Frost Posted March 30, 2022 Posted March 30, 2022 (edited) Maybe I'm too romantic about this, but I would wish, that DCS would acknowledge the importance of a persisting world and the role playing aspect of the sim more. By persisting world and role playing I especially mean the aircraft and its connection to your virtual pilot. What I mean by that is, that you could individualize your aircraft in a variety of ways; #1 persistent weapon profiles #2 persistent Display settings #3 persistent avioncs/radio settings #4 not that important, but an easy/ad hoc way to write your name on the canopy or change the tail number would also be nice. #5 (which would be really awesome) you could have a couple persistent aircraft from the same aircraft type. Like the aircraft from A2A simulations https://a2asimulations.com/ it would "remember" everything you do to it and how long it had been operated(without maintenance). If you treat your aircraft well, it will fight and fly well. The thing is, you would really have to keep your eyes on the gauges, or something you do to your aircraft today could kill you tomorrow. You would not only have to keep an eye on the gauges whilst you are flying your aircraft, you would also have to keep it properly maintained. Engines have to be overhauled and tires and brakes have to be replaced, etc... PS: I hate it when virtual aircraft are used like they are a throw away product. Not because I'm irrationally attached to a soulless virtual machine, but because I don't only want to know how to fly an aircraft, or operate its weapon systems and its avionics, I also want to know how it feels to be a (fighter-)pilot and this aircraft I'm in is actually worth millions and I fly it since months or even years. Or in other terms. I want the stakes to be as high as possible when I'm going on a mission. The most important thing is ofc that I don't die, the second most important thing is, that I bring the aircraft back home to the base and only the third most important thing would be to achieve all the mission goals. Edited March 30, 2022 by Frost
Tippis Posted March 30, 2022 Posted March 30, 2022 It's a neat idea, but not entirely realistic. It would require pretty much a complete rewrite of every module and also the entire game. Some of that could/should be fixed if they ever get around to creating a DTC interface, but the last time anything was said on that topic, they stated that this would not be a standardised or universal API or function/feature-set that would tie into all aircraft, require each module to have its own bespoke solution. So that limited scope would still be pretty much a rewrite of… well… everything. ❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧
FlankerKiller Posted March 30, 2022 Posted March 30, 2022 Doesn't work that way in the real world. Pilots fly what ever aircraft is available that day. There is absolutely no personalization by the crew. All aircraft are maintained between flights, and unless it was the most dire of all circumstances, maintenance would not release an aircraft that was unsafe to fly.
Frost Posted March 30, 2022 Author Posted March 30, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, FlankerKiller said: Doesn't work that way in the real world. Pilots fly what ever aircraft is available that day. There is absolutely no personalization by the crew. All aircraft are maintained between flights, and unless it was the most dire of all circumstances, maintenance would not release an aircraft that was unsafe to fly. I guess you are mostly right on that(>95%). I actually heard that many times in a variety of documentaries. But what I mean is, you usually fly an aircraft out of the same pool and in some cases that pool can be very narrow, especially with choppers I think. Or with other words, you would definitely fly the same aircraft repeatedly if you are on base, or on deployement and you would certainly know all its quirks and everything etc. And you would certainly feel an inherent obligation to bring this bird back from action. I was thinking more in terms of giving the virtual pilots something they could actually care for. It might not be entirelly realistic, but the "emotional attachement" would be more realistic, than it is now. I think sometimes you have to change things in a sim up a little in order to make it more realistic in its entirety. Like for instance, there are many things that are harder to do in a sim than they are IRL, so you would actually have to make them easier from a technical pov in order to make them more realistic. Except if you you have a fullscale simulator at home that is. Edited March 30, 2022 by Frost
Frost Posted March 30, 2022 Author Posted March 30, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, Tippis said: It's a neat idea, but not entirely realistic. It would require pretty much a complete rewrite of every module and also the entire game. Some of that could/should be fixed if they ever get around to creating a DTC interface, but the last time anything was said on that topic, they stated that this would not be a standardised or universal API or function/feature-set that would tie into all aircraft, require each module to have its own bespoke solution. So that limited scope would still be pretty much a rewrite of… well… everything. Such a DTC (if you mean data cartridge?) system would basically be exactly what I was talking about. At least one half of it -the customizing part. The other half would be a "living breathing" and aging aircraft that would absolutely need maintenance, or it would otherwise fall apart. A2A simulations achieved that to some extend even though the "mother sim"(FSX) doesn't really support such functions. Both the FSX and XP have many high fidelity modules that run their own subsims in order to expand the capabilities of the main sim. Especially in terms of wear and tear, electrical systems, FMCs and hydraulic systems, but even real time flight dynamics(Bell 206 from dodosim). Also, as I've stated in this thread, simply beeing able to save a flight at any given time would be the simplest solution/workaround for the lack of a DTC system. PS: This thing is probably one of the most extensive and complete add ons ever made for any flight sim ever. And fun fact, it sports the civilian version of the A-10s turbo fan engines. This thing is basically such a complete simulation in itself, that in its case X-plane is basically only the UI and graphics engine. Edited March 30, 2022 by Frost
rkk01 Posted March 31, 2022 Posted March 31, 2022 The greatest plus for a “persisting world”… … is the battlefield environment. Persistent damage and debris from one mission to the next hugely increases immersion. Look at the images from “Eastern Europe” really does demonstrate how the player environment should be “degraded” from mission to mission if I had to think of a name for this technology…? sounds like - “Dynamic Campaign” 3
Tippis Posted March 31, 2022 Posted March 31, 2022 1 hour ago, rkk01 said: The greatest plus for a “persisting world”… … is the battlefield environment. Persistent damage and debris from one mission to the next hugely increases immersion. Look at the images from “Eastern Europe” really does demonstrate how the player environment should be “degraded” from mission to mission if I had to think of a name for this technology…? sounds like - “Dynamic Campaign” That would require an even larger rewrite of everything from scratch than what the OP is suggesting, and that's already a full rewrite. No, if a dynamic campaign ever comes to DCS, it will not do that. Maybe in whatever game ED decides to produce next as a follow-up to DCS, with none of the legacy or baggage. ❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧
FlankerKiller Posted March 31, 2022 Posted March 31, 2022 4 hours ago, Tippis said: That would require an even larger rewrite of everything from scratch than what the OP is suggesting, and that's already a full rewrite. No, if a dynamic campaign ever comes to DCS, it will not do that. Maybe in whatever game ED decides to produce next as a follow-up to DCS, with none of the legacy or baggage. What not. Everything currently in DCS required a full rewrite. Everything we have now was at some point not achievable. I can't imagine simply taking stock of what parts of the environment are destroyed, and where destroyed units are, and then loading that forward into the next mission could be all that difficult. Not when your already doing a dynamic campaign that is tracking the battlefield, and logistics of both sides. And carrying that forward. 3
Tippis Posted April 1, 2022 Posted April 1, 2022 11 hours ago, FlankerKiller said: What not. Everything currently in DCS required a full rewrite. Everything we have now was at some point not achievable. Not really, no. A huge part of what we have now is problematic exactly because it did not need a rewrite; because it is legacy code that has stuck around since the Lock-On era. None of what we have now was not achievable — some of it was just a bit tricky due to that legacy or due to early design decisions that didn't account for needs that would pop up in the future. The DCS map format is one of those things. It is simply not designed to take stock of what has been destroyed. It is even less designed for transferring that state. There are functions to randomly blow things up, but those are incredibly computation intensive even on a small scale, to the point where you can easily crash the entire game if you try to apply all the necessary destruction at once, say at the beginning of a mission. 11 hours ago, FlankerKiller said: Not when your already doing a dynamic campaign that is tracking the battlefield, and logistics of both sides. And carrying that forward. Just one problem: there is nothing about that aspect of a dynamic campaign that suggests its easy to track the rest of the world, and more to the point, there is very little to suggest that they're already doing a dynamic campaign that actually even does those very simple things… ❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧
FlankerKiller Posted April 1, 2022 Posted April 1, 2022 Your absolutely right. The F-14 with its AI was completely achievable with the Lockon code. No new code there. I mean damn man I'm critical of ED but I'm not calling for the end of DCS. How exactly would you propose they do that anyway. Just yeet the third-party developers and their products? I'm pretty sure that any code trying to do what DCS dose will need full rewrites from time to time. But I vividly remember LOMAC and saying that is the same thing is disingenuous. As for the OP, your wish is completely unrealistic. I would know, I did twenty one years in airforce aircraft maintenance. I've deployed 10 times. If you damaged a jet bad enough that it would be a danger to you then it would be repaired if it could be or it would be set down and used for parts. Jets get maintenance between every flight. If it's broke it gets fixed. If it can't be fixed, and it's unsafe to fly it stays down. Pilots fly whatever is on the schedule that day. You want realistic turn random system failures, and bird strikes on. The jets are largely carbon copies of each other, as long as they are the same block. If it's bad enough to keep you from flying you mission, or it's been over G to the point that it might fail it's gonna be sitting on the ramp being canned.
Callsign112 Posted April 1, 2022 Posted April 1, 2022 On 3/30/2022 at 11:07 AM, Frost said: Maybe I'm too romantic about this, but I would wish, that DCS would acknowledge the importance of a persisting world and the role playing aspect of the sim more. By persisting world and role playing I especially mean the aircraft and its connection to your virtual pilot. What I mean by that is, that you could individualize your aircraft in a variety of ways; #1 persistent weapon profiles #2 persistent Display settings #3 persistent avioncs/radio settings #4 not that important, but an easy/ad hoc way to write your name on the canopy or change the tail number would also be nice. #5 (which would be really awesome) you could have a couple persistent aircraft from the same aircraft type. Like the aircraft from A2A simulations https://a2asimulations.com/ it would "remember" everything you do to it and how long it had been operated(without maintenance). If you treat your aircraft well, it will fight and fly well. The thing is, you would really have to keep your eyes on the gauges, or something you do to your aircraft today could kill you tomorrow. You would not only have to keep an eye on the gauges whilst you are flying your aircraft, you would also have to keep it properly maintained. Engines have to be overhauled and tires and brakes have to be replaced, etc... PS: I hate it when virtual aircraft are used like they are a throw away product. Not because I'm irrationally attached to a soulless virtual machine, but because I don't only want to know how to fly an aircraft, or operate its weapon systems and its avionics, I also want to know how it feels to be a (fighter-)pilot and this aircraft I'm in is actually worth millions and I fly it since months or even years. Or in other terms. I want the stakes to be as high as possible when I'm going on a mission. The most important thing is ofc that I don't die, the second most important thing is, that I bring the aircraft back home to the base and only the third most important thing would be to achieve all the mission goals. I think you meant to say preset.... Sorry but its a strange use of the word "persistent". But please carry on. 1
Tippis Posted April 1, 2022 Posted April 1, 2022 (edited) 8 hours ago, FlankerKiller said: Your absolutely right. The F-14 with its AI was completely achievable with the Lockon code. No new code there. Strawman harder. At no point did I say that there was no new code. What I said was that “[a] huge part of what we have now is problematic exactly because it did not need a rewrite; because it is legacy code that has stuck around since the Lock-On era. None of what we have now was not achievable — some of it was just a bit tricky due to that legacy or due to early design decisions that didn't account for needs that would pop up in the future.” If you want to address or refute what I actually said rather than whatever that silliness you invented was, then please go ahead. 8 hours ago, FlankerKiller said: I mean damn man I'm critical of ED but I'm not calling for the end of DCS. You should. That would help immensely with the eventual, inevitable recode from scratch that needs to happen if we ever want more advanced things. Old modules could go the way of FC3: become a set of legacy products that carry over as expressly simpler (relative to the new standard) models and simulations, and if any third parties wanted to maintain or update those, they'd be free to. Or they could salvage parts and build a new module for the new standard. After all, that's how we ended up with FC3 and its later additions and updates in DCS. 8 hours ago, FlankerKiller said: But I vividly remember LOMAC and saying that is the same thing is disingenuous. Good thing nothing even remotely like that was suggested then, other than by you, just now. Edited April 1, 2022 by Tippis ❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧
cfrag Posted April 2, 2022 Posted April 2, 2022 (edited) (sorry, will try again) Edited April 2, 2022 by cfrag
cfrag Posted April 2, 2022 Posted April 2, 2022 10 hours ago, Tippis said: You should. That would help immensely with the eventual, inevitable recode from scratch that needs to happen if we ever want more advanced things Perhaps. Then again, look at what MS achieved with Windows 3.1 - It's now Windows 11, and still going strong. If MS can go 30 years on the same code base, I think that there is great hope for what ED can achieve with DCS. So, if you are thinking "hey cfrag, wtf are you rambling about???" - I want you to consider this: Yes, Win 3.1 is alive and well in Windows 11. So ED can make DCS even greater, more entertaining and awe-inspiring without resorting to a full re-code. Just sayin'
Frost Posted April 2, 2022 Author Posted April 2, 2022 (edited) On 4/1/2022 at 4:39 PM, FlankerKiller said: As for the OP, your wish is completely unrealistic. I would know, I did twenty one years in airforce aircraft maintenance. I've deployed 10 times. If you damaged a jet bad enough that it would be a danger to you then it would be repaired if it could be or it would be set down and used for parts. Jets get maintenance between every flight. If it's broke it gets fixed. If it can't be fixed, and it's unsafe to fly it stays down. Pilots fly whatever is on the schedule that day. You want realistic turn random system failures, and bird strikes on. The jets are largely carbon copies of each other, as long as they are the same block. If it's bad enough to keep you from flying you mission, or it's been over G to the point that it might fail it's gonna be sitting on the ramp being canned. Ok, I got that. I'm no mechanic, and I certainly haven't worked on fighter jets, but I thought that an aircraft won't get entirely overhauled after every single flight. I mean like every single part of it. So there would be certain stages of degradation that are "normal" between maintenance cycles, but might reduce the max stress you could put on an aircraft at its next flight. But after all it wasn't so much about the aircrafts failures themeselves for me, but for some kind of "emotional attachement" to your virtual aircraft. So you would really really want to get your aircraft back to your base. And that you wouldn't just fight to achieve your mission goals, but also to make it back to base in one piece. Imo that is a very important aspect of a sim, because it is about decission making. What's more important, to kamikaze the last tank on the battleground, or to wave off and fly back to your base for 15 minutes with just one and a half wings? That's a decission. Not completing the mission, but still having to work for another 15 minutes or more and maybe crash at the landing. And if you made it back, you could in theory fly this exact same plane the next day -after it was repaired ofc. And in its logbook you could see what has been damaged, how long the engines were operated and what should get maintained next. I'm talking about immersion. I can't entirely explain what I mean, but some people might understand what I'am talking abut. It is about feeling much more vulnerable in your aircraft, when ditching it is the absolute worst option you could tzhink of. And you really don't want to eject over enemy territory, and leave your aircraft there. Just think about the dozents or maybe hundreds of pilots that could have ejected, but fought to get their aircraft back to base, even if they were already over friendly territory. It is about talking pride to not give YOUR aircraft up. How could you get that feeling, when your aircraft always respawns without "memory" even if you repaired the old one post mission? Ok, maybe I'am too romantic. Just watch the following vid from A2A. That's basically what I was talikng about. And when you're already on it, you might want to watch their video on the P-51 too C172 minute 6:00 P-51D minute 25:00 Edited April 2, 2022 by Frost
Fastbreak Posted April 2, 2022 Posted April 2, 2022 (edited) Hi Frost, It's not exactly what you are talking about, but maybe you want to have a look at: DSMC for Digital Combat Simulator - the scenery persistence mod for DCS world 2.7 and above by chromium https://dsmcfordcs.wordpress.com/updates/ https://drive.google.com/file/d/111G8aIuTCrM-HegNLY-t2D3k1qbU27m6/view P.S.: Edited April 2, 2022 by Fastbreak 1 System Components Power supply: be quiet! Dark Power Pro 11 650W 80Plus Platinum <> Motherboard: Asus Rog Strix X570-E Gaming <> Processor: Ryzen 5 5600x <> Cooler: DeepCool Gammaxx C40 <> RAM: 2x16GB HyperX Predator 3600Mhz <> SSD: 2x1TB Samsung 980 Pro NVMe M.2 (Raid 0) <> HD: 2TB Seagate BarraCuda <> Graphics card: Asus ROG Strix GTX 1080 Ti 11G Gaming <> Head tracking: TrackIR4 Pro <> dunTrackR <> Monitors: Philips bdm4065uc 40" 4K 3840x2160 (Camera) <> 2x IBM 15" 1024x768 (LMFCD & RMFCD) Cockpit: self-construction <> Controls: Thrustmaster Hotas Warthog (extension for cyclic & collective control) <> Thrustmaster Rudder Control System <> Sound: Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium <> Logitech Z-560 THX Sound System "...Runways are for beauty queens!"
FlankerKiller Posted April 2, 2022 Posted April 2, 2022 (edited) 21 hours ago, Tippis said: You should. That would help immensely with the eventual, inevitable recode from scratch that needs to happen if we ever want more advanced things. Old modules could go the way of FC3: become a set of legacy products that carry over as expressly simpler (relative to the new standard) models and simulations, and if any third parties wanted to maintain or update those, they'd be free to. Or they could salvage parts and build a new module for the new standard. After all, that's how we ended up with FC3 and its later additions and updates in DCS. Your right that would be the end of DCS, and Egale Dynamics, and probably home combat flight simulation in general. Have fun playing War Thunder. There isn't enough market for that. And I highly doubt that customers that spent way too much on modules already are going to be willing to do it all over again. So your wish is the end of combat flight simulation on home computers. Got it. But it would be a whole lot more constructive if you just didn't play, left the community, and let the rest of us enjoy what we do have. Edited April 2, 2022 by FlankerKiller
FlankerKiller Posted April 2, 2022 Posted April 2, 2022 7 hours ago, Frost said: Ok, I got that. I'm no mechanic, and I certainly haven't worked on fighter jets, but I thought that an aircraft won't get entirely overhauled after every single flight. I mean like every single part of it. So there would be certain stages of degradation that are "normal" between maintenance cycles, but might reduce the max stress you could put on an aircraft at its next flight. But after all it wasn't so much about the aircrafts failures themeselves for me, but for some kind of "emotional attachement" to your virtual aircraft. So you would really really want to get your aircraft back to your base. And that you wouldn't just fight to achieve your mission goals, but also to make it back to base in one piece. Imo that is a very important aspect of a sim, because it is about decission making. What's more important, to kamikaze the last tank on the battleground, or to wave off and fly back to your base for 15 minutes with just one and a half wings? That's a decission. Not completing the mission, but still having to work for another 15 minutes or more and maybe crash at the landing. And if you made it back, you could in theory fly this exact same plane the next day -after it was repaired ofc. And in its logbook you could see what has been damaged, how long the engines were operated and what should get maintained next. I'm talking about immersion. I can't entirely explain what I mean, but some people might understand what I'am talking abut. It is about feeling much more vulnerable in your aircraft, when ditching it is the absolute worst option you could tzhink of. And you really don't want to eject over enemy territory, and leave your aircraft there. Just think about the dozents or maybe hundreds of pilots that could have ejected, but fought to get their aircraft back to base, even if they were already over friendly territory. It is about talking pride to not give YOUR aircraft up. How could you get that feeling, when your aircraft always respawns without "memory" even if you repaired the old one post mission? Ok, maybe I'am too romantic. Just watch the following vid from A2A. That's basically what I was talikng about. And when you're already on it, you might want to watch their video on the P-51 too C172 minute 6:00 P-51D minute 25:00 You have to understand those pilots didn't give a damn about that individual aircraft. Ejections are hard on your body. They can and have ended flying careers. That aircraft is a valuable asset. If it's lost then it's lost and we have lost that asset. And not all of those pilots made the right decision. Any jet that badly damaged likely never flew again. And if it did it wasn't any time soon. It's just not the way it is. I personally try to bring it back if I can. But in real life it would be as if the jet respawned. In flight breakups of fighter aircraft a incredibly rare. Systems fail, sometimes criticality. Parts can become scarce. But that would likely be more due to the logistics situation. But the jets have standards that have to be met before they can be cleared to fly. 1
Tippis Posted April 2, 2022 Posted April 2, 2022 10 minutes ago, FlankerKiller said: Your right that would be the end of DCS, and Egale Dynamics, and probably home combat flight simulation in general. Have fun playing War Thunder Non sequitur. Just because DCS will eventually meet its end doesn't mean the end of Eagle Dynamics or the need to play WT. It's far more likely that we'd see the people move over to whatever ED does after that, much like how they moved over from LOMAC. Or Flanker. They've been through this before. So has every flight sim out there. The genre is still around and doing better than ever, if anything exactly because of the thing you're saying must not happen. 10 minutes ago, FlankerKiller said: There isn't enough market for that. There very clearly is, or we wouldn't be here today. And the only way for that market to keep existing is if there at some point comes something new — something to replace the antiquated and limited foundations of DCS. You can't keep a market alive by embracing obsolescence, especially when it also rely on increasingly antiquated and unavailable hardware structures. Customers who have grown accustomed to spending money on modules will not be particularly shocked by having to spend money on new modules or on transition feeds — we know this because it already happened just fine. 18 minutes ago, FlankerKiller said: So your wish is the end of combat flight simulation on home computers. So you haven't got a single shred of something that could even remotely be construed as the tiniest fragment of an actual intelligent or coherent argument against anything I'm saying and instead have to rely on this catastrophically uninformed and nonsensical strawmen and ad hominem fallacies in a desperate attempt to feign the appearance of having something relevant to say. That's fine and all, but I don't think you'll win any friends by suggesting that the community should be reduced and the market needed for keeping the game alive and in development to go away. It's sort of inconsistent with what what you're trying to say, after all… ❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧
Frost Posted April 2, 2022 Author Posted April 2, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, FlankerKiller said: You have to understand those pilots didn't give a damn about that individual aircraft. Ejections are hard on your body. They can and have ended flying careers. That aircraft is a valuable asset. If it's lost then it's lost and we have lost that asset. And not all of those pilots made the right decision. Any jet that badly damaged likely never flew again. And if it did it wasn't any time soon. It's just not the way it is. I personally try to bring it back if I can. But in real life it would be as if the jet respawned. In flight breakups of fighter aircraft a incredibly rare. Systems fail, sometimes criticality. Parts can become scarce. But that would likely be more due to the logistics situation. But the jets have standards that have to be met before they can be cleared to fly. Ok, thank you for your answer. That's something I didn't expected. I knew the thing with the ejections, but I didn't expected that pilots would care so little for their aircraft. PS: The idea of persistent aircrafts in DCS grew from the fact, that I got annoyed by having to set up weapon and HMD/HMCS profiles again and again. The same with the rest of the avionics and radios. So maybe a "simple" data-cartridge system would be enough anyways. Or -as I've already stated a couple times already- a simple save option that would enable you to fly the same aircraft as long as you want as long as you make it back to your ground crew. And you could fly missions in multiple parts and "re-play" particular sections of them. I'll look into what "FASTBREAK" posted above. Maybe that's already good enough for me. Edited April 2, 2022 by Frost
FlankerKiller Posted April 2, 2022 Posted April 2, 2022 11 minutes ago, Frost said: Ok, thank you for your answer. That's something I didn't expected. I knew the thing with the ejections, but I didn't expected that pilots would care so little for their aircraft. PS: The idea of persistent aircrafts in DCS grew from the fact, that I got annoyed by having to set up weapon and HMD/HMCS profiles again and again. The same with the rest of the avionics and radios. So maybe a "simple" data-cartridge system would be enough anyways. Or -as I've already stated a couple times already- a simple save option that would enable you to fly the same aircraft as long as you want as long as you make it back to your ground crew. And you could fly missions in multiple parts and "re-play" particular sections of them. I'll look into what "FASTBREAK" posted above. Maybe that's already good enough for me. Now having all of that per setup would be awesome. Realistic or not. Being able to lode have an individual setup for a the stuff. Along with attack points loaded for pinpoint strikes would be great.
FlankerKiller Posted April 2, 2022 Posted April 2, 2022 1 hour ago, Tippis said: Non sequitur. Just because DCS will eventually meet its end doesn't mean the end of Eagle Dynamics or the need to play WT. It's far more likely that we'd see the people move over to whatever ED does after that, much like how they moved over from LOMAC. Or Flanker. They've been through this before. So has every flight sim out there. The genre is still around and doing better than ever, if anything exactly because of the thing you're saying must not happen. There very clearly is, or we wouldn't be here today. And the only way for that market to keep existing is if there at some point comes something new — something to replace the antiquated and limited foundations of DCS. You can't keep a market alive by embracing obsolescence, especially when it also rely on increasingly antiquated and unavailable hardware structures. Customers who have grown accustomed to spending money on modules will not be particularly shocked by having to spend money on new modules or on transition feeds — we know this because it already happened just fine. So you haven't got a single shred of something that could even remotely be construed as the tiniest fragment of an actual intelligent or coherent argument against anything I'm saying and instead have to rely on this catastrophically uninformed and nonsensical strawmen and ad hominem fallacies in a desperate attempt to feign the appearance of having something relevant to say. That's fine and all, but I don't think you'll win any friends by suggesting that the community should be reduced and the market needed for keeping the game alive and in development to go away. It's sort of inconsistent with what what you're trying to say, after Your argument is that ED needs to recode and redevelopment a new simulator from scratch. Basically abandoning the product it has developed, and it's third party partners. Also requiring it's self to completely redevelop all its existing modules, it is a new code after all. And requiring the third party developers to do the same. How much do think that would cost? You say it's happend before but the vary basis of your argument is that its old code that has been around since LOMAC that itself was just an evolution of the Flanker series of games. It's all been an evolution of the program from that point to now. Egale Dynamics has never done a ground up recode. It's been an evolution of the original code. I'm saying that the market is to small to accommodate such a thing. There are alot of DCS players that would say <profanity> it I'm not paying again and find another hobby. And there current fan base and a few BMS diehards are the only customers that exist. As awesome as a fully new pice of software made right now that fully simulated relevant combat aircraft would be the cost is too high. It's a nich market. And it won't support such a product. Hell I'm likely the most diehard fan but if they say that I have to buy all the modules over again, and wait years for them to redevelop them. No man I'm out. I'll swap to BMS or just hang it up. And I'm not the only one. The Market will not support it. If it would then someone would already have done it, or would be doing it. And maybe they will. But I haven't seen it. VTOL VR is the only real challenger I've seen in years, and it doesn't really count. Then there is BMS. But well it is what it is at the moment. No there has never been a full recode of DCS, LOMAC, or even Flanker. That is reality. And there are not enough of us customers to support such a venture. It's best to let them continue to evolve the product. They definitely need to put more effort into the core game. They definitely do need to support their single player community, which they consistently say I'd there largest. But there just isn't a way to not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. And as another user stated code evolves. Complete restarts are not all that common. This is an evolving product. It always has been since the beginning, and it will be until the end.
Tippis Posted April 2, 2022 Posted April 2, 2022 5 minutes ago, FlankerKiller said: Your argument is that ED needs to recode and redevelopment a new simulator from scratch. Basically abandoning the product it has developed, and it's third party partners. No. My argument is that DCS, like all software, will at some point need to have its guts carved out and replaced with something new to better fit the hardware and software environment that has evolved around it since its introduction. This does not mean abandoning anything — it means laying the foundation for further developments that everyone (in particular third party partners) benefit from. 5 minutes ago, FlankerKiller said: How much do think that would cost? As much as it has to. It's simply the cost of doing business and staying alive. 5 minutes ago, FlankerKiller said: I'm saying that the market is to small to accommodate such a thing. There are alot of DCS players that would say <profanity> it I'm not paying again and find another hobby. …and there are a lot of potential DCS players that would replace them because they can now make use of and benefit from their modern systems; they will be able to enjoy facets that suddenly become possible that were missing from DCS and kept them away; and they will, invariably, end up dragging the old players back in since they are already invested. Can't keep an old dog down and all that. 5 minutes ago, FlankerKiller said: Hell I'm likely the most diehard fan but if they say that I have to buy all the modules over again, and wait years for them to redevelop them. That's a whole lot of assumptions you're making to justify not staying with the inevitable game update that will (and must) happen at some point in the future. Again, we already have an example of this, and it does not actually line up with what you're assuming. If you actually enjoy ED's product and the genre in general, why would you not be willing to pay a license transfer fee of some sort to keep playing the same thing (even though it will now be considered a low-fi product)? 5 minutes ago, FlankerKiller said: It's best to let them continue to evolve the product. And to do that, they must at some point rip out the guts and replace them with something that actually works in the current (to say nothing of the future) environment in which the game exists. See, there are three options at play here: They embrace obsolescence, the game ends up being unplayable and dies a painful but pretty stupid death. They are unable to evolve because your assumptions are true, and the game dies a painful but ultimately entirely sensible death. They are able to evolve because your assumptions are not true, and the game putters on and maybe even grows as it becomes more approachable and palatable to a larger audience. It's sunshine, lollipops and rainbows everywhere. The game in its current state — core limited, static-world based, single-sortie focused, small-scale and equal-priority-processed (i.e. every single thing in the world is given the same level of simulation attention, with no ability to step up and down in simulation fidelity), and with its ever-increasing patchwork of mutually incompatible bespoke solutions for things that should have centralised APIs and hooks — is an evolutionary dead end. If they don't want to change that, then so be it. The game will become increasingly niche to the point where it can no longer bear its own maintenance and development cost. This will ultimately kill off the game and the company (at best we arrive in something akin to BMS). If they can't change that, then so be it. The harsh realities of the market will kill off the game and the company. Or they bite the bullet and create a modern game to replace the current DCS. How much of the old DCS can be retained as legacy support is a matter for discussion, and much like in cfrag's analogy above, there is some value of maintaining that support. But that's not actually the core game itself. More bespoke patchwork solutions to try to fill in the ever-increasing gaps will not turn that particular ship around. Quite the opposite. To do the various things that more and more people expect of a current game, and also the thing that more and more DCS players come to expect of it, they need to go in a different direction. 1 ❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧
Svsmokey Posted April 3, 2022 Posted April 3, 2022 I rather think that ED knows their business better than we do . I also think that our blathering on about what they should or should not do with their business has absolutely no impact on their decisions . So i don't see the point of this particular debate , unless it is to provide an outlet for micro-aggression , which i find no value in reading . 2 9700k @ stock , Aorus Pro Z390 wifi , 32gb 3200 mhz CL16 , 1tb EVO 970 , MSI RX 6800XT Gaming X TRIO , Seasonic Prime 850w Gold , Coolermaster H500m , Noctua NH-D15S , CH Pro throttle and T50CM2/WarBrD base on Foxxmounts , CH pedals , Reverb G2v2
Recommended Posts