the sim, things that don't work right, this is part of the whole E-A kind of development as explained in the Grim Reapers interview, but some people are so much on what ED "did wrong" in the past ... as if we're like an angry parent throwing a fit on a 15 year old kid 2 days after the fact and yelling "DID YOU STICK A FORK INTO THAT PORK STEAK THE OTHER DAY UUUU FALIURRRR!!! ... HUR-DUR!!!!"

 

Emmm ... maybe ... because it's NOT meant to be corporate PR for crying out loud !!!

 

Can we instead move on now focusing on what ED will do in future ... what extra commuication you people feel they need to provide, but it has to make sense, because some people have turned around as if they're guilty of something, deadlines deadlined deadlines, but was it ever said anything to be a strong deadline, it's all estimations, that's not a real delay, if we treat everything as a delay then obviously you can keep whining forever, everything I do with my chores around the house and the PC gets "delayed and delayed and delayed", it never goes according to plan, it's just normal.

Okay SC isn't out yet, so did Marianas map take a delay, there surely is something else that can fill the gaps until they both come.

Just the other day some people on youtube complained about an empty sea and a little island ... well they're doing much more on that island now that they figured out how many details there is in reality, but perhaps an incentive to add more detail to offset the lack of landscape in the whole map, makes sense indeed.

 

More about the PR, Seriously, Do you want ED to be strong and independent or some clown show?

 

For example Nintendo, the all nice company, the family friendy company, yes I'm a big fan of the first parties, but those devices are made in the same chinese child-labor factories and other questionable workforces, not saying it always happens but you can't guarantee it never happened. Reggie Fils Aime, the regginator, the nicest man in every commerical, I like his character too, character yes, admitted him self, HE'S ALL MARKETING, it's all a *fake*, he's not a real gamer as big as his image is. I think I heard as he was leaving Nintendo recently they kinda hinted that his successor Doug Bowser was actually a real gamer that had personal passion to many nintendo games, but don't take my word for it, the source I got this from was more random.

 

Remember the famous, well some say legendary, Nintendo E3 2004 conference where Reggie was first introduced along with DS, when many nintendo's first parties were announced ...

 

 

That famous line ... "My name is Reggie, I'm about kicking ass and we're about making games". Someone around Nintendo admitted it that it was all written by an external PR company, Reggie did not make those lines up himself, it was all a script.

 

Produced things can be good as entertainment, but they're not real most of the time.

 

Do you guys really want ED to be posing clowns and all bling and red carpets, or you want them more realistic but with a more mom&pops PR. Do you want money spent on PR rather than the new Vulkan API integration?

 

Just focus on feedback for improving Mom&Pops PR, it's an unpopular direction that just isn't explored enoguh and has room for improvement !!! :)


Edited by Worrazen

Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP, CE2. Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do have the WWII assets pack- what am I not doing right?

 

I see you state you own it but its in there. Its under the Germany unit plane names.. Open Beta... if you're on vanilla then no you don't have it yet.

 

Hence the reason its states open beta first. Ah I see that in the news letter its a bit deceiving. yes this update is for open beta. Not the official release yet.


Edited by Mastiff

" any failure you meet, is never a defeat; merely a set up for a greater come back, "  W Forbes

"Success is not final, failure is not fatal, it is the courage to continue that counts,"  Winston Churchill

" He who never changes his mind, never changes anything," 

MSI z690MPG DDR4 || i914900k|| ddr4-64gb PC3200 || MSI RTX 4070Ti|Game1300w|Win10x64| |turtle beach elite pro 5.1|| ViRpiL,T50cm2|| MFG Crosswinds|| VT50CM-plus rotor Throttle || G10 RGB EVGA Keyboard/MouseLogitech || PiMax Crystal VR || 32 Samsung||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your question!

 

FC4 is not in the plan to be released. The series finished with FC3.

 

MAC will be a new direction of ED.

 

We plan to update aircraft one-by-one when we have time. Probably it will be a constant update for all and by the end of the update, we will start a new cycle for F18, F16, and others because we will need to update them to a new level of technologies.

 

Thank you for the reply! I'd been checking for the last two years to get clarification on this (and mainly received rumours)... so it is really nice to have the matter settled.

 

1. I do hope that there will be some maintenance (or an upgrade pack) for the FC3 aircraft - so that they remain functional and we don't have to wait ten years for a full-fidelity Su-25 module or Su-17 module to fly a Sturmovik! Not that I'd object if such modules were made.

 

 

2. It is probably early to ask: But will MAC be more of an Arcade game or will it be more like FC3 (i.e. realistic performance, but keyboard controls)?

 

I like keyboard controls, but I found that the simple-avionics option for the Ka-50 massively shortened the amount of time required to acquire a target (i.e. there were no timers) so it made the helicopter quite unrealistically effective... so I really think that non-clickable cockpits combined with realistic performance is a way to go.

 

I sincerely hope that (1) MAC eventually allows modelling more recent Russian aircraft (2) MAC models aircraft performance and systems performance at FC3 levels (i.e. no clickable cockpit - but realistic performance).

 

Thank you very much for your time - you are doing a great job - and even though the news isn't what I'd hoped to hear - it is good to know about MAC/FC3/Su-25 so that I can stop wondering/hoping for fixes.

 

P.S.

I'll eagerly await any news about plans better seeker models (e.g. IR missiles having more complex ways to relate to flares) and improvements to the warhead modelling (important for rockets). These things would add a lot to fidelity - as weapon modelling seems to be lagging behind aircraft modelling in fidelity!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, and yea i can totally understand that, however "our" F/A-18C does not carry a LITENING IRL, it never has afaik, hence it was never planned in the first place.

Just like "our" F/A-18C has no "real" ILS but ICLS, only working on the boat - everything else was a "no go" from ED for a "realistic Lot 20 US Navy Hornet".

 

The plan to give us a LITENING rather than ATFLIR was announced after it was clear the Viper would be released, as an afterthought.

 

I appreciate ED giving us the cheek mount so we can act as if it was an ATFLIR, since we're dealing with "unrealistic" stuff already, it was at least made convenient to be used from a loadout perspective.

 

But it was explicitly stated that the Viper release had nothing to do with the change of plans, just the new FLIR engine taking a while and it needs to be finished for the ATFLIR to be implemented - and since LITENING was done for A-10C we'll get that as a temporary measure.

 

Hence, now i am even more confused as mentioned in my previous post. Does the ATFLIR (in theory) not need the new engine but could work with the old one as well? Will the new engine benefit all FLIR systems, including the LITENING?

 

Again, i get the point of something already existing being implemented quicker than something built from scratch, no doubt. But that existing thing was never planned for the Hornet, neither is it realistic for our version of the Hornet, and it got awkwardly silent about the thing that was originally planned (maybe just because development of new FLIR engine takes a while?).

 

This is why i am a bit worried and take the freedom to ask about this stuff, specially since i can't remember having seen that level of transparency and openness before.

 

As I understood it. ED are developing a new FLIR engine. Eventually all FLIR including LITENING will use this engine.

The reason ATFLIR and SNIPER haven't been released on the current engine is because then they would need to do them again once the new FLIR engine is ready.

 

With the time these might take in mind ED decided to expand the Hornet to include the USMC (All legacy Hornets are being transferred to USMC anyway so realistic enough) and allow fitment of the LITENING pod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are working hard on improving frames, we hope the next OB will give some relief as well.

 

+

 

The update for 2.5.6 is planned to be delivered tomorrow with our next attempt to fix the performance issues.

 

I hope it will work for you and we will be able to push it to Stable version.

 

=

 

Work on it is in progress, but not in this update, thanks.

 

?? :huh:

 

I appreciate the efforts to be transparent and to communicate the customers. But this is an example of the lack of coherence. Perhaps it would be necessary to consult each other before announcing good news? otherwise the players will be even more frustrated…..


Edited by hanab
Link to comment
Share on other sites

- deleted misread


Edited by speed-of-heat

SYSTEM SPECS: Hardware Intel Corei7-12700KF @ 5.1/5.3p & 3.8e GHz, 64Gb RAM, 4090 FE, Dell S2716DG, Virpil T50CM3 Throttle, WinWIng Orion 2 & F-16EX + MFG Crosswinds V2, Varjo Aero
SOFTWARE: Microsoft Windows 11, VoiceAttack & VAICOM PRO

1569924735_WildcardsBadgerFAASig.jpg.dbb8c2a337e37c2bfb12855f86d70fd5.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the efforts to be transparent and to communicate the customers. But this is an example of the lack of coherence. Perhaps it would be necessary to consult each other before announcing good news? otherwise the players will be even more frustrated…..

 

I think the last post you quoted was talking about specific issue with the Hornet and SA page. The others were talking about performance improvements in general, which are ongoing continuously (hopefully :)). So I don't think there is contradiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the last post you quoted was talking about specific issue with the Hornet and SA page. The others were talking about performance improvements in general, which are ongoing continuously (hopefully :)). So I don't think there is contradiction.

 

This one is better, fps improvement is not in change log

 

Thanks for letting us know.

 

The team are still working on the fps and desync issues, when we are confident we have it sorted it will be in the change log.

 

thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...