2022 is going to be huge!

[wilbur81]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

DCS is no doubt a beautiful game. 

You're right! 

[unlikely_spider]

18 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

DCS needs to spend WAY more time on fixing core stuff like that than on making things look pretty.

is it the same people working on textures/3d modeling that also build the code that dictate AI and weapons behavior and things like weather?

Edited February 18, 2022 by unlikely_spider

[SharpeXB]

19 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

IDK, I Think the planes in DCS are pretty good esp compared to MSFS. The rest of the world well thats a different topic. But frankly DCS needs far more work fixing stuff under the hood rather than more shiny graphics. I mean as an example the clouds "look" good, but we have no actual workable weather system, clouds don't block AI LOS (yay flak guns see through clouds, as do fighters), and most egregiously they don't block stuff like IR missiles. Like those last 2 points should not take 1 year to implement, that like basic day 1 functionality that needs to be there. DCS needs to spend WAY more time on fixing core stuff like that than on making things look pretty. 

Sure there are lots of areas to improve on. I expect that Vulkan and multi-core will benefit all of them. But I wouldn’t expect them to give us the same game we have now but with a faster frame rate. So at the end of the day DCS will still demand the most from hardware as any performance “improvement” will get used to actually make the game better overall. 

[Gunfreak]

23 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Not just terrain….

And the comparison isn’t even just flight sims. Look at racing sims which are similar in featuring machines and cockpits. Again DCS is beautiful but it could be more so. 

I don't think any racing sim is close to modeling the car as Complex as planes in DCS, yes they have Complex physics, tire effects ect. But not systems upon system you'll find the  F16 or F14 in DCS.

And most racing sims takes place in quite small tracks, much easier to make look good and doesn't require much resources. Even so most racing sims don't look that good up close. Some still use very low quality crowds, in fact some still use 2d crowds. 

[Silver_Dragon]

1 minute ago, Harlikwin said:

IDK, I Think the planes in DCS are pretty good esp compared to MSFS. The rest of the world well thats a different topic. But frankly DCS needs far more work fixing stuff under the hood rather than more shiny graphics. I mean as an example the clouds "look" good, but we have no actual workable weather system, clouds don't block AI LOS (yay flak guns see through clouds, as do fighters), and most egregiously they don't block stuff like IR missiles. Like those last 2 points should not take 1 year to implement, that like basic day 1 functionality that needs to be there. DCS needs to spend WAY more time on fixing core stuff like that than on making things look pretty. 

ED has talked that has on phases..... or someone think that making by "copy / paste"?

[3WA]

DCS has it's graphics problems, that's for sure.  Everything outside of the planes / heli's seem to be an after-thought.

But, that's the BEAUTY of DCS.  There is just no other Flight Sim as realistic as DCS.  Every bit of power has been given to the aircraft, with the rest of the World getting whatever power is left over.  That's how it has to be for now.  The majority of us just don't have rigs that can do both aircraft AND outside world.

There are other engines out there (enfusion, etc.  Excusa mods, I know we're not supposed to talk about other engines, but an example is needed here) that were made to do all things equally.  But look at their dismal, barbie doll level flight simulation.  DCS blows them out of the water.

We need to give ED time.  They obviously want to do as many aircraft modules as they can think of before doing anything else.  And I'm hoping they reach that point soon.  Because I too would like to see them work more on their world graphics.  I also want to see armor modules come out soon ( and that means the terrain is going to have become much more detailed ).  Eventually, after there are enough ground / armor modules, I would like to see FPS as well.  FPS in itself would bring in a MASSIVE amount of players and a lot of money for ED.  I know some people here don't want that, but with the cash infusion ED will get, it should speed things way up.  If you don't like that, then just don't host FPS on your servers, and stick to aircraft only.

Personally, I think the future of DCS looks good.  They same to have stepped up their game of late.  Right now, I'm really waiting for Dynamic Campaign.

[AvgeekJoe]

Well with DCS considering it's intended to be a study sim, not a hop-in-and-fly like some sim with loads of mods on Comb-t-c-, it's rocking but needs more ground objects/potential targets as I've said elsewhere.  To me the price of high fidelity jets and decent terrain is the difficulty of modularity - especially adding new terrains.

 

That said, if we get just the AH-64 this is going to be a rad year.  Everything else is a bonus - like the Falklands Map with a Sea Harrier, the enlarged Syria & Normandy maps, and even the F-4.  I also admit I'm not a fan of the F-4 in RL (too spoiled on modern high rate of turn fighters) but it's likely this year too.

 

Granted I want to see the Afghanistan map.  If it happens, rad.  If not oh well.

[draconus]

I don't share your view @Harlikwin. The times of pretending that some dot is enemy or units differentiated only by some parameters are long gone in a sim world. You forget about helicopters and combined arms where details are very important and you're up close and personal with your enemy.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

It's funny how every time people complain about "they do nothing about this or that" not long after that comes with all the bells and whistles, but those people complaining don't change their word or appreciate the effort behind those new features you claim, and even though those took years to develop way before you complained about them.

You all know all that you mention are WIP features indeed, could be faster? Of course, and modules could cost in the hundreds of dollars either to pay for all of that fast development, but that kind of statements like "DCS core is sterile", yet is has been growing and growing since DCSW happened in 2009, "They do nothing about the dynamic clouds", yet we got the new clouds and dynamics ones and a whole new weather system is being worked on, "they do nothing about IA", but we got new IA features for WWII and modern jets not long ago and more is WIP, and everything the same.

It takes time? Yeah, sure it does, but saying "they do nothing" when you all know a core engine update is WIP, graphically with Vulkan, but also a new ATC, new IA, new weather engine, new everything WHILE you use the sim and it cannot be broken in the meantime, not too much at least, that's what the openbeta branch is about, I mean… I don't see what's so wrong with DCS you advocates of the end of the simming World. You're never happy with the new stuff delivered, not only modules but new features, you claim them to be indispensable for your entertainment because it's impossible to enjoy the sim without those features, yet when you get them you're like "meh, nothing happened". The constant spoiled child behaviour is exhausting mates…

Edited February 19, 2022 by Ala13_ManOWar

[Svsmokey]

Amen , brother . I guess it is human nature to be more concerned with what we don't have  , rather than what we do..

[NineLine]

I'll remind everyone that feedback is good, feedback is great.... but be mature and constructive, we are all adults and all deserve the same amount of respect. Thanks.

Oh and surprisingly I have to remind people... no discussion of other games, we will let it slide at times, but direct comparisons are not fair to us or them, and this thread shouldn't be about that.