An Open Letter to ED

[Gary]

I suspect like most who have posted in this thread, DCS is both our most enjoyable AND frustrating flight siming experience.

Some of comments certainly resonate personally. I was once banned for 12 months on the forum because I had asked, a little too often where the planned ATC improvements were with the release of 1.2.5 in June 2013 - that is 8.5 years ago now.

I accept it has been explained that its difficult - and I'm sure it is - but I fear at this rate I'll not be around to see them when they do come along.

[Beirut]

24 minutes ago, PlainSight said:

By the amount of work going into it, I suspect DCE will end as a paid module. Which I totally support. So many mandays spent on a project should not be given away for free, IMO.

 

I disagree. A free start is a great introduction. I flew DCS for free for a while, decided I liked it, then decided I had to at least get the A-10A... and now 25+ modules later, I'm still here. And waiting for my pre-ordered Apache to arrive no less.

 

The free start was a highly successful way for DCS to get me to happily part with a solid chunk of my cash. 

[Snappy]

1 hour ago, BarTzi said:

You can't really say that. The Aim-120 overhaul started months ago. In it's current state, it is incomplete and that affects the PK of the Aim-120 in DCS world. That will obviously benefit ED's future missile development plans. I'm sure they will move to other missiles in the future once the 120 is complete.  

Well, since you asked about the cow... ED made a post a while ago about what it takes to create an accurate 3d model of an AI unit, which I suggest you read. It takes more or less half a year of work for them to make one accurate model. It's much easier to make a cow, which is why there's a cow in the game instead of an F-4.


 

 

You still haven’t gotten the point or you chose to deliberately misunderstand me. The aim 120 may be incomplete and its pk off by a bit, but the thing is and read the following again please: it works well enough as it is. You cant seriously claim its a bad missile as it is now in its present representation. 

While lots of other things don‘t work at all or work way way worse in DCS  right now and no , I wasn’t even talking about the other missiles.

So me personally , I‘d rather have a sim where most things works reasonably well/ok but maybe not perfect, instead of a sim, where a  few things( example: your aim-120) get perfected to the extreme while lots of others are just not working or inadequate.

However this is pointless since in the end its EDs thing and they make their decisions.

As for the cows , I still don’t buy it.Sure the aircraft models are more complex, no doubt, but even then I would prefer to ED to spend their modelling ressources on at least getting started overhauling these instead of spending the manpower  on unneeded cows.

Still the same as above applies, in the end ED makes their own development decisions. I just don’t agree with them.

 

Edited October 16, 2021 by Snappy

[StevanJ]

3 hours ago, ceecrb1 said:

First off, thank you to all who spent the time to read and reply.
There have been some comments we agree with, and some we disagree with. That's just the nature of the beast.
Like said at the start of the initial post, we were communicating our feelings and experiences. Others have differing opinions and experiences and that's fine.

We are just as a community burnt out. There's nothing left for us.
Just 2 nights ago we had a nearly 2 hour chat about how we'd spent YEARS dreaming of the apache. Now it's on presale, none of us have paid for it. It's hard to say why, but we just all collectively feel like there's "no point".

A broad sweeping reply to some of the themes in replies.
To those insisting it's all about a perfect simulation of reality:
How do you measure how close it is to reality when you have very likely NO experience of what reality is. ED "could" make the aim120 react any old way they like and make a facebook post saying they've tweaked it to some document they've gained a copy of, when really its all made up, and we'd be none the wiser (not saying thats been done or going to be done, just an example of how we truly have NO idea what the actual reality is for us to compare it against). Is it all just "bragging rights" that "the sim I fly at home is the most real?

For those who say being a fighter pilot is repetitive and boring, I can respond the other way. How many fighter pilots get an air to air kill, or even fire a missile in anger? How many ai aircraft have you shot down in 2 hours of DCS, let a alone a week. You cant pick and choose which parts are "like the real job" to suit. The whole experience of DCS is the "fighter pilot fantasy" for us grown ups with money for decent gaming rigs and hotas's. Why is it so embarrassing or painful to admit that? In our group we admit and own it and have a laugh about it.

For filling out bug reports etc.
This comes back to the long running never ending argument that we the user base are pushed towards using the open beta as most servers run this. Yes we started our own and were free to chose, but then we decide to visit others, rolling back or upgrading, or dedicating ssd space to 2 installs.... not so much fun.
The end result is that it feels like us, the paying customers who just want to play a game, have the experience of being unpaid testing staff. Forever filling out forms, uploading logs and investigating crashes and tweaking settings or changing drivers on system just to keep DCS happy, when all other games (or work software) just happily keep on working day in day out without the need to spend hours reading articles online to fix issues, sign up to their forums or discord groups like we do here.

RE the aim120 facebook post. It's less about the work done. Hats off to the guys, seriously sounds like some complicated code.
More about the project management and tasks being handed out. In simple "why do that when there are so many simple issues that have been around for years still to fix!?!"

Again, in short.
We don't like the feeling of spending money on modules (yes I wrote units in the original thread, oops). To feel like we have a shiny new gleaming unit, is a muddy broken environment and UI.
As stated by another poster. Our VR experiences in other games just can't compare with DCS. The fact that some get upset they don't own VR or fly in DCS in VR for whatever reason doesnt make our VR experiences invalid. A lot of the "marketing" and pull of dcs to get new people in is the VR element....
As a group our experience is that after so many years, we know where every ai is coming from and how it will react. Yes so many missions are scripted stories. But even with some of the VERY well built missions for online multiplayer, there was an attempt to build in randomness but they are all just a selection of spawn points of the same selection of units.
Hell just having the ability to create a MASSIVE area on a map and say "randomly spawn from this list of ground or air units, in random values of quantity with random values of ability, static or with random tracks towards enemy area to follow, up to X value of units alive at a time". It wouldnt be controlled or "realistic" battle ground but with fog of war on would at least break from the same old script, would involve hunting for enemies and you wouldnt shoot down the same old SU27 and know to turn to a certain bearing because the next one always "spawns over there at fl X".

Hopefully see you all again in a couple of years. Untill then I'm sorry to say, our server will remain cold and dark.
Right or wrong, agree or disagree, as a group, with DCS we've learned all we can learn, experienced all we can experience and we feel it's not because of us not trying hard enough but rather there being nothing left to gain, when we feel like their could be.

*engine shutting down and canopy opening noises*
 

Support this too...

[Harker]

While I definitely share some of the OP's frustrations and I absolutely think that ED should take a step back from launching new stuff and work on core improvements (whether that is financially viable, it's not up to any of us to decide or talk about), I disagree with the notion that they shouldn't focus on stuff like the new AMRAAM improvements.

People say that the AMRAAM works well enough already, but it doesn't. The AMRAAM (and all other missiles that have an INU) suffers from lacks of a fundamental feature - the ability to proceed to the calculated interception point. This is a major point in the guidance logic of the missile and it will prove even more important in missiles like the AIM-54. Also, the seeker improvements with target selection criteria are incredibly important in order to not have an essentially maddog missile once pitbull. Similarly, this hopefully sets the ground work for every missile seeker.

DCS should be about the minutia. It's the point of the game. Do I agree that they should focus on the core? Yes, but at the expense of slowing development for new modules, not at the expense of leaving things half-implemented.

[BarTzi]

1 hour ago, Snappy said:

You still haven’t gotten the point or you chose to deliberately misunderstand me. The aim 120 may be incomplete and its pk off by a bit, but the thing is and read the following again please: it works well enough as it is. You cant seriously claim its a bad missile as it is now in its present representation. 

While lots of other things don‘t work at all or work way way worse in DCS  right now and no , I wasn’t even talking about the other missiles.

So me personally , I‘d rather have a sim where most things works reasonably well/ok but maybe not perfect, instead of a sim, where a  few things( example: your aim-120) get perfected to the extreme while lots of others are just not working or inadequate.

However this is pointless since in the end its EDs thing and they make their decisions.

As for the cows , I still don’t buy it.Sure the aircraft models are more complex, no doubt, but even then I would prefer to ED to spend their modelling ressources on at least getting started overhauling these instead of spending the manpower  on unneeded cows.

Still the same as above applies, in the end ED makes their own development decisions. I just don’t agree with them.

 

 

It does not. Read Harker's post above.

Edited October 16, 2021 by BarTzi

[Snappy]

13 minutes ago, BarTzi said:

It does not. Read Harker's post above.

 

I read it. Doesn’t change the fact that’s it’s already very potent as it is.You just have extremely high expectations, which is ok. However I for the most part have medium level expectations in regards to other aspects of DCS, which right now work nowhere as well as the aim-120 does now. Personally I’d rather see those addressed, perhaps similar to the OP, than having the aim -120 simulated to perfection.

But I’m giving up now.These discussion usually never lead to any changes.

 

Edited October 16, 2021 by Snappy

[Beirut]

 

1 hour ago, Snappy said:

 

As for the cows , I still don’t buy it. Sure the aircraft models are more complex, no doubt, but even then I would prefer to ED to spend their modelling ressources on at least getting started overhauling these instead of spending the manpower  on unneeded cows.

 

Cows are always needed. 

And I would imagine the manpower spent on the cow FM* would measure in minutes.

 

*Feed Model. 

[Glide]

7 minutes ago, Beirut said:

Cows are always needed.

Well, if you read the latest update, they will soon be multi-core cows with a new path-finding model AND rendered in Vulkan.  A big thank you to the OP for asking about excitement coming down the pipeline.  I think there's plenty.

[Kilted_Kerbal]

2 minutes ago, Glide said:

Well, if you read the latest update, they will soon be multi-core cows with a new path-finding model AND rendered in Vulkan.  A big thank you to the OP for asking about excitement coming down the pipeline.  I think there's plenty.

Yay - so the cows can steal our FPS and processor power while not bumping into tanks that spawn in the exact same places each time. 

 

Also well done in missing the OP's point - it was not drumming up excitement, rather the opposite. 

[evilnate]

I’m a frequent flyer and have been tinkering with the ME for quite some time. Easily understand how people can get burned out with DCS.

My method for avoiding burnout is flying with a group of online friends on a regular schedule. I make missions that have a lot of “dynamic” aspects and often require a complete package to accomplish (strike, sead escort, cap). We run the missions, review together via screen sharing tacview, and discuss what could here been done better. 

Thankfully there’s a community made app called “DCS Liberation” that has taken a lot of ME work load off my shoulders. Now I just make theaters for that app, which is a lot less time consuming.

Im hopeful that DCS World will continue to evolve where large scale multiplayer missions can offer good performance for 40+ players. Once that happens, I think the TvT scene (like georgia at war or cold war server) is going to be phenomenal.

[Beirut]

3 minutes ago, Glide said:

Well, if you read the latest update, they will soon be multi-core cows with a new path-finding model AND rendered in Vulkan. 

Next to a payware F-104, that's my dream. 

[NineLine]

7 hours ago, ceecrb1 said:

Hopefully see you all again in a couple of years. Untill then I'm sorry to say, our server will remain cold and dark.
Right or wrong, agree or disagree, as a group, with DCS we've learned all we can learn, experienced all we can experience and we feel it's not because of us not trying hard enough but rather there being nothing left to gain, when we feel like their could be.

*engine shutting down and canopy opening noises*

Ok, if this is a goodbye message then I will close it here. 

Some of you suggested I was glossing over his concerns, but we all have the same concerns, we all want the core to be better, its an important goal to the team, what many people "gloss over" is the fact that many of the QoL changes take time.

I tried to acknowledge the OP concerns the best I can, we are hard at work on all aspects of DCS World, that is all I can really say, otherwise this thread is just going to turn into another mess of people arguing about personal opinions.

I hope the OP will return again soon, sounds like he has invested a lot in DCS just to abandon it, so we will keep working hard to make sure DCS grows and gets better.

Thanks.