Things I think are missing

[4eyes]

Priority?   Remember that a large percentage of DCS customers have mid to lower range computers.  We need all the performance help we can get to stay in the game. I love DCS and have flown for over 6 years.  But, due to budget and performance difficulties, I am already looking at my future options.  I can buy a top-of-the-line MSFS XBox  "a lot cheaper" than investing in a new i9 pc!  Priority?  ED needs to keep us little guys in the game.  

[MadKreator]

2 minutes ago, 4eyes said:

Priority?   Remember that a large percentage of DCS customers have mid to lower range computers.  We need all the performance help we can get to stay in the game. I love DCS and have flown for over 6 years.  But, due to budget and performance difficulties, I am already looking at my future options.  I can buy a top-of-the-line MSFS XBox  "a lot cheaper" than investing in a new i9 pc!  Priority?  ED needs to keep us little guys in the game.  

Thats a great point too! ED has a fine balance to make when deciding on how or what to implement. Having the most cutting edge graphics,the most dynamic, immersive real-time battlefield ever seen would bring all but the highest end systems to a crawl, and probably some of them too. A lot of things happening in the world of dcs affect the pc’s usage more than just some graphics settings that can be turned down or off. MT is a great step in the right direction, as will be vulkan and updated game engine. Hopefully bringing better graphics (if chosen) and functionality but also streamlining things so it is still playable for everyone.

[JCTherik]

22 hours ago, NineLine said:

We need to finish Multithreading first, and in that come new anti-aliasing options and things like Vulcan. While MT will afford us more overhead to add more things to DCS, it all takes time and we need to finish up one thing before throwing another thing into the mix. 

Yayy, more performance!

 

[NineLine]

On 6/1/2023 at 9:37 AM, Demiurgo said:

I know moderators are not going to like this but:

1) Lately it seems the "GO TO" blanket answer is: we are slow because all that we do is hard.

2) There are continuous APPARENT and REAL priority shifts which put into question how they plan and allocate resources. Community questions them but since they don´t inform the people the motivation behind those changes,  bad mood and pessimism gets into the people

3) Even if the policy seems to be "we will communicate when we are ready" there were several bad miscommunications and many people when crazy. If ED is ok with that then why not communicate MUCH MUCH  MORE? They always say people gets mad anyway..... The fact they are not doing it makes many people think they are allocating resources to some other not gaming projects maybe?

4) The track record of the last 3 years shows that situation is CLEARLY worsening on delivery times and communication. So bad that many CC complained and some others left entirely.

So bottom line: communicate what are you doing or communicate why you aren´t delivering. You simply can't continue delivering only "good news" that end in nothing.

 

 

1) Not true, I have lots of answers I give but sometimes that is the best one because what we do is very complex. We are not just trying to give you a crap answer, it's a real thing, creating this complex of a simulation and all the items that go with is... well... hard.

2) I don't understand your point here, when we have priority shifts we try to communicate those, which priority shifts were not communicated to you?

3) I don't understand this either. We communicate as much as we can when we can. What bad communications are you mentioning? What communication are you not getting?

4) Some examples? Yes, we did slow down patching as we increased testing, this was a positive as it improved the quality of our patches, but it does slow other things down like feature releases etc. I am not sure what bad news you want to hear or what it would help if we find a crash and have to delay a patch, which I think we pretty much share anyways.

[Demiurgo]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

1) Not true, I have lots of answers I give but sometimes that is the best one because what we do is very complex. We are not just trying to give you a crap answer, it's a real thing, creating this complex of a simulation and all the items that go with is... well... hard.

2) I don't understand your point here, when we have priority shifts we try to communicate those, which priority shifts were not communicated to you?

3) I don't understand this either. We communicate as much as we can when we can. What bad communications are you mentioning? What communication are you not getting?

4) Some examples? Yes, we did slow down patching as we increased testing, this was a positive as it improved the quality of our patches, but it does slow other things down like feature releases etc. I am not sure what bad news you want to hear or what it would help if we find a crash and have to delay a patch, which I think we pretty much share anyways.

1) You say is not true but again you say it´s all hard at the end of the sentence. I think that's settled there so I won´t talk any further on this point.

2) Priority Shifting examples: a) You launch VOIP in an unusable form then left it there for a year, you then go to do something else. Later you add some small functionality but still unusable and don´t know when you will continue or finish it. Before you come back with empty excuses on this let me tell you that is in fact unusable and you can check that by seeing which famous servers have that ON. Also I'd question the need for this while all the people have SRS and stuff and there are clearer priorities. b) You launched the "new weather" 2 years ago and we don´t have 20% of what should be. From outside it seems that you launched "moving clouds" in a whole year and then shift to something else. I have many other examples and can send it to you in private.... 

3) Bad comms examples: a) F-18 ACLS only for SC thingy then recanted a week later, b)  Module launches dates changes galore, c) Product maps changing constantly, etc....

4) I think you are avoiding the issue, as always. You seem to think that, for example, when lots of people question you about radar and missiles you just say: "guys we will do a white paper" and then move about other things...... that´s the good news and think you can buy time. The bad news is that you are talking a lot of time to do a paper and you are not saying even why is taking so much time nor you have a plan to share. probably you are going to say: "it is complex", right?

Just to clarify: BAD NEWS means that you continue pushing the message of ALL THE GOOD THINGS TO COME and when those things are delayed all the time or simply vanish in the air for years you MUST EXPLAIN what's going on because LOTS OF PEOPLE buy your stuff predicated on those messages. Understand you can´t continue buying time with "it is all complex" and "sorry and thank you for your passion and support"

I know this message sounds harsh but you can't possible overlook that many people is saying things like this. I want DCS to succeed but I don't see how you can pull it out in the long run like this, specially if at a certain point a strong competitor shows up. Don't tell me you are in this for years while other failed because that's debatable....

 

Edited June 2, 2023 by Demiurgo

[Gary]

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

2) I don't understand your point here, when we have priority shifts we try to communicate those, which priority shifts were not communicated to you?

I'm sorry but this is absoltuely not true. ED have openly and deomstratably been talking about an update to the ATC functions for over 8.... yes 8 years!!

Im in my late 50's and seriously wonder if I'll ever see it to be honest!! (but i desperately do because I do belive you will do it properly and well)

Every mention of ATC since has been met with either a push to the "wish list" section, silence or "yeap, in train but hard to do"....and of course I understand that... but please.........just be honest and realistic with us "customers"

I got a year long ban from this very forum for repeatedly asking about ATC when the Nevada map was launched...please do go back and check your promotional material if necessary...yet here we are many years later with very scant detail...or any programme of progression.....and very, very rarely any mention at all. (and again, I do understand every single user has their own wish list and priorities - this just happens to be mine!)

 

To be clear.... this is not a swipe or whinge at ED..........but please do not tell me that you keep us all updated as to progress.....the fact is you tell us what YOU want to tell us WHEN you want to tell us!!......and that's your choice obviously...but please don't preach about transparency and openness.

[draconus]

6 hours ago, Demiurgo said:

Also I'd question the need for this while all the people have SRS and stuff and there are clearer priorities.

I don't use or want any mods - it has to work in game so they develop it.

Do you guys even play or just look for the future plans and features all days?

[NineLine]

7 hours ago, Gary said:

To be clear.... this is not a swipe or whinge at ED..........but please do not tell me that you keep us all updated as to progress.....the fact is you tell us what YOU want to tell us WHEN you want to tell us!!......and that's your choice obviously...but please don't preach about transparency and openness.

You are confusing two things. We tell you when there is something to tell. If there is nothing to tell, then we don't say anything. Transparency isn't telling you things you want to hear it's telling you what is going on when it's in work 

Multithreading is a perfect example, we were very quiet on it until we had something to share, then we made a lot of noise. 

[NineLine]

9 hours ago, Demiurgo said:

) Bad comms examples: a) F-18 ACLS only for SC thingy then recanted a week later, b)  Module launches dates changes galore, c) Product maps changing constantly, etc...

ACLS you say was bad comms, I say we brought it to our customers, listen to your concerns and adjusted accordingly.

We do not set firm dates, you might feel they are firm, but they are not. Anything can happen in testing, the other choice is to rush it out and it be a poor release, you can't have it both ways 

What product maps? In Early Access modules? This is what happens in EA, this won't change. It's the nature of what we do 

9 hours ago, Demiurgo said:

) You say is not true but again you say it´s all hard at the end of the sentence. I think that's settled there so I won´t talk any further on this point.

So you didn't read what I wrote, you just see the words you want to. I am sorry, we di our very best to make the best simulation possible you have to at least acknowledge this isn't a simple process or everyone would be doing it 

For the rest, I really don't know what else to say, these thing take time and nobody wants to wait. 

[Demiurgo]

12 hours ago, draconus said:

I don't use or want any mods - it has to work in game so they develop it.

Do you guys even play or just look for the future plans and features all days?

I don´t like mods either but VOIP is not functional right now to the level that SRS gives you. Thank you anyways for worrying about how I enjoy the game.

[Demiurgo]

10 hours ago, NineLine said:

ACLS you say was bad comms, I say we brought it to our customers, listen to your concerns and adjusted accordingly.

We do not set firm dates, you might feel they are firm, but they are not. Anything can happen in testing, the other choice is to rush it out and it be a poor release, you can't have it both ways 

What product maps? In Early Access modules? This is what happens in EA, this won't change. It's the nature of what we do 

So you didn't read what I wrote, you just see the words you want to. I am sorry, we di our very best to make the best simulation possible you have to at least acknowledge this isn't a simple process or everyone would be doing it 

For the rest, I really don't know what else to say, these thing take time and nobody wants to wait. 

Not so fast.... I am not talking about the fact that after complains (which were 100% correct) you added ACLS to legacy Carrier. I am talking that ED is on record saying that you COULDN´T EASILY migrate that functionality to legacy because the technology was ad-hoc for SC and it was hard. When people complained (and some even threaten legal action for false advertising) you changed in LESS THAN 15 days. That's the bad comms I am talking about. It's hard for me to believe now that all is complex now.......

Finally I read what you wrote about complexity; try not to dismiss other opinions witch such infantile rhetoric arguments please. By saying that your product is ALL complex you put updating B1, S3 models in the same place as redoing a radar. You see that's not the same, don´t you? Or VOIP which is something that existed for 2 decades now in the same place as researching a complex plane....So no.... I don´t buy this as an excuse for the way you communicate and change priorities.

Don´t know why you resort to the "nobody wants to wait". That´s a fact of life my friend.......you simple handle that smartly or not. You choose as other user put it, not to be transparent so here we are.

Since I feel a ban incoming I will shut up now.

Thank you for your time.

 

 

Edited June 3, 2023 by Demiurgo
TYPOS and one added text line.

[NineLine]

On 6/3/2023 at 11:39 AM, Demiurgo said:

Since I feel a ban incoming I will shut up now

Please don't resort to this silliness, nothing here is even at a warning level let alone ban level. I will leave this here, nobody is being threatened I am only giving my view as you have. 

[Dangerzone]

To those upset about not having a solid release date - while I understand your frustration - here's a perspective to keep in mind. There's really only a short number of ways of giving a dedicated official release date:

 

1) Say nothing until the module is ready for release - then give it a release date "in the future". (Who heard Andre C's voice when they read that?".  )

This is the only way 'to be sure' that a company can commit to that release date. The pro - everyone get's a release date for a module that's ready. The con - everyone has to wait longer for the release than they would need to - all so a solid release date can be set.

While this might work for some customer bases - the fact that the majority of players appear to be playing "Open Beta" - not for beta testing, but for "gimme as quick as I can - worts and all" is probably a pretty reliable indicator that this approach would not be wanted by the majority of the community - even if they say otherwise. 

 

2) Have a 'best guess' at the release date. Then if hiccups are encountered (which - as a dev I can guarantee is almost a definite likelihood) - delay past the release date until they're sorted. The release date then isn't really something you can trust and leaves uncertainty. This leads to more frustration and the "you told us". Not good for the community,, and not good for ED.  

 

3) Have a 'best guess' at the release date and then stick to it - regardless of where the module is at. Again - while some community members may want this - the fact is there would probably be more noise about things not working as expected, crashes to desktop, etc. First impressions count, and I think ED realise this.

 

As such - there is no win answer for ED. It's a 'pick the best of the bad options that will do the least damage'. As such I think what they're doing (Option #1) really is the only option available for them.

 

I'm sure we'll get access when it's deemed "good enough" for Open Beta release. The sad part is - I suspect we probably could have had have access to it already in Open Beta - if OB was being used for what it's designed to be used for.... "beta testing". But since the majority of the community run OB as their main platform because they want everything ASAP - the responsible decision for ED is to make sure that the release is one that is as close as possibly suitable for 'production gaming' as they can get - as again "First impressions" are going to count. When the majority of servers are running OB... that really rules this out of being option #4 (which is the one I would have opted for otherwise).