When will we see a major update to the games Core mechanics?

[sirrah]

2 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Will have a think about it, but the team are very busy and even doing a report about what we are doing takes time away from other tasks.

If you really are to consider this, please also take note that a large portion of the community (maybe even the majority) doesn't want the ED team to spend time on explaining what they do and how they do it. Many (silent and patient) people here think that effort is better spend on actual development and coding and have all the confidence in ED's team and their progress.

[SundownSix]

If you really are to consider this, please also take note that a large portion of the community (maybe even the majority) doesn't want the ED team to spend time on explaining what they do and how they do it. Many (silent and patient) people here think that effort is better spend on actual development and coding and have all the confidence in ED's team and their progress.

As a game dev, an hour by hour breakdown of time spent on one system or another is bordering on micromanaging when having to compile and submit to a manager. Imagine having to do that for the public.

I do think it’s important to get regular updates on what has been done and planned *near term* on the core systems, especially in the areas of AI and ground combat modeling and logic. In my opinion, because of the state that DCS is in after 10-20 years of development and where it still remains a weakness at best (and reminiscent of a buggy, rough, early access alpha at worst— which the core game really should not be in at this point), a renewed focus on the core game is sorely needed. Not just peripheral systems like farps, propellers, or visual improvements that the team seems passionate about working on (and which are welcome!). But basic combat and air operations behavior (like AI wingmen not running out of fuel just keeping up with you, and ejecting 5 miles after reaching IP).

If weekly updates could simply show what core gameplay combat systems are being worked on, that would be extremely welcome (and maybe even needed). We don’t need devs to report hours to us like some sort of external producer.

We do however need focus placed on improving the core experience— not just through huge ambitious overhauls with ground breaking systems that might come next year or 5 years from now, like a dynamic campaign, but also through immediate fixes near term for game disrupting things like taxi collision issues, carrier cats getting stuck in MP, wingmen not managing fuel with any reasonableness, lack of splash damage, omniscient AI reacting to missile launches they can’t see, etc. etc.

[twistking]

9 minutes ago, SundownSix said:

We do however need focus placed on improving the core experience— not just through huge ambitious overhauls with ground breaking systems that might come next year or 5 years from now, like a dynamic campaign, but also through immediate fixes near term for game disrupting things like taxi collision issues, carrier cats getting stuck in MP, wingmen not managing fuel with any reasonableness, lack of splash damage, omniscient AI reacting to missile launches they can’t see, etc. etc.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

Add to that:

- consistently available wingman commands accross modules (e.g. ability to directly command wingman #4, the ability to tell a wingman to turn off their radar, ...);

- ability to refuel external tanks on the ground (how many years has this been broken?);

- teaching AI wingmen the difference between 'nails' and 'spike';

- AI wingmen refuse to engage/see enemy aircraft 45nm directly ahead co-altitude but they can call out contacts 140nm behind them, and have no issues with spotting a tank 260nm away;

- AI wingmen refusing to RTB when they're damaged;

- AI wingmen shouldn't run in to strafe Tunguska's when you give them the 'Cover me' command when in an A/A mission where everyone has an exclusive A/A loadout (they should know that themselves without forcing everyone to be adept with the ME);

- useful AWACS (the ability to check in / check out, them giving more info than simply BRA, ...);

- realistic limits on what enemy AI can spot with radar and visually (AI aircraft that don't have a look-down radar shouldn't be able to detect you when you're flying NOE 20k ft below them);

- proper ATC;

- The list goes on...

 

 

People are not claiming nothing's happening on the core. They just say they don't see anything happening on serious issues that are more important than e.g. adding the supercarrier briefing room.
Obviously a supercarrier briefing room is an excellent feature that some online squadrons will enjoy, but night wands and proper F-14 support (LSO: 'You're slow' - No I'm not) for example are more important, no?

[Exorcet]

13 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

Add to that:

AI wingmen shouldn't run in to strafe Tunguska's when you give them the 'Cover me' command when in an A/A mission where everyone has an exclusive A/A loadout (they should know that themselves without forcing everyone to be adept with the ME);
 

Not actually sure about this one. You're thinking about what makes sense 99% of the time, but there is the 1% of niche cases to think about, which is one of the things that makes creating good AI difficult. You're basically making it impossible for an AA mission to conduct any kind of ground attack, which is overly restrictive and the kind of problem we deal with right now. We can't expect the AI to handle every single possible situation without human guidance. In this case I think the ME option is necessary, just leave it as a default setting for AA missions and allow it to be disabled when needed (additionally, a lot of these AI options should be added to wingmen commands. Things like restrict AB would be a lot more useful if they were dynamic).

[Baco]

If I may, I think the Gratest Oversight is how the world and most specially targets react to weapons. it is very hard to work with Assets that have a heath bar a la "Warcraft 1990" and even worst: Ships, being the last, complex machines with diverse systems and weapons besides te float or no float capability.

Wee need complex damageable ships and assets in the modern environment too. it is very frustrating to have to have a direct hit on vehicles to achieve damage, and ships well, we need complex ships that can be damage independently of the hull state. 

 

ATC they are working on it, AI well its hard but again there are people looking into it.. believable targets, not even mentioned yet...

We dot need pettier targets we need functional targets give me boxes that can suffer a mobility kill, that can be pin down, ships that can lose the self defense systems or offensive capabilities, give me an enemy that reacts realistically to the damage my weapons inflict. Not just dead or alive. Right nw DCS is a systems simulator, and not a "Combat" Simulator... 

And most specially now that you are making a huge emphases on helicopters... 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

2 hours ago, Exorcet said:

You're basically making it impossible for an AA mission to conduct any kind of ground attack

I simply would like to use better / more coordinated tactics in Single Player.
For edge-case scenarios we still have Wingman X -> Engage -> Ground targets / air defences

[SundownSix]

Obviously a supercarrier briefing room is an excellent feature that some online squadrons will enjoy, but night wands and proper F-14 support (LSO: 'You're slow' - No I'm not) for example are more important, no?

Having the IFLOLS work properly for the Tomcat also seems like it should be high priority/low hanging fruit.

[unipus]

1 hour ago, Baco said:

If I may, I think the Gratest Oversight is how the world and most specially targets react to weapons. it is very hard to work with Assets that have a heath bar a la "Warcraft 1990" and even worst: Ships, being the last, complex machines with diverse systems and weapons besides te float or no float capability.

Wee need complex damageable ships and assets in the modern environment too. it is very frustrating to have to have a direct hit on vehicles to achieve damage, and ships well, we need complex ships that can be damage independently of the hull state. 

 

ATC they are working on it, AI well its hard but again there are people looking into it.. believable targets, not even mentioned yet...

We dot need pettier targets we need functional targets give me boxes that can suffer a mobility kill, that can be pin down, ships that can lose the self defense systems or offensive capabilities, give me an enemy that reacts realistically to the damage my weapons inflict. Not just dead or alive. Right nw DCS is a systems simulator, and not a "Combat" Simulator... 

And most specially now that you are making a huge emphases on helicopters... 

Yes. 100%. The lack of a plausible systems-damage simulation is absolutely top on my list, and has been for a long time. Note that I say "plausible" as opposed to "realistic" -- there's really no need for simulating exact weapon penetration to get this done. What is needed, however, is something that allows me to hit a tank with an ATGM and see some result beyond "it's dead and on fire" or "nothing happened?" Or, what's even worse in the current implementation, "I know that I did 94% damage to it and that it will explode in exactly 10 seconds." It should be possible to hit a vehicle and do damage to one or several of its systems, ranging from mild to mission kill to catastrophic, and to be able to (potentially) see this. The same system could apply to fragmentation and splash damage, addressing long-held complaints.

This can be simulated to very acceptable fidelity in a tabletop game, so I don't buy that it would be remotely taxing for the DCS engine. It does not require an advanced physics engine to create meaningful results that are satisfying to observe and actually drive gameplay.

I've spent 80% of my time since the very beginning doing air-to-ground in DCS, and continue to do so, and it's heartbreaking to see zero progress here in years especially with the amount of a2g modules coming out. I simply can't get interested in the Apache or anything else coming until there's some indication of real change on the way, sooner than later. I'm not just complaining - I would be happy to volunteer my time designing such a system, if I believed it might ever be seen or even tested.

[norman99]

The reason why core updates and improvements are so few and far between is simply due to EDs business model. As long as DCS worlds remains “free to play” core development will provide little to no revenue. For any company working in a niche market on a tight budget, there simply aren’t the resources available to allocate to non revenue generating tasks.

Unless ED start charging for the core DCS world, either as a one off fee for major version releases, or as a subscription, I can’t see anything changing.

[unipus]

Maybe they gain enough new users to support that interpretation of the business model, I don't know.

What I do know is that they lose money from people like myself, who have significantly reduced purchase of new modules while the core game experience remains unchanged.

I would gladly accept a model that involved paying for the base game (and therefore a little less per module) if it meant that the base game saw steady and meaningful updates.

[felipesm]

Reworking the ATC would be a great improvement.

[Exorcet]

2 hours ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

I simply would like to use better / more coordinated tactics in Single Player.
For edge-case scenarios we still have Wingman X -> Engage -> Ground targets / air defences

I understand, the AI needs to be smarter to be useful as wingmen, and a CAP flight should care a lot more about fighters than AAA. The point I was trying to make is that baking assumptions or hard coded behavior into the AI can backfire and it can be easy to overlook that fact. It would be great for AI to just work with no user input, but that's not necessarily realistic, at least in my opinion. The proper tactic depends on the situation. For example is an AI cap flight guarding something vitally important to the point where they are considered acceptable losses, or is the war as such a point where functional airframes are precious and commands wants pilots to return the aircraft to base rather than risk them unnecessarily? The AI won't be able to determine that without player input. I think the safe way to go about it is to set the defaults to handle 99% of situations (which the recently added advanced waypoint defaults do, such as restrict air to ground attack) but then also allow users to make tweaks for niche cases.

54 minutes ago, norman99 said:

The reason why core updates and improvements are so few and far between is simply due to EDs business model. As long as DCS worlds remains “free to play” core development will provide little to no revenue. For any company working in a niche market on a tight budget, there simply aren’t the resources available to allocate to non revenue generating tasks.

Unless ED start charging for the core DCS world, either as a one off fee for major version releases, or as a subscription, I can’t see anything changing.

There are a thousand ways to look at this, but consider that the core sells modules as much as modules do. If there was no AI, no terrain, and nothing besides the aircraft, what would DCS be? In addition you have long time players that know to look past just what a module offers and those that review and spread news on the sim to others, including potential new players.

The core doesn't have to directly produce income to make money for ED, so I really think the idea of ED's financial model being to blame for all kinds of shortcomings doesn't really hold up. At the very least we would need to see what is going on inside ED to be really sure, but I don't think anyone who isn't at least a part of ED is in such a position. I know that I held off buying WWII modules for a while until the AI and damage model was improved. That's a direct case of the core bringing ED more profit, and I'm not the only person who has taken such a stance.

[norman99]

Hypothetically, assuming current EA modules were completed, if ED refocused all their resources onto the core, and didn’t develop any new modules for a year or two, how much additional revenue do you think that would generate? Compare that to starting a couple more EA modules and selling them immediately?

Nick has openly stated they need the EA business model to financially sustain the company, that alone is a good indication it drives the bulk of their revenue, and core enhancements don’t.

Unfortunately, most users are not like yourself, they buy modules regardless of the poor state of the core sim, and then complain vocally afterwards (myself included ). There isn’t a huge pool of users holding off from buying the Hornet/Falcon simply because ATC is poorly implemented. We customers are half the problem, because our actions help sustain the business model we love to hate.

Edited February 22, 2022 by norman99

[Hobel]

Well, modules that are 10 years old are still being sold, and will be for the next 5-10 years, because every year a new generation of Player comes along, and it keeps getting bigger because the quality keeps getting better.
Just because no new modules come does not mean that ED no longer gets money, on the contrary, the amount of modules that are already there will always generate money.

[Exorcet]

37 minutes ago, norman99 said:

Hypothetically, assuming current EA modules were completed, if ED refocused all their resources onto the core, and didn’t develop any new modules for a year or two, how much additional revenue do you think that would generate? Compare that to starting a couple more EA modules and selling them immediately?

That's a really difficult question to answer from the outside, there just isn't enough information to say. What I can guess is that the former could potentially produce a lot of money, but not in the short term. If anything that the biggest difference that I would guess at, when the money comes in rather than how much.

37 minutes ago, norman99 said:

Nick has openly stated they need the EA business model to financially sustain the company, that alone is a good indication it drives the bulk of their revenue, and core enhancements don’t.

Yes, ED relies on EA, but that doesn't mean that the core has no effect on DCS's success. You might say that is hinted at from DCS's development itself. They try to strike a balance between module and core development. Some people feel that core development is slow, and I myself have waited a long time for some improvements and am still waiting for others like ATC, wingmen AI, general AI, etc. However DCS core development is not totally stagnant. We've seen over the past few years the development of AFM missiles (which turned out to be a pretty large project), performance and graphics improvements, WWII AI improvements (as the basis for general AI improvements), the beginning of weather overhaul, the Supercarrier module introducing higher fidelity ground crew and the beginnings of ATC overhaul, and a good number of requested mission editor features added like additional AI options, unit show/hide settings, revised loadout and livery screens, and the drawing tool.

 

ED needs the EA business model because that is what they built their income around. You can perhaps infer that modules drive sales more than the DCS core, but the EA model alone can't be used as confirmation that the core component of DCS doesn't matter financially.

37 minutes ago, norman99 said:

Unfortunately, most users are not like yourself, they buy modules regardless of the poor state of the core sim, and then complain vocally afterwards (myself included ). There isn’t a huge pool of users holding off from buying the Hornet/Falcon simply because ATC is poorly implemented. We customers are half the problem, because our actions help sustain the business model we love to hate.

 

While this is true in some cases, it's a bigger and more complex issue than buyer impulsiveness. For one thing, while DCS is lacking in some areas, the core isn't so bad as to make DCS unplayable (well that's a subjective thing I guess, for some people it might be unplayable, but for others it's not). People don't just buy modules despite a core they don't like because they lack self control, they buy them because they can genuinely enjoy DCS in its current state. With such a wide range of modules and its design as a simulation sandbox, there is a lot that DCS can offer. Anything from just free flying to non combat flights, home flight training, a virtual aircraft encyclopedia, etc. Conversely this gives buyers leverage in how they support ED and DCS even if they're bound to buy one or two of the most anticipated modules. Your average Hornet or Falcon buyer may or may not consider getting into WWII based on their modern jet experience. If the modern AI is weird and clunky, will the same be true of the WWII AI? Will they want to buy the F-15 later down the road if the AI or missions aren't dynamic and they just end up doing the same thing as before? Unless the fanbase literally buys everything that ED puts out immediately, they have some leverage in lending their financial support, and ED has an incentive to maintain DCS. It doesn't look like ED will change their business model any time soon barring a disastrous drop in sales, but again it doesn't seem like the root of the problem to me. I could be wrong of course, but I just don't see the evidence.

[bies]

Hint: some guys don't understand programmers are specialised professionals. You can't simply take experienced coders working on modules for many years, tell them to work on game engine and expect they will work nearly as efficiently as coders working on engine for many years.

This, for a long time, would mean stop work on modules and nearly no additional progress on engine. They would need considerable time to adapt and some will never be efficient because they are tallented working on totally different concepts.

 

BTW. For me - game engine developement like multithreading, Vulcan, VR headsets native support, hand control and overall enviroment developement like dynamic campaign, assets from different eras - are more inportant than another module. But i'm looking at this in a realistic way. What is more ED needs modules to earn money and continue their work.

Edited February 22, 2022 by bies

[FlankerKiller]

On 2/19/2022 at 1:36 PM, Steel Jaw said:

Given the above valid points I believe the DC should have top priority.

The problem is you need all of those above valid points taken care of to have a decent DC. 

[DAZnBLAST]

On 2/19/2022 at 5:40 PM, SoW Reddog said:

BN, could you maybe give an example of what a week in the shoes of the core team looks like at some point. How much of their time is spent reviewing bugs, how much developing new engine capabilities, how much is spent on new models or whatever. Doesn't have to be what they are doing next week, I mean just a representative "average" week to understand better what they're up against?

Whilst, I see what you are getting at. I'm a great believer of the team spending more time fattening the pig and less time weighing it.

[WobblyFlops]

14 hours ago, unipus said:

Yes. 100%. The lack of a plausible systems-damage simulation is absolutely top on my list, and has been for a long time. Note that I say "plausible" as opposed to "realistic" -- there's really no need for simulating exact weapon penetration to get this done

I've been thinking about this stuff a lot lately. When it comes to general air to ground improvements, aside from the obvious AI/lack of DTC and other similar complaints, there are essentially three aspects that make the core game seem quite arcady compared to the modules themselves;

1.) Lack of proper weaponeering interactions and weapon effects

2.) Simplified damage model for ground units

3.) Simplified sensor limitations

 

My intention isn't to list everything that's unrealistic and how to make it more true to real life (because that's not possible due to ITAR and it would cost so much money that no development company could ever finance it for consumer use) but rather how to address it in a gamified but still satisfying way.

-Weapon delivery planner:

The first way to address this is to make a weapon delivery planner that can feed into the upcoming DTC. This would allow you to take a weapon during mission planning and set it up on the ground. Select the proper fuze, set up arming time and function time realistically depending on what fuze you're using that's compatible with the weapon. So no need for inconsistent workarounds like selecting lazer code for a PW 2 from the cockpit and other fantasy elements.

-Fragmentation:

To allow proper weapon effects, fragmentation modelling is basically mandatory. Currently, explosives have an increased blast effect to compensate for lack of fragmentation but this isn't necessarily going to be a good tradeoff because frag pattern is shaped. Depending on terminal parameters, height of burst and other factors, you can tailor your frag pattern to match the desired effects on the ground. Frag also impacts a higher area than the blast itself and it can cause catastrophic damage against troops in the open or soft vehicles. To truly leverage this addition, we need better damage modelling.

-Damage modelling:

Ground vehicles simply need actual components that you can knock out, therefore it would allow M kills to happen. Ideally, you'd at the very least, you could target tracks/wheels, weapons, engine, crew and ammunition storage and sensors. An accurate penetration modelling would definitely be very complex and computationally intensive so I won't touch on that. This would allow dumb munitions to have very reasonable and grounded effects against soft targets, while PGMs would still retain their niche for K killing armored vehicles, but dumb weapons would still have some limited use against them. (Knock out the track and the tank can't move, destroy the main gun and it can't fire). This is essentially adding hitboxes, so with some randomization, if the fragmentation modelling exists, it should be comparatively easier to do.

 

For buildings, modelling impact angle, penetration and other interactions would be very costly to do accurately but the current modelling also can't stay as is. My proposition, have classes of hardened buildings that penetrator warheads would have a damage bonus against based on their impact angle. The closer you are to 90 (and the faster the weapon is), the bigger the damage. Set up a threshold based on the angle and the impact velocity and if it's exceeded do catastrophic damage. Traditional warheads should have drastically reduced effects against targets that are classified as hardened. However, another class could be buildings with multiple floors, which could interact with delay fuze and if you drop without a delay, you'd deal less damage. The really nice step here would be classifying based on different height; the higher the building, the more delay you need to hit the base and deal catastrophic damage. 

 

If they'd want actual penetration modelling, it could be done based on location of hit, impact angle and velocity, but this requires either actual hit calculations and defined, specific armor type and thickness based on area and for buildings, orientation and material type, which can be quite computationally expensive.

 

-Sensor limitations 

Here there are a couple of specific things we'd have to simulate.

 

1.) Dumb bombing and CCIP: A randomized error that represents the bombs' inherent inaccuracy that results in a much higher CEP for dumb bombs. This would represent the inaccuracy that's associated with atmospherics and the natural slight deviations between each bomb as they come off the rack, stabilize themselves and fly in the air. The other part of the equation is to simulate errors in the CCIP calculation aside from elevation differences, mainly improper G at release, which can throw off the computed solution and put your bomb out to lunch. Also, the solution shouldn't be perfect, it should require a more or less stable jet to have an acceptable CEP. The current magical solution that can instantly compensate for changing bank angle, yaw, increasing load factor and whatnot should be a thing of the past. CCIP is inherently inaccurate in real life and to have a decent probability of destruction against the typical DCS targets, you'd have to saturate a higher area. One bomb one kill is simply not how it should work.

This would also allow the modules to accurately represent the different ranging sources for the calculation. If you have no DTED, no radar or radalt, no TGP and a wrong altimeter setting, the computed solution should be garbage. 

 

2.) LGBs: This is a pretty complex topic, with many well documented limiting factors. The biggest one is atmospherics, spot size and the podium effect. This would make it necessary to train for buddy lazing in certain situations and to mind your attack geometry. 

 

3.) IAMs: The big issue here is TLE and altitude error. The simple way to demonstrate this is that if you're attacking pre planned target where you have properly mensurated coordinates the TLE should be a no factor. If you willy nilly designate something through a TGP without lazing and at a shallow enough angle at a high enough slant range, the coordinates you get should be completely useless. The DPI should be represented as a 3D location, where altitude errors could be compensated for by increasing the impact angle. Against vertical targets that you can't attack in the horizontal plane, the big consideration should be that too shallow impact angles could result in case slap and a dud.

This would practically require all modules to adhere to the programmable terminal parameters for IAMs. Using penetrators at a steep impact angle against hardened targets should also be a practical application of this.

 

 

Most of this stuff isn't necessarily 100% realistic and it drastically simplifies the whole picture but it would mostly rely on classes of objects and hitboxes and not on real time calculation of  penetration effects. The potentially difficult part is the fragments, but that's eventually coming, plus they want to add in things like actual JPF, programmable term parameters and things like that. These would greatly increase the fidelity and make the actual in game experience reflect at least some parts of what real life mission planning should account for.

Edited February 22, 2022 by WobblyFlops

[unipus]

Even the level of detail you describe is much more than would be strictly necessary to start seeing much more interesting and dynamic results.

However, I will note with the amount of work ED has been putting into creating more detailed thermal signatures for the models -- in an idea world this would suggest that they've got a system in place that knows where an engine is versus where a gun is and so on. If this is true, then all of that could be leveraged to a more directly cause and effect implementation.

Failing that, a few charts and tables would still do a much improved job.

 

[SundownSix]

Even the level of detail you describe is much more than would be strictly necessary to start seeing much more interesting and dynamic results.
However, I will note with the amount of work ED has been putting into creating more detailed thermal signatures for the models -- in an idea world this would suggest that they've got a system in place that knows where an engine is versus where a gun is and so on. If this is true, then all of that could be leveraged to a more directly cause and effect implementation.
Failing that, a few charts and tables would still do a much improved job.
 

The thermal system ED showed doesn’t require knowledge of where components are. It can be done simply by blending between different thermal texture maps— one set for tracks, another for engines, and another for cannons, with amounts based on unit game states and actions.

[SoW Reddog]

18 hours ago, DAZnBLAST said:

Whilst, I see what you are getting at. I'm a great believer of the team spending more time fattening the pig and less time weighing it.

Sure. But having worked in and around technical and project teams for the past 20 years, I'm pretty sure that in any of those teams we would have had a project manager, or product manager who was chomping at the bit to tell the world what their bit of the team was doing or had achieved. Even now, I sit in meetings most of my week where a large portion of the time is spent telling me/us what the plans are, what the progress is, and what the blockers are. 

We aren't talking about a bunch of people chained to keyboards, seeing only 1s and 0s (or at least we shouldn't be) here. There are undoubtedly plenty of people who could gain and share the detail I'm talking about without adversely impacting on any delivery. Of course I'm not advocating anything that would delay anything. I'm simply saying there is a perception that the core is not being actively worked on within some of the community, and while some (many) are happy to trust in ED in patient silence, others could be aided by sharing some more information. 

At the end of the day, this is the wishlist channel. I'm simply suggesting something I personally would wish for. Bignewy et al are free to do whatever they want with the suggestion and most assuredly will. We all want ED to not only survive but thrive. 

[Baco]

On 2/22/2022 at 1:15 AM, Exorcet said:

 

While this is true in some cases, it's a bigger and more complex issue than buyer impulsiveness. For one thing, while DCS is lacking in some areas, the core isn't so bad as to make DCS unplayable (well that's a subjective thing I guess, for some people it might be unplayable, but for others it's not). People don't just buy modules despite a core they don't like because they lack self control, they buy them because they can genuinely enjoy DCS in its current state. With such a wide range of modules and its design as a simulation sandbox, there is a lot that DCS can offer.

While this is true, and the fact that there is no other modern accurate flight sim out there, makes Old players stay. but new players are going to be put away form reviews and the constant NOT good enough environment feedback.

As an example, I love Space sims, I would get one of them but it is in the same state as DCS, Great potential, it is playable and maybe fun, but has not shown indications fo achieving its greatness and it will remain in the same state as it is today... So No thanks, I am not investing a ton of money in the core, ships and all that jazz to help develop a stagnant project...

I feel the same about DCS right now, I have most modules, every map, but I have stopped. I will not buy another module "for the cause", or to keep in the hanger for some day. I had some interest on the Hind and the Apache is looking Awesome, but again after you learn the systems then what?... back to clunky IA, health bar targets? 90s looking assets, and in a jet well you are going 500kts.. in a chopper you are hovering and have a front row seat to see the targets and buildings...

so no I did not buy neither the Hind nor the Apache will not  get the Kiowa nor the F 15E Strike Eagle. Actually today there is no Module that i fancy on the shop...And i am sure I am NOT the only one...

So maybe lets drop the "non payment bull", the "separate the community excuse". Let ED charge for quality assets with a credible damage model, and for core improvements. Otherwise is a downward spiral...

I will buy my niche inside a niche air frames, just because they fly in my country, MB 339 and Bo 105, and of course will buy My country (South Atlantic map ;)) other than that.. I will wait and see.. and I am sure I am not the only one...

 

DCS World deserves a better COMBAT environment, after all its "Digital COMBAT simulator" not "Digital systems simulator"...

Edited February 23, 2022 by Baco

[Exorcet]

6 hours ago, Baco said:

While this is true, and the fact that there is no other modern accurate flight sim out there, makes Old players stay. but new players are going to be put away form reviews and the constant NOT good enough environment feedback.

New players, like old players, won't all have the same opinion. I don't know if my point was clear in the section that you quoted, but I was not defending DCS there per say. I was pointing out that different people have different expectations and wants. There is a faction in the DCS playerbase that considers the AI and damage modeling subpar to the point where they feel like those things negate the good parts of DCS. I can understand that opinion, but there are also DCS players that at least find the AI and damage model good enough, even if they want improvements.

I think literally everyone wants DCS to do better, but not everyone thinks DCS isn't worth playing in its current state.

6 hours ago, Baco said:

As an example, I love Space sims, I would get one of them but it is in the same state as DCS, Great potential, it is playable and maybe fun, but has not shown indications fo achieving its greatness and it will remain in the same state as it is today... So No thanks, I am not investing a ton of money in the core, ships and all that jazz to help develop a stagnant project...

I feel the same about DCS right now, I have most modules, every map, but I have stopped. I will not buy another module "for the cause", or to keep in the hanger for some day. I had some interest on the Hind and the Apache is looking Awesome, but again after you learn the systems then what?... back to clunky IA, health bar targets? 90s looking assets, and in a jet well you are going 500kts.. in a chopper you are hovering and have a front row seat to see the targets and buildings...

Personally I'm enjoying DCS despite playing since LOMAC. There are definitely problems and some of them are certainly frustrating, but I don't feel the "then what" that comes after learning systems for the most part. WWII felt that way early on, the AI was just abysmal for WWII aircraft, but much of that has been addressed at this point. Modern aircraft are fun enough in my opinion. I'm lucky enough to have a lot of mission editor experience so I can create whatever content I want, and while I sometimes run into issues with DCS's limitations, it's still what I spend the majority of my game time on.

6 hours ago, Baco said:

so no I did not buy neither the Hind nor the Apache will not  get the Kiowa nor the F 15E Strike Eagle. Actually today there is no Module that i fancy on the shop...And i am sure I am NOT the only one...

So maybe lets drop the "non payment bull", the "separate the community excuse". Let ED charge for quality assets with a credible damage model, and for core improvements. Otherwise is a downward spiral...

I will buy my niche inside a niche air frames, just because they fly in my country, MB 339 and Bo 105, and of course will buy My country (South Atlantic map ;)) other than that.. I will wait and see.. and I am sure I am not the only one...

 

DCS World deserves a better COMBAT environment, after all its "Digital COMBAT simulator" not "Digital systems simulator"...

 

I agree with you in not buying modules if you think DCS isn't worth it or isn't showing enough progress. Keep doing that. I also agree that DCS should have a better combat environment and I urge ED to work on that as much as possible. I don't agree that charging for add ons outside of modules is a good idea that will fix anything, but I touched on that already in previous posts. Modules can be priced to not only pay for themselves but the core, and if people are willing to pay for core improvements, they should also be willing to pay more for modules.