DCS lost another faithfull simulation enthusiast

[Cmptohocah]

After more than 10 years flying this amazing simulator I have decided to make one final post as a sign of fare well.

I hope this post won't get deleted as the contents might not be in line with the company policy.

I've seen this sim bring me much joy over the years, but as the platform gained popularity I've witnessed many dark moments about it also, which ultimately led me to a decision to drop it.

For who ever has time or cares to read this post, I would like to briefly state the reasons why:

1. Eventually the sim moved from a "let's have as close as possible to real life" to "we need to sell as much as we can" and "we need to keep paying customers happy".

2. My impression is that every time core issues are addressed on the support forums, there is an "army" of users that try to discredit such claims by spamming the threads with nonsense and "watering out" the original issue.

3. Every post that is in line with the company's "let's sell more products" get swiftly replied to and marked as "investigating" (yes I mean you "holy" AIM-120 posts ), but anything critical gets neglected, buried under a bunch of useless information (please see point above) and ultimately conditioned by the famous "provide valid track" clause - not every nonsense that happens in DCS MP can replicated easily on a private track

4. Simulator clearly moved from Soviet - US era, to "hey we have all the documents we need to produce high-fidelity NATO aircraft/weapons which are not classified" to "sorry we can't use any Soviet hardware 'cause information on these needs to be provided to use by unclassified public sources" - double standards if you ask me, but this is just my impression.

5. Neglecting one thing that keept this thing (DCS) alive since its inception: "Flaming Cliffs" or as it was called in the good ol' days (personal opinion) "Lock On"  \m/

6. Last, and the most important thing for me personally, caving in to market pressure instead of pursuing realism in one way or the other.

I know my post might seem opinionated and I am ready to accept that.

If I am being truly honest to my self, DCS died for me the moment it became "pay to win platform", but I have ignored this fact for some years in hope that I was wrong.

Since my adventure with the sim started in the days of "Lock On 1.2" I felt the need to post this in the "Flaming Cliffs" part of the forum.

I would also like to thank @dundun92@GGTharos@Falcon_S @mousepilot@okopanja@Ironhand and many, many others that were there over the years trying to make this "sim" better.

P.S. If any of the admins has time, please check my "stale" post about the 120's contrails issue, I've provided real live proof.

"So long and thanks for all the fish!"

All the best,

Nix

Edited August 19, 2022 by Cmptohocah
Had to fix grammar erros

[Ironhand]

Sorry to see you go…go in peace.

[MAXsenna]

@Cmptohocah

Sad to see you go. I've been enjoying reading your posts which have a lot of knowledge.

No burning of bridges I hope. Please return one day!

[Rudel_chw]

18 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

For who ever has time or cares to read this post, I would like to briefly state the reasons why:

1. ... the sim moved from a "let's have as close as possible to real life" to "we need to sell as much as we can"  ...

2.  ...  every time core issues are addressed on the support forums, there is an "army" of users that try to discredit such claims ...

3. ... Every post that is in line with the company's "let's sell more products" get swiftly replied to  ... but anything critical gets neglected ...

4. Simulator clearly moved from Soviet - US era, to "hey we have all the documents we need to produce high-fidelity NATO aircraft/weapons which are not classified" to "sorry we can't use any Soviet hardware 'cause information on these needs to be provided to use by unclassified public sources" 

5. Neglecting ... "Flaming Cliffs" ...

6. Last, and the most important thing for me personally, caving in to market pressure instead of pursuing realism in one way or the other.

I know my post might seem opinionated and I am ready to accept that.

 

Yes, it actually is opinionated .. I found it very hard to agree with your points above, even trying to keep an open mind.

 

18 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

If I am being truly honest to my self, DCS died for me the moment it became "pay to win platform" ...

 

Don't really know what is your point here ... is it because the F-16 (an 80 dollar aircraft) can beat the FC3 red fighters easily?   We obviously play DCS for very different reasons ... I couldn't care less if I don't win a dogfight, I fly DCS because I want to experience piloting military aircrafts, be it a WW2 plane, or an unarmed helicopter, or a jet latest gen fighter .. I'm not flying DCS to "win", for me DCS is more a simulator than a deathmatch game.

Sad to see you go, DCS has a lot of defects, but I can't imagine ever turning my back on it, I enjoy its modules far too much for that.

[Exorcet]

I will miss seeing your posts on the forums as yours were some of the more interesting to read. However I can't say I agree with the bulk of your message. DCS is more about realism now than it ever has been. I'd much much rather play on the current version than past iterations for exactly that reason.

If DCS was about keeping the player base happy above all else, I doubt ED would have put up any resistance to AIM-120, F-16, F-18 look down modeling.

DCS also hasn't moved era. It always has been eraless. This means you should only expect very modern western aircraft since they are more easily simulated than eastern ones. It's just an unfortunate truth. However, since DCS is not focused on any era, it can simulate multiple eras. The Cold War period is being filled out and already has many rival aircraft, with more to come. F-100, MiG-19, F-4, F-5, MiG-21, MiG-23, F-14, Mirage 2000, MiG-29, etc.

[Steel Jaw]

Sure okay, whatever, still enjoying the Hornet very much.  No other product like it.  This from a long time BMS flier.

[YSIAD_RIP]

I recently came across my Original Lock On Gold Box and the Flaming Cliffs 2 DVD.  I was probably running AMD Athlon and a very underpowered ATI Graphics card.     

Today a copy of Legacy DCS 1.5 is still installed on my  dedicated 2 TB Flight Sim SSD. I launch DCS v1.5 a couple of times a year just so I can appreciate how far the platform has evolved over the last 12 years and how much some has stayed the same. 

• One complaint I have is that I don't have more time to put into DCS.   
• Another complaint is that there are too many excellent mods, tweaks and DCS Add-ons being created by a talented community that trying to appreciate the great ones takes time away from learning or re-learning new modules. 

- It comes down to FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS for me-  

Cheers and all the best @Cmptohocah. I hope you can find what you are looking for.

[Cab]

To each his own. In the end it’s just a simulation game. 

[Mr_sukebe]

I’m always a little sad when someone walks away.

Have to say that I’m really confused about suggesting a move away from realism.  I appreciate that ED don’t always get things right, but some on the time that’s because of incorrect information.  At heart, ED appear to be far more focused on realism than any other Sim that I’m aware of.

[Falcon_S]

@Cmptohocah

I understand you and can agree with some of your thoughts. Yes, it can be frustrating to have the Su-27's radar shut down in the middle of guidance (just one example) and when a ton of other problems are added to that, that's when we get tired. Tired in the sense of hopelessness that things will ever change. But they are changing, slowly, one way or another. I think the producers are just following the interest of the community and that's how we came to this concept / sim platform. A few of us from the red coalition can point out the problems and that the developers might react and fix it. But we hardly have any influence on the sim platform concept in general.

Take a break. I have been on break since January, which is due to saturation and loss of will, but also due to hardware limits. The desire to fly is back again, but I'm stuck because of my computer's performance. Last year's new PC seems no longer strong enough for full DCS visual. (another problem that keeps us away from the simulator). I'm actually trying with VR and there are problems in relation >> performance vs. visual. ...

Anyway, back on the topic...

Just take a break. Sooner or later you will know are you ready to come back. 

There's still fun here even though we're getting older.

Edited August 20, 2022 by Falcon_S

[Zeagle]

Flight simulation is a niche. It would pretty much be dead already if not for the likes of ED. Anyone Remember the old Janes titles? Where are they now? So, ED has to sell stuff to stay in business. NATO stuff probably makes them more money. That's unfortunate because I love the old REDFOR aircraft. But that is the way it is.

That being said, have you (the OP) not seen the updates they are doing to the old B-52, S-3, and B-1? I am sure they have more updates coming. Plus, we have a ton of new maps and new content on the way. I think the future is bright for DCS. Yes I want my beloved Grach and the Su-33 to be full modules. I am not giving up on DCS yet.

As for me, I also got a little burned-out on DCS. So, I started spending my time programming and working on a new server. You don't have to quit DCS.  It seriously is the best simulator out there for aviation. 

 

[Rudel_chw]

41 minutes ago, Falcon_S said:

Last year's new PC seems no longer strong enough for full DCS visual

but, why it has to be FULL visuals? I run with an old gtx 1070ti bought second hand, and I never fly with full detail and that’s OK, I turn the detail up only to a point where I can still have a smooth experience

 

[Falcon_S]

17 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

but, why it has to be FULL visuals? I run with an old gtx 1070ti bought second hand, and I never fly with full detail and that’s OK, I turn the detail up only to a point where I can still have a smooth experience

 

Just pointed one of problems plus that kicked me out. 
Agree... No need to be full details. 
"Full visual" - just saying. I mean, at least to have nice screen and performance. Now in VR i'm far away from that. Yeah, will go back to 2D again. 

I also want to say that it is very difficult to leave this sim despite the flaws it has. Occasional breaks, but people still come back.
So do I... suddenly, the desire to cause trouble for the NATO guys with my Flanker (rusty ED version) came back again. 

[Baltic Dude]

I agree. There are many Soviet planes they could do in the meantime but refuse to do. Only NATO stuff is favored anymore.

[BIGNEWY]

12 hours ago, Cmptohocah said:

 

For who ever has time or cares to read this post, I would like to briefly state the reasons why:

1. Eventually the sim moved from a "let's have as close as possible to real life" to "we need to sell as much as we can" and "we need to keep paying customers happy".

2. My impression is that every time core issues are addressed on the support forums, there is an "army" of users that try to discredit such claims by spamming the threads with nonsense and "watering out" the original issue.

3. Every post that is in line with the company's "let's sell more products" get swiftly replied to and marked as "investigating" (yes I mean you "holy" AIM-120 posts ), but anything critical gets neglected, buried under a bunch of useless information (please see point above) and ultimately conditioned by the famous "provide valid track" clause - not every nonsense that happens in DCS MP can replicated easily on a private track

4. Simulator clearly moved from Soviet - US era, to "hey we have all the documents we need to produce high-fidelity NATO aircraft/weapons which are not classified" to "sorry we can't use any Soviet hardware 'cause information on these needs to be provided to use by unclassified public sources" - double standards if you ask me, but this is just my impression.

5. Neglecting one thing that keept this thing (DCS) alive since its inception: "Flaming Cliffs" or as it was called in the good ol' days (personal opinion) "Lock On"  \m/

6. Last, and the most important thing for me personally, caving in to market pressure instead of pursuing realism in one way or the other.

 

Hi just to reply here to your points.

1. I dont agree with you, our focus is realism however we do require public evidence. To say we have moved from it to sell more products seems strange. We have to sell products, we are a buisness, making money keeps us and our teams going, and keeps DCS alive for you all.

2. More than 50% of our team work on the core of DCS, reality is projects and improvements take time, always have and always will. We also spend a lot of time investigating peoples claims. 

3. Again we are a buisness, we have to sell products to keep going. The forum is a beast and we have many areas of the bug report threads to check and investigating, some are easier to resolve than others, patience is required.

4. We would like to do many aircraft, but we are subject to international and local laws regarding data on aircraft, we are currently looking into doing the Mig-29 and when we have more news we will share it.

5. We are not neglecting Flaming cliffs, but we have no plans to add to it or create more, our focus is now on higher fedelity aircraft. Modern air combat is in progress for lower fedelity jets, but that is not DCS. 

6. Again we have not caved into market pressure, we are doing what we can with the data and permissions we have to bring modules that are high quality to you all. 

We all get burnt out now and again, I hope you will take some time to reflect and rest up, It would be good to see you return when you are ready.

Feel free to PM me or Nineline at any time to answer your question if you have any.

Thanks

Bignewy
Associate producer
Eagle Dynamics